Jump to content

User talk:Bishonen/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26

Happy St. Lucy's Day!

Doug Weller talk 16:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

And from me! Bishzilla is a sensational Lucia. I hope the evening brings glögg and saffron buns. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! I'm sending Bishzilla with some saffron buns etc to your pages. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC).

Iufragknr

With due apologies for disrupting your festive season with this crap; a speedy indef is probably called for here. Ignoring policy, ignoring warnings, the works. They've edited articles I'm heavily involved with, so I can't. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Np. Oh, look, the capybaras roaring! They're so great. Bishonen | talk 13:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC).
Much appreciated. I'm getting...a stream roaring? Pretty picture though. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

186.221.217.92

Hi - On 8 December you blocked this IP and asked that I let you know if they resumed ([2]). Unfortunately they've just made the exact same edit again ([3]). Sorry to trouble you; could you deal with it again? Many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, thank you, Dorsetonian. It's a language issue, I presume, which is a pity, but since they're impervious to warnings and advice, there's nothing much we can do other than block. We can't "fix" bad English if we can't understand it. :-( Bishonen | talk 17:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC).
Many thanks - and yes, I also think it's a combination of poor language skills and refusal to engage (the latter possibly another symptom of the former). Dorsetonian (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well B. MarnetteD|Talk 17:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

I believe this user is a sock of a user[4] you recently banned.

Fraud-Fenn (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

ApLundell (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree Fraud-Fenn is most likely the same person as Republicans-Liars, but they're actually not a sock for all that. I had softblocked Republicans-Liars, meaning I blocked them only because of the username, not the editing. As normal with a softblock, I disabled the autoblock, and also, in my block notice, invited the person behind Republicans-Liars to freely create a new account with an acceptable username. But thanks for your vigilance, ApLundell, and merry Christmas to you! Bishonen | talk 21:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC).
Oh. I hadn't noticed that.
... of course, his new user name is worse. Instead of calling a political party liars, his new name is an attack on a specific living person. (His first edit is to an article about a man named "Forrest Fenn".)
(And Merry Christmas to you too!) ApLundell (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh, right. Their only edit with the new account, yes. What a guy.. sigh. Could you please alert another admin? I'm really tired of this character, and I'm just going to bed. Where have all my little admin stalkers got to? Bishonen | talk 22:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC).
Sure. No problem. ApLundell (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)  Done --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both. I guess we'd better all keep a lookout for when their third account pops up. If that's yet another inappropriate name, I reckon they will have outlived their right to softblocks. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC).
Ha, they're already there. Oh well. I've given them an edit warring warning. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC).

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for protecting the article on Chandala

Hi Bishonen,

The article on Chandala seems to be a subject of persistent removal of sourced content for a week or so, mostly as some IP user, and at times as Aman Kumar Goel, the objective being the same. Sourced content is removed from the consensus version, and the user Aman Kumar Goel is probably editing again as an IP editor in order to avoid the three-revert rule. Would request you to please check the Revision history, and take necessary action. Best Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I am not the IP. Those edits are not about "removal of sourced content" but "removal of irrelevant content not supported by sources". You have been already told about your unsupported WP:OR on your talk page,[5] but you are completely ignoring it. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 13:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Chandala has been semiprotected by another admin. Aman Kumar Goel, since you say the IPs aren't you, of course you won't mind if I block them for a while. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC).

Merry Christmas from London


Merry Christmas from London, Bish ...

and may the New Year be filled with peace and plenty.


Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, figs and grapes, lovely! Bishonen | talk 15:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC).

Seasons Greetings

Hello Bishonen: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}
Merry Quviahugvik to you too, old friend, and clement weather! Bishonen | talk 15:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC).

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Bishonen, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
★Trekker (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you, Treker, you too! Bishonen | talk 15:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC).

Happy Day!

The Day before the Day before the Day before the Dipping Day! Wishing you a very merry yule and thanks for all you do. My best and most respectful regards to 'Zilla. --bonadea contributions talk 15:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

[Bishzilla thoughtfully stirs her famous dip, preparatory to soaking giant loaves of bread in it.] Mmmmm, soggy carbs! Thank you, young Bonadea! Have some red cabbage stew! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 20:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC).

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas Bishonen

Hi Bishonen, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year,
   –Davey2010talk 00:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!


Faithful friends who are dear to us
... gather near to us once more.

May your heart be light

and your troubles out of sight,

now and in the New Year.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Scope of a topic ban being debated

No festive season is complete without some turmoil on Wikipedia, so please see WP:AE#Jweiss11 where it is being disputed whether your 11 September topic ban of Jweiss11 from 'all pages connected with Andy Ngo' restricts Jweiss11 from editing the Quillette article. It's a little-known fact that any admin who imposes a ban is usually free to modify it if it seems not to be achieving its intended purpose, so that's an option you may consider. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I've commented, and recommended a warning. Hmm. Do you think it's not achieving its intended purpose? It's keeping the editor from direct editing of Ngo pages, and bludgeoning their talkpages, after all. That's got to be a good thing. But I'll sleep on it. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC).

Seasonal Felicitations

We wish you a most joyous Christmas and healthy New year. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Bishonen: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.



Thank you for Christmas greetings little users!
Thank you very much and welcome in pocket, little Davey2010,
SandyGeorgia, Buster7, DBigXray, and Shearonink! [Hesitantly, a little scared:]
And, uh, also the much-respected The Lady Catherine de Burgh, I suppose!
bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 18:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC).

Many sockses

Hi Bish, at User talk:Fact-Checker3234 you made the observation that they were obviously the same user as a couple of earlier accounts that had been blocked on username grounds; Fact-Checker3234 has made no further edits, but a bunch of other accounts have popped up to make the same edits to the same article (Fenn treasure). To me it looks like somebody is creating throwaway accounts and abandoning them once they have restored the unsourced, mildly BLP violating text to the article. The accounts involved are I-Found-Gold-In-Santa-Fe, CherryTees, SmokinMirrows, Rectal, and almost certainly Wiksnsainlay. Could you send a dinosaur over, and perhaps also protect the article for a little bit? (I could start a SPI, but it feels like unnecessary buraeucracy when it's this obvious.) Best, --bonadea contributions talk 21:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

My, what a fine sock drawer, almost as good as my own.[6] Blocked and semi'd. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC).
Pish tush, it doesn't even get close to yours. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 22:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to fix my edits

I have not used wikipedia in a while, and am sorry that I am so messy in my edits. 2601:1C0:6600:9630:2826:4B17:E9E3:4E4D (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I could tell you didn't mean any harm. Thanks for coming to my page. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC).

Any suggestions ...

... on how best to deal with this: User talk:Paul August#Warning. Paul August ☎ 18:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I dealt. Happy new year, Paul. Bishonen | talk 18:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC).
Quick Draw McGraw. Paul August ☎ 18:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the edit on Driving Licence (film) page

Sir, the character Harindran portrayed by actor Prithviraj in the concerned film is a superstar. The villain of the film Bhadran (played by actor Suresh Krishna) is his rival. In Kerala, legendary actor Mohanlal is used to be called by the tag name COMPLETE ACTOR, and his film rival Mammootty sir as MEGASTAR. After the release of the film, fans of both started campaigning accusing the character Bhadran to be Megastar/Complete Actor. So I request you to remove the unnecessary tags Megastar, and Complete Actor (which were never even mentioned in the film) from the page. Thank You. Akshay P V Kanhangad (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Akshay P V Kanhangad. (I'm no Sir — you may call me Ma'am.) I see what you mean — especially the "complete actor" thing certainly looked pretty silly without any explanation, in my opinion. But I won't edit the article; it's not a subject I know anything about, and also, I can't act as admin and as editor on the same article. Please make your arguments on the talkpage — start a new section with a new header at the bottom of the page for the discussion, and try to get consensus for your version. If people can agree on talk — not necessarily everybody, but most people — I'll happily unprotect the page. Bishonen | talk 10:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC).

Happy New Year, Bishonen!

Happy New Year!

Bishonen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 21:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy old year as it is still Dec 31 for me (PST)… I’ll see you in 2020 in a few hours… PS thanks Bishonen for the break. My New Year’s resolution is to maybe spend time fixing templated issues with articles.:) Aw man, it’s January 1 UTC, how did that happen? Awesome Aasim 03:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Glad you had a good break, Aasim! Bishonen | talk 10:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC).

Sanction

Bishonen, happy new year! I'm planning to appeal the sanction you imposed on me this past September. Per your comments here, you noted that you were "thinking of lifting the topic ban". Are you still feeling that way? Are you open to simply lifting the sanction as this point, or should I go ahead with the appeal? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jweiss11. Just noting that I've seen this request, and I need to think about it. I won't be that long, so I suggest you don't post your (AE?) appeal just yet. I'll get back to you. Bishonen | talk 12:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC).
I've replied on your page. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC).

Need your attention here pls

Hi Bishonen! Wishing you a happy new year! I think I need your attention and guidance on how to deal with a subject I haven't met before in en.WP. It is a case of probable WP:COI.

I noticed on my watchlist that a sourced piece of info has been removed from Cyprus Mail- a newspaper in Cyprus.[7] I reverted and asked the user to use the Talk Page.[8]. I checked the contributions of the user Ghadjic10 and noticed that he is been around since 2017, as a Single Purpose Account. All his edits are linked to Neocleous family business: Andreas Neocleous, Elias Neocleous & Co LLC, Andreas Neocleous & Co and lately, Neocleous owned newspaper Cyprus Mail. I added a {{Advertisment}} banner on the companies name and a {{merge}} template since they are the same company(which was renamed). I have asked this user if he has any conflict of interest, [9] but he did not reply yet. What he did, was to re-delete the info at Cyprus Mail. revert my last edit from the article of Cyprus Mail which was a minor edit (internal linking).

How to deal with such a situation? I do not want to escalate to an edit war and even though Ghadjic10 has been editing since 2017, he is still a new user, judging from the number of his edits. Your guidance pls! Cinadon36 14:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Cinadon36. Ghadjic10 has simplified the situation by removing your post here.[10] (Bbb23 kindly restored it.) I've blocked them indefinitely as a likely undisclosed paid editor, because that's what their actions look like. I've invited them to explain themselves; if they can, I would be willing to unblock. Bishonen | talk 15:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC).
Yeap, it escalated quickly. Cinadon36 10:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Update

Hi Bishonen. Seems to me they are back, removing the same content they apparently don't like. Have a look [11] @Co209120d:. Cinadon36 13:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, Cinadon. It doesn't really matter if that's a sock of Ghadjic10 (the most likely scenario) or an independent disruption only/undisclosed paid editor account. Needs blocking in any case. Bishonen | talk 13:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC).
My thoughts also. Thanks Bishonen for your prompt reply. Cinadon36 13:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Why cooperate with political hit bans?

Why cooperate with what's essentially a Discord server of politically alike editors all working together to get users who disagree with them, like me, topic banned? Shouldn't Wikipedia be better than this? This was obviously a coordinated effort by those reporting me to further entrench this website's political echo-chamber. Edit5001 (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Why write to me both on your own page and here, and persistently edit conflict me by taking five edits to post two lines? I'll answer on your page. Bishonen | talk 23:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC).
Just a note to anyone watching to say that Edit5001 has now retracted these claims. GirthSummit (blether) 11:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey.

You probably don't remember me, but around four years ago you (rightfully) permanently banned an account of mine from Wikipedia (specifically this one). I'd simply like to make a kind request regarding the account if you would hear me out: would you mind terribly blanking the user page? It's an embarrassment to me, and keeping it around is a total pain, especially now that I'm not a literal child with no comprehension of etiquette or what constitutes a constructive edit.

My best to you,

24.98.52.54 (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There's a problem with responding to requests from an IP claiming to be a particular user, and I guess you can see what that is (apart from you technically being in breach of your block by posting here). Do you still have the login for the User:OmegaBuddy13 account? If so, you can still use its talk page to show that it's you making this request. Of course, it's almost four years since your block, and you have clearly matured since those days. So I would have thought that a straightforward unblock request, simply acknowledging that you understand your block and stating that you will not to repeat the behaviour that lead to it, would almost certainly lead Bishonen to agree to an unblock. Then you can do whatever tidying you want on your pages. --RexxS (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've courtesy blanked the pages for you, assuming it's you, because if it isn't, well, no harm is done either way.
As a courtesy to us, please don't edit in any way that makes it look like you have returned. If you want to quietly create a new account and edit according to this site's rules and social norms, you can do so and nobody will know that you were previously blocked. If however you make it clear that you are a blocked user returning, either by admission or by behavior, you will get blocked again. Thank you, and good wishes. Jehochman Talk 02:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, OmegaBuddy. Yes, I'd be willing to unblock the account if you log into it and request unblock on the talkpage. But if you've lost the password, or if you're now embarrassed about OmegaBuddy's editing altogether, just discreetly create a new account, as Jehochman says. Perhaps you already have. That would be OK. Bishonen | talk 11:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC).
Discreet. That was the word I was looking for. Just so. Jehochman Talk 20:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
As in, discretely make discreet accounts?  :) ——SN54129 20:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I have studied a lot of discrete math. It overwhelms me at times. Jehochman Talk 20:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
[Bishonen breaks out her favorite smiley to roll its eyes at the silly boys.] Bishonen | talk 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC).
Thank you all very much. I don't really want to edit on the account again, and blanking the pages was really all I needed here. I was unable to blank the page myself because the block applied to my own user page following the denial of my unblock requests. I've been meaning to do something about it for a while, and the help means a lot. 22:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Questions about Special Diff Pages and Edit Conflicts

Hi Bishonen,

I'm moving this to your talkpage following my edit at ANI being reverted...hoping you can provide some information...

Observation Useful link. I have been wondering how to make shortened special diff page URLs as have just been using the second option listed. Thank you.

Question How come most editors transclude an edit conflict template when one occurs? Is there a script one is using? I have just been copying and pasting from the bottom text box back into the top text box. If there's an easier way that involves using a script or something, I'm open to that.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 19:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Dmehus Re your observation: I'm very proud of creating that help page. First and last time I've done anything like that. But as for the edit conflict... uh... what? Is that what "transclude" means..? I thought it was something else. Well, I'm no good around the technical stuff: that's exactly why I thought myself the right person to write a guide about diffs and links that newbies could understand. I mean, compare Help:Diff — can anybody understand that? Anyway. I copy and paste and so on also. In case I want to emphasize that I got an edit conflict, just to make it clear that I'm not responding to the previous post, I write this: {{ec}}. But you're right, a script that helps with edit conflicts would be a fine thing. I've never heard of one. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC).
Bishonen, Wow, you wrote that help page? Very cool. Sorry about the confusion in my question. What I meant is I've seen editors/admins transcluding the {{edit conflict}} template at the start of their comment and was wondering what its purpose was other than to identify that the editor had an editor conflict. I see from your help page that there are multiple ways to fix an edit conflict, but if we're just copying and pasting our post from the bottom text box, we've not changed anything in an earlier version, no? So, should I be transcluding that template? Or is there a script, gadget, or some other tool editors use to more efficiently post their contribution in an edit conflict siutation?
Anyway, seeing your response, I get the feeling that it's basically an optional thing, to identify that the editor encountered an edit conflict, but if we're always copying from the bottom text box, we should be fine in not including that "ec" template as we'll always be posting to the current version of the page. Doug Mehus T·C 20:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, it's optional and not especially useful. You're fine without it. As I said, I don't know of any script. Edit conflicts are sent to try us. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC).
The advice I'd give is to use an {{ec}} template when the edit conflict means that your post does not take into account what was written in the post you just edit-conflicted with. In fast-moving debates, if you stop to read the conflicting post (and perhaps attempt to alter your post to take account of what was said), you'll likely end up with another edit-conflict, and so on. The template at least gives other editors a hint that you are responding to other posts, not the most recent one. --RexxS (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments on my talk page

I have tried to respond to your comments on my Talk page in as calm and civil a manner as possible. I do not believe your characterizations of my work as an editor are accurate. I hope you will re-read all of my posts carefully to understand that, in fact, I was working to improve WP:NPOV by adhering to WP:FRINGE guidelines. I have also made huge contributions to these pages by fixing errors, adding important sources, and helping to copyedit content. It is not a "wikicrime" to substantially improve Wikipedia. As someone with a controversial POV, I am subject to relentless personal attacks. Please review all of the Talk pages to see how I have attempted to remain civil in response to that.Kfein (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I replied at your talk (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I am done discussing this issue. Kfein (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that. I must have clicked the sig button without knowing where my cursor was at the time. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, probably. It stood out a bit. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC).

Talk:McCarthyism

Another IP from the same geographic area has restored the antisemitic edit. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Tom. It looks like Berean Hunter has already reverted, blocked, and semi'd the page. Bishonen | talk 13:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC).
That is confirmed IP socking by an already-indeffed account. He was indeffed in 2006 and recently failed to convince us to unblock him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Nneka Francis

Shocked, shocked I say. And a good roarrrr to you too -- Deepfriedokra 18:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

He's ba-ack!

94.245.11.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - All the 'ole familiar articles... except Alien (franchise) - saving that for last. ;) DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

And the familiar range, 94.245.0.0/19. I have to admit I'm not very au courant with the subjects they're editing now, DarthBotto. Is that vandalism? (How)? Bishonen | talk 21:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC).
Likewise, I honestly can't tell. Just, the banned dude is back on his sock, making his familiar edits on the different pages. I honestly am only looking for awareness, so that there can be intervention for when he steps in on the more sensitive subjects, such as Alien, Predator, AvP, Lake Placid, etc., etc. It's up to you what you want to do for now - I just wanted to inform you that there's confirmed activity, albeit not necessarily disruptive. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 21:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Yeah, theoretically maybe I ought to hunt him down like a dog (it's not formally, or at all, a "clean start" if he edits subjects he has edited before), but I don't wanna. I'd appreciate being told if you should notice undoubted disruption, though. Bishonen | talk 22:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC).
That's a wonderful attitude. Yeah; he's not really causing harm thus far this month, unlike how I expected, so I'm fine with letting the subject be. His last stint a month ago was ugly, with him doing what he was banned for, but I'm not compelled to put on a skeleton costume and play Karate Kid with him. So, we're in agreement. ;) DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 22:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Judging by TurokSwe's talk page, it sounds like people are getting all riled up about him being a smartass. Even though I was tagged, I honestly don't care either way, as he's only my problem if he disrupts the pages I edit. Otherwise, it's just polemic pouting. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 21:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I was pinged too, but I don't really care either. I just posted to say so. Bishonen | talk 21:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC).

British International School Hanoi

Hi, Bishonen! You applied pending-changes protection at British International School Hanoi (thank you!) but it's not working too well – there's constant background noise from throwaway accounts, a waste of everybody's time. Would you consider changing it to extended-confirmed? I think it's amply justified, and might even have done it myself if I hadn't been WP:involved. Thanks either way, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, Justlettersandnumbers. Ordinary semi hasn't been tried, so I'd better start with that, per WP:ECP ("Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective", etc). Done, for 6 months. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC).
Excellent, many thanks! Let's see how that goes ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access revocation

Hello Bishonen, hope all is well! You might want to keep an eye out on Finest People Are Us (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are vandalizing their talk page after your block. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks, LuK3. I just this second blocked the IPv6 you reported — the /64 range, because there was some more there. Bishonen | talk 13:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC).
Done. LuK3, if you care, I can revdel their edit summaries. Dignifying them too much, maybe? Bishonen | talk 14:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC).
If you don't mind. I requested it over on the IRC channel as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I took care of it. Bishonen | talk 14:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC).
It was repeated in one of the actual content additions as well as the edit summary, so I've tidied that as well. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I only did a spot check for that. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC).

Note from Dominiqueque

Brexit: I’m adding in a sourced article, with quotes from Bloomberg News — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominiqueque (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That's good, Dominiqueque. Thank you. Please remember to sign your posts on talkpages with four tildes like this: ~~~~. That will be magically transformed to a signature + timestamp when you publish. Bishonen | talk 10:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC).

what's a grudage

That's a grudge resulting from or expressed in terms of an adage, e.g., "time wounds all heels".-- Deepfriedokra 05:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to hear it. I thought it might be a gruesome kind of porridge. Bishonen | talk 10:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC).

PunjabCinema07 and Gurbaksh Chahal

I'm surprised this thread has not gained more traction or admin involvement. I feel I've done as much as I dare and I'm stepping back from it.-- Deepfriedokra 21:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't blame you. I was just looking at it, but unfortunately I have too much RL stuff to really research it. It seems highly unlikely to me that PC07 is not an UPE, but how to be sure? Bishonen | talk 21:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC).
Both this editor's favorite pages are now EC protected and their EC has been revoked. Maybe they'll just give up for now. I feel like they are a hireling, but if anyone has answered the call for a SPI, they have not shared the results. Any further disruption and I will block longer if no one else does. I just feel like I'm not aware of something I need to know.-- Deepfriedokra 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I've got to go to bed now. Maybe we can collaborate about PC07 tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC).

Sicilian Baroque nominated for Featured Article Review

I have nominated Sicilian Baroque for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous for the Voiceless’ Wikipedia article is an inaccurate description of the group.

I’ve been editing the article page of Anonymous For The Voiceless and it continues to get reverted back. I am providing evidence for my case. Let me make the change. I will find ways to have it edited because I want there to be an honest description. Thephantom24 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Bish, given this edit, where the membership field has been populated with "your soul", I very much doubt this is an editor who will be able to abide by WP:NPOV on this matter. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wrote "@Thephantom24: simply and civilly present your sources on the talk page. Pages are often protected as an alternative to blocking editors in a content dispute." but had an edit conflict with Ponyo. I'd like a good explanation for adding "Your soul" Doug Weller talk 16:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

emails

Your fingers must be tired.-- Deepfriedokra 16:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Now my fingers, brain, and eyes are tired. LOOK! An Oxford comma!-- Deepfriedokra 17:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Are topic blocks determined by mere vote, or actual violations of policy?

Never received an answer to this question elsewhere so am asking here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit5001 (talk • contribs)

@Edit5001:, drop the stick. Your community sanction was a result of the community deciding you were violating policies and guidelines. --Yamla (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The term is "topic bans", Edit5001; there's no block involved. Community topic bans are determined by consensus in a community discussion on AN or ANI. Please check out the link WP:consensus. The word, as used on Wikipedia, does not refer to a mere vote: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. (Though in this case, obviously, a "mere vote" would have given the same result.) Your implicit suggestion that topic bans ought to be given on the basis of "actual violations of policy" raises the question "violations according to who"? A lot of highly experienced editors and admins, well versed in policy, determined you should be topic banned. If you would like to relitigate your topic bans on the basis of your own reading of the policies involved, forget it. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC).
One would expect there to be one, or several, uninvolved administrators whose job it specifically is to review accused violations of policy and determine whether topic bans are appropriate off of that. Thanks for answering the question though, that bans are determined simply by consensus. I'll comment that is an absolutely miserable way of determining whether bans are appropriate, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it allows people who haven't or have hardly broken any rules to be banned simply by a targeted, politically charged vote. You brought up the "highly experienced editors" who voted against me, but almost all of them to a man were people who disagreed with my prior edits for political or cultural reasons. Hardly anything to do with Wikipedia policy. Edit5001 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
There are lots of uninvolved administrators who volunteer their time to examine accused violations of policy. I'm one of them, and another half-dozen or so contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027 #User:Edit5001. Miserable or otherwise, consensus is still better than any other mechanism we have found, so if you want to edit Wikipedia, you have to live with it. You call the discussion a "targeted, politically charged vote"; it was indeed targeted at your unacceptable behaviour, but it was not a "politically charged vote", as consensus is determined not by a vote, but by strength of argument, and not a single contributor commented on your politics, only on your behaviour.
I don't believe that you have any evidence whatsoever that those who supported the ban were editors who disagreed with your edits for political or cultural reasons. Particularly as each of them gave behavioural reasons rooted in Wikipedia policy as the basis of their support. In fact, Yamla clearly demonstrated that they had no prior interaction with you or the articles you have been editing. That makes a nonsense of your description of "almost all of them to a man".
One of our rules is "don't edit war". If you maintain you're not guilty of serially breaking that rule, then let me know and I'll apply an indefinite block to your account, because it would then be clear that you have no conception of the behavioural standards necessary to edit collaboratively here. --RexxS (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
There was hardly discussion. What I received was effectively a show trial. All of the editors who I had recently been in politically charged content disputes with showed up to voice support for a ban, while all of the many editors who agreed with my changes were not around for comment, most likely because they don't even follow that page and were unaware of the situation. Due to rules against canvassing, it's not as if I can let people who agree with me know there's a group actively performing a hitjob on my account. Never was I asked by an administrator to elaborate on my behavior. Never was I asked to explain anything. In fact I held back on arguing with others on the page because I was confident that a level headed administrator would come in, review the accusations in full, and dispel the weak arguments of the group trying to ban me. Was unaware until today that a simple consensus on a single page is all it takes to ban someone.
There were some circumstances where I edit warred, but this was often in response to someone warring even more egregiously, or not even attempting to reach consensus on the Talk page, and my actions were in response to that (example - someone deleted an enormous section of a page with hardly any explanation, I reverted, and that turned into an edit war even though what they were doing was borderline vandalism.). Further, some of the examples the original report called edit warring were by definition not edit warring - for example, reverting a single change someone made is not an edit war, yet the original report called one such case that. Edit5001 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
You are so adorable. --JBL (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
You weren't banned, Edit5001. You were topic banned which is a very different thing. Consensus in that discussion was strong and that is precisely the process by which such decisions are made. I suggest that you go edit some articles about butterflies or motorcycles or carpentry or Ancient Greece or something else that has nothing to do with those particular topic areas. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
It was "strong" because a bunch of the people I had previously been in content disputes with happened to know a report against me was made, while none of the people who agreed with my changes and would defend me were even aware the report existed. Hence me expressing my opinion above that this system of determining who should be topic banned is miserably poor. Edit5001 (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit5001, 7,856 editors of every political persuasion have WP:ANI on their watch lists. It is not some kind of hidden backwater. The one thing that is certain is that no policy changes will be instituted here on Bishonen's talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW (2 cents), I don't think parties to a dispute should be allowed to decide how to remedy that dispute. But that is not a change we can effect here. If anyone has an answer, please let me know.-- Deepfriedokra 03:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
From your talkpage: "you're being given a chance to show us that you're going to edit within the community's expectations for user conduct. Don't waste it." You're wasting your opportunity by filibustering your sanction instead of improving the encyclopedia within the boundaries set by the community. And don't accuse editors of vandalism when they just disagree with you. Acroterion (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Good grief. If this user does not change their approach, I foresee progressive blocks culminating in a CBAN. Anyone who tries to justify edit warring is just too combative. And this does not look like the sort of one-sided ANI thread that's really a lynch mob made up of one's enemies. Experienced and knowledgeable users discussed the issues calmly and in a policy based manner. IMO, user has been granted a boon.-- Deepfriedokra 06:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Dear me, "You have 17 new messages" today, and I slept through it all. Those time zones! Thanks to all who have tried to explain further to Edit5001 here. I did my best, above, and have nothing to add to that except that you are entitled to appeal the sanction, Edit5001. But, as I've said before, on your own page, unless you first show a record of good editing in other areas, I'm pretty sure an appeal will be rejected. Don't despair. It looks like you've made a start. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC).
  • Wikipedia never sleeps.-- Deepfriedokra 18:12, 31 January 2020 (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.
Thanks, Bishonen! Will do. --Yamla (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

thanks

I am in receipt of your kind favor of the latest instant and shall proceed accordingly.-- Deepfriedokra 22:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

e mail notice

Why does the email notice say the receiver will not see the sender's email address? The receiver does see the sender's email address.-- Deepfriedokra 23:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Deepfriedokra: I think you have it back-to-front. When I receive an email sent via the "email this user" function, I get a message that nominally is from "Wikipedia" <wiki@wikimedia.org>. It contains a disclaimer at the bottom

The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any information about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address.

Of course, as the recipient, I can see the sender's email address in the Reply-To field. That has to be the case, otherwise I wouldn't be able to reply to them directly. So the recipient will always see the sender's email address.
However, when they send the original email, the sender does not know the recipient's email address because the MediaWiki software actually sends the message. Of course, if I reply to the original sender, then I expose my email address. Hope that clarifies things for you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
If A writes to B using the WP email service. B immediately becomes aware of A's actual email address. But A does not learn B's actual address. So think before emailing. And if you have been emailed, think before responding. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes it is best to keep a bit of mystery in a relationship.-- Deepfriedokra 02:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Dao empire

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC).

Draft:Priya Prakash Varrier

Hi, I think you deleted the previous Priya Prakash Varrier article, following the deletion discussion. I've created a new draft as it looks to me like notability is now less controversial. The movie she appeared in has now been released, and there has been a lot of coverage from independent sources, including the BBC. (There are 942 items found on NewsBank - at a guess, about half of them are decent sources.) I'd appreciate your feedback on whether the subject is suitable for an article, and, if so, any improvements needed. Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, User:BennyOnTheLoose. Two years ago I did delete the article and then turned it into a protected redirect to Oru Adaar Love. I did those things purely because of the well-reasoned consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Prakash Varrier — not because of any expertise of my own in Bollywood subjects. You may be right that what has happened since (notably the release of Oru Adaar Love, and the BBC source) has made the creation of a separate article reasonable, but I'd rather not make that call in an area I'm ignorant of. Little admin talkpage stalkers, please? For instance @Nyttend, Vanamonde93, and RegentsPark:? Bishonen | talk 14:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC).
As I see it, there's a lot of coverage, but this is still fundamentally a case of WP:BLP1E, and for an event we already have an article about. As such I think we're serving our function a little better by covering the trailer and its popularity at the article about the movie, and leaving the actress be until we have a clearer case for lasting notability. If someone else were to move it to mainspace, though, I would not be inclined to do anything about it, but I wouldn't do so myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Vanamonde. You've convinced me. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC).
Thanks for the responses. I'll leave this alone for now and maybe check in future to see if there's a stronger case for a separate article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Not scary

The new image is beautiful. Just sayin. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

[Disappointed.] The eyes aren't scary? Man... what does it take to scare people nowadays? Bishonen | talk 13:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC).
Hah. Competition is pretty heavy. -- Deepfriedokra 16:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but with the unnerving caption? No? Bishonen | talk 16:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC).
But who gives a hoot about captions in the first place?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, who, who, whoooo? Liz Read! Talk! 17:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
All right, what about the hooded admin vulture? It's just caught sight of you. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC).

Teach me

Respected, Bishonen Brother can i use the Reference book which was published in the year 1918 and also explain me can i use old approved Government Gazeeters book as reference please,please Brother Teach me. Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No, sources from the British Raj era are considered unreliable. The best thing is to use modern academic sources. May I ask why you come to my page in particular to ask this question? Is this account related to that of User:Sriramadas.mahalingam? Bishonen | talk 10:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC).
The two accounts are unrelated as far as I know. Sathayanarayana naidu has been extremely active on the Golla (caste) page for almost a year, and seems to have added a lot of dubious material. Nittawinoda alerted me today, and I found the article to be in a really poor shape. I removed the most egregious content (such as claims to the effect that Krishnadevaraya belonged to this caste) and put an OR template on it. Naidu has now received ARBIPA and caste article alerts, and can be deemed to have been "inducted". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks, Kautilya3. Maybe the user came here because you pinged me at Talk:Golla (caste). Bishonen | talk 11:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC).

Indeed Proper references

With regard to your comment at my User_talk:Sriramadas.mahalingam on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, on the article Uniform Civil Code, like Jawaharlal_Nehru and B._R._Ambedkar stand on the the issue, the stand of M._S._Golwalkar is also important. He was the leader of Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh and the sources that I have cited are his own published by his own Organization. User:Kautilya3 certainly seems to in favour of the what the article intend to bring about and hence isn't letting the other sides of the opinion to come out to the external world. He removed sections bluntly saying they arent from reliable sources. They are indeed reliable sources.I have provided pages from the book published itself.

(talk page stalker) @Sriramadas.mahalingam: you will have already seen the replies on your talk page, which is the correct place for this discussion. Nevertheless to avoid any furtherance of doubt, you need to understand two things:
  1. Self-published sources are generally regarded as unsuitable to support content in Wikipedia, except for some very clear exceptions. Here's one to look at: http://www.metropolis2.co.uk/demo/rex.htm - can you figure out why it wouldn't be a good idea to use that in a Wikipedia article?
  2. If the position of M._S._Golwalkar really is important, then other people will have discussed it (as they have with Nehru, etc.), and you should have no difficulty in finding those sources. Those kind of sources are the ones that we are looking for to provide content for an encyclopedia article. Can you work out why you haven't provided them?
--RexxS (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
RexxS Who are the other people? I am also one among them. Wikipedia is ever evolving one. There are three sections that were removed by User:Kautilya3. One related to an active Organization that is creating awareness on the negative aspects of Uniform Civil Code. Another by head of ancient religious Organiation that is considered like Vatican for Christianity - Puri Sankaracharya. Remember Golwalkar is the second Leader of RSS, the biggest volunteer Organization of India. When Nehru brought the law, who opposed it on streets do matter. I have not removed the sections that were in favour. I am only for presenting the views in a neutral way. Kautilya3 has not gone into the details of the sources given. The user has simply denied that the sources don't qualify according to him. Pathetic.
User:Sriramadas.mahalingam, "other people" are "people who have written things about this topic that were published in reliable sources". This is not social media; no, you are not one of them, as far as I know, and neither are RexxS or Kautilya3. Any information must first pass this test: WP:RS. Then, is it a secondary source. After that, editors can talk. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Drmies It is certainly opinion of two persons related to the topic historically and in contemporary sense and sources reliable from their own Organization's publications. Did you go through the references provided and has any observation on the same? You can rope in any admin from Hindi Wikipedia Team if needed to ascertain one of the sources. The other source has English transcript also. Kautilya3 didn't get into the details of the sources at all. User intend to present one side opinion in favour of the topic only. Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sriramadas.mahalingam: Your opinion on the topic is worth precisely nothing to Wikipedia unless you have published your opinion in a good quality, reliable, peer-reviewed publication. Have you? If so, name your article. The sources you quote so far are self-published, so who says they are reliable? Do you have an independent, third-party source that tells us that those sources are important and reliable? Let me make this clear: your opinion, my opinion, and the opinion of any roped-in Hindi admin are not capable of vouching for the usability of a self-published source. Nor do we accept that any editor is capable of analysing in detail the content of sources, only of ascertaining the type and quality. Did you even bother to read Wikipedia:Verifiability #Self-published sources? --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
RexxS Did you go through the details of the sections that I added? Are they my opinions? Is this your level of understanding? Pathetic you are. The article says opinions of stand of Ambedkar, Nehru etc., Who are those who opposed it? Golwalkar, Puri Sankaracharya and Sarvadharma. What will a peer reviewed publication quote from? Sources such as this only. You dont have even such an understanding? Did you go through the details? Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
If you don't have the competence or understanding to grasp simple propositions like WP:Reliable sources, then you have no business editing Wikipedia. And if you call another editor "pathetic" again, ever, I'll personally place an indefinite block on your account, if somebody doesn't beat me to it. You are not here to build an encyclopedia, and your time here is fast running out. מנא מנא --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
RexxS Did you get into details of all links that I had given? And will Kautilya3 explain specific issues with each references provided?
RexxS Certainly not all sections that was removed are Wikipedia:Verifiability #Self-published sources. I am indeed sure. From a neutral point go through the Article and check for yourself, what are the other side opinions on the topic that you could find on the page now. Only those sections that were removed by Kautilya3 would substantially qualify for the same.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk • contribs)
In this edit you used the blog sarvadharma.net three times, so don't give me that garbage about "not all sections". You are a single-purpose account whose only purpose here on Wikipedia is to promote the "Sarvadharma Indian Indigenous Peoples Organization", a completely non-notable group which has no results on Google other than a couple of Wikipedia mirrors that haven't caught up yet. You may not use Wikipedia to promote your causes, so forget it: it's not going to happen. --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Sriramadas.mahalingam, the possibility of partial blocks on Wikipedia, for instance being blocked from just one page, is quite new, so you were lucky to get such a block. I was glad to be able to give you a partial block from Uniform Civil Code and leave you free to edit the rest of Wikipedia. I didn't realise that you would use this ability to quarrel and insult people on userpages — that was not my intention at all. Any more of that and you will simply be blocked from all of Wikipedia. Incidentally, RexxS, I think there's a bit of a problem with the review of Sriramadas's unblock request, see [12]. What do you think? Unfortunately it looks like 133 stopped editing some three minutes before I posted on his page. Well, these things happen — I suppose there isn't any real hurry. Good night. Bishonen | talk 22:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC).

Indeed. Sriramadas.mahalingam, had I been the blocker, it might have been total and indefinite conditioned on you showing understanding of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:RS. In short, we do not call one another "pathetic". We discuss content based on the quality of the sourcing. I'm afraid the source you used is inadequate. As has already been explained, it does not meet WP:RS. Please reread the linked material. Please compose yourself in a more collegial manner.-- Deepfriedokra 10:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Great Ghu! Four admins have tried to explain matters. Bish, if the traffic through here gets any heavier, you gonna need a light.-- Deepfriedokra 10:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You people think those are problems? Look at this caste article I just came across! Sitush wrote on the talkpage in 2018 that he was "struggling to find anything other than matrimonial websites etc that verifies even the existence of this community". Whereas according to the Hindi text + Google translate, it has always been a prestige and pride from the King Maharajas. Well, what else. Oh Sitush, please come back! Bishonen | talk 10:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC).
Redirect to Brahman?-- Deepfriedokra 11:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the concerns. Just do this fact check on the page Uniform Civil Code and from the history go through the sections removed and their references given. You will find for yourself that the articles now projects only a favourable opinion on the topic. It is after repeated removal and restore that the motives of the user removing the content were suspected. Thank you. Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I checked when this first started. I resent your implication that I would comment on the reliability of sources without checking them first. The article "projects" what the existing reliable sources say, nothing more, nothing less. If that doesn't line up with your POV, too bad. You won't get away with using blogs like sarvadharma.net and other unreliable sources to try to insert an unsupported POV into the article, sorry. --RexxS (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I had to be cutting-edge and use a partial block, didn't I? I've made it "sitewide" now. Bishonen | talk 17:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC).

At least you tried.-- Deepfriedokra 18:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: but, but, but . . .-- Deepfriedokra 16:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

See the difference

--RexxS (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A kitten for Bishzilla

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oh, Bishzilla! You know the answer: you're not supposed to eat anything smaller than chihuahuas. Not worth the trouble! Put the little cat gently in your pocket. Capisce? Bishonen | talk 17:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC).

An interpretive dance for you!

(This is not ANI, so this should be allowed.) Goodnight! --bonadea contributions talk 21:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, bonadea, I feel somewhat consoled. It reminds me of Steve Martin... hang on... yes, of this! Bishonen | talk 21:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC).
I was going to post the interpretive dance by the Dude's landlord, but that would probably get me into copyright troubles. Just wanted to say, on my screen, the tab measures the length of an average American baby (maybe three months old). My, what big settings you have!. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, I was using Bishzilla's desktop computer, what can I say. Size of Texas. I do remember the Dude's landlord's dance, but only dimly. Can't you link to it, Sluzzelin? See how I link to SNL on Youtube without a care in the world! Bishonen | talk 22:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC).
Гном ❤️ ---Sluzzelin talk 22:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
What fun. Thanks for posting this Bonadea. Yours is good too Sluzzelin but I had never seen W&K before. These remind me that many years ago Bish had a short version of this L&H classic above the editing field. BTW if you haven't seen it Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly perform a loving recreation of the dance in Stan & Ollie. Cheers to all. MarnetteD|Talk 23:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Awww, that's lovely, both the old and the recreated dance. Fancy you remembering my little animated L&H gif, MarnetteD, I'm touched. It was faster and more frantic than any actual living creature could be, and it was very very cute. The only reason I haven't still got it is that it was deleted, I think over copyright concerns. :-( Is the landlord wearing a... a... bodystocking, Sluzzelin? I think he is. Yikes. Goodnight all! Bishonen | talk 23:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC).

FRINGE Help

Since you have been partially following the FRINGE saga I have mentioned you in several pages where a discussion relating to the edit war on Bob Lazar is happening. Given you experience could you help us out or tell us how to handle this better? I am getting accused personally of trying to push an illogical FRINGE POV which is definitely NOT my intention and my edits as well as those of others are being reverted blindly. Very frustrating and a big time waste. The article is suffering because of this IMHO. I'm about to say f*** it and leave it be but it doesn't seem right since me and others spent time discussing and researching sources. Thanks! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Sorry, Gtoffoletto, I'm not going to get involved in the discussion, and absolutely not tell people how to handle things — that's not what admins do. I can either get involved as a regular editor and edit the article + offer content opinions on talk, or remain uninvolved in the content questions and thereby remain able to act as an admin, i. e. warn/sanction people, protect pages, and so on. Those are the alternatives for me, see WP:INVOLVED. And I want to remain able to administrate Bob Lazar. For instance, it looks like a new user is edit warring at the article. That's a bit worrying. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC).
  • I always think of you as more of a Valkyrie.-- Deepfriedokra 17:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately Goddesses still have to be piped by Gods... #DeaToo :) ——SN54129 18:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha. General suggestions on how to get out of it or relevant essays/policies? As an admin is it warranted to give warnings to some of the participants that are edit warring? Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Extra note: I see you have warned User:Keldoo‎ about the 3 revert limit. I had done the same a couple of days ago (see his talk history). He is a new user and learning how to use the site and his reverts were in good faith. We have collaborated constructively since then and reached a consensus. He is frustrated that other users have blindly reverted all of our edits without critically examining. This is why blind reverts should be avoided. They frustrate and disincentivize new editors. Other more exprienced editors in the page are barely avoiding the 3 revert rule and contributing to the problems with the page. I'm just a casual wikipedia editor (although I've been at it for a while) but please consider this as you perform your work as admin. Thanks a lot for your time and effort! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Be careful. Vicarious admins block vicariously, without any sound logic. I was blocked two days ago, for behaviour that nornally gets no comment. Tis a lottery, improving the project, but there is nothing technically wrong with not making an edsum when you make an edit. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
For he maketh his sun to rise on the IP and the checkuser, and sendeth rains on the vandal fighters and the serial reverters. -EEng
New page. New edit war. USS Nimitz UFO incident Those pages are really a lot to handle sadly. A lot more admin supervision is needed IMHO not just to correctly address the tin-foil hatters but also to put the rains on those serial reverters that don't engage in conversation but just attack. I have never had problems like this so I don't know how an Admin intervention can be requested. Sorry for my ignorance of those things but nothing of the sort has happened to me in 10 years of participation in the project. I'm asking for help once more. Thanks--Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Try editing in an area of the project that isn't controversial. If you edit in Fringe or other lively areas (think Creationism) you are going to find a lot of experienced editors who know their way very well. Remember that this is a reality based project. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been editing wikipedia (causally - around 1000 edits) for more than 10 years. I am an engineer and am absolutely NOT trying to push ANY "non reality based" idea. The bias of how those users are approaching my edits is untenable and few bad apples are sufficient to ruin all the work and discussion. I have written in the admin noticeboard which I think is appropriate. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
You are a newbie with about 200 edits. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I imagine the user is talking about his edits on the Italian Wikipedia. However, this is not the Italian Wikipedia, so it is true that the user is new to the peculiar rules that are set up at this project. jps (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That conflict is not something for an admin to intervene in, Gtoffoletto. You have already tried the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and have got quite a bit of input there. (BTW, don't forget to keep your temper on Wikipedia![13]) Give it more time, perhaps? Then, if you are dissatisfied with the discussion on the article talkpage — and you may well be, as it would certainly be a good thing if more editors than jps and you took part there — I have two further suggestions: use WP:Third opinion, and/or the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Third opinion is the more manageable of the two, IMO, and the conflict fits its requirements well. If I were you, I'd start with that, and if it doesn't help, go to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, though not before any Third opinion discussion has more or less run its course. Here's an overview of the various possibilities for dispute resolution. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC).

Please also see my new comment at jps's talkpage. Bishonen | talk 18:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC).
Thanks for the level headed advice. I have posted my final thoughts on the noticeboard and will withdraw from that conversation. I am a casual editor of the encyclopaedia for sure. But I have been here long enough to know that this is not how the experience of editing wikipedia should be. And for this I am sorry. I don't care about my work lost. I'm just at home sick for a couple of days and found a couple of fun articles that really sucked. I just worry for future editors (one real newb that was editing with me lived through this ordeal as his first Wikipedia experience and was accused of being FRINGE and edit warring while he was just trying to learn and do what he thought was right). That's not good and worries me[1]. I think WP:ROWN would have prevented all this. Maybe give that "essay" a second chance ;-). Thanks again and keep up the good work! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Predictions_of_the_end_of_Wikipedia#Decline_in_editors

Editor you warned for forumshoppping

Here.[14] Now has opened WP:ANI#Incivility and Hounding by User:ජපස without even notifying him. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops, didn't notice the above. He did notify but only in an edit at the bottom of a long thread, I've fixed that. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
It's very difficult to get the user to listen to advice and information. I don't really want to block him, but I have, for 31 hours, in the hope that it'll show him I mean business. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC).

All your pretty dif's

were also quite informing. I think we need to see WP:BITE as not being a carte blanche for unacceptable behavior.-- Deepfriedokra 12:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked editor AustrianFreedom

Hello Bishonen, User:AustrianFreedom, whom you blocked back in July, appears to be editing Wikipedia as an IP now [15]. His edits are at pages that AustrianFreedom once frequented such as Serbian writers and locations inhabited by Serbian Germans, and they are wp:duck for the sorts of things AustrianFreedom added and his style (many edits in a row, strange edit summaries, and a personal attack [16]).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Ermenrich, I see I indeffed them as NOTHERE on July 1 2019. But Bbb23 changed it to a checkuserblock a week later and, guess what, also CU-blocked the very same IP for three months. See the account's userpage, the SPI archive, and this block log. So I've blocked the IP for another six months. Beebs, dear, if you think that's too long, or if you think it ought to be a CU-block, feel free to take it over. Bishonen | talk 14:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC).
When you call me "Beebs,dear", you can do no wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Hehehe. [Bishonen makes a note of this simple trick.] Bishonen | talk 17:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC).

Jontel

Apologies if my comments about that user seemed excessive. I wasn't making an attack on them, just an observation based on about a year of seeing their edits to articles on left-wing politics and antisemitism, many of which have been reverted by other users. Rodericksilly (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You're not supposed to canvass people to discussions, Rodericksilly, least of all Jimbo. That was the main reason I reverted you. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC).
I wouldn't normally, except that "Jimbo" reverted the same edit by this user in December, so I figured he clearly has some interest in that particular article and the information the user was attempting to remove. Rodericksilly (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
That's a poor excuse, I'm afraid. If Jimbo has an interest in an article, he can watchlist it like other people do. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC).
You might think it's a poor excuse, but I've attempted to watchlist pages (pressing the star at the top of the article I presume) and it hasn't worked to update me on changes to pages. Rodericksilly (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Star? What star? There's a "watch"/"unwatch" button at the top of every page. It uses those words. User:RexxS and other watchers, that's how pages look for me, in monobook. Is it the same in all skins? Bishonen | talk 22:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC).
Small light blue star on Windows. O3000 (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Same as big O here. On vector skin in Chrome on Windows. PackMecEng (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. OK, Roderick, in the Vector skin it's a star. PackMecEng, your image is of Wikidata; I presume it's the same on Wikipedia? Bishonen | talk 22:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC).
Yup, same deal. Just only image on commons that fit the bill. PackMecEng (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I like the looks so much I wrote a script to turn it on for every page in Wikipedia. Haven't slept in 12 years. O3000 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Odd edit summary content

With this edit, an anon/IP made an edit to an article (which I subsequently reverted), however they left an email address in the edit summary. I'm not familiar with this being a thing (and I believe page histories aren't indexed by search engines so don't see the value necessarily), but wasn't sure who to ask about this. And AN seemed like overkill. :P Is that something that should be revdel'd? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I've never heard it's a thing either, but instinctively I don't like it. Revdel'd. Thank you, Locke Cole. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC).
Another one. :/ —Locke Cole • t • c 21:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Locke Cole. That was clear advertising. Revdel'd and warned. Bishonen | tålk 21:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC).

Caroline not Carolean

I decided today to devote my energies to this poor little page and it’s looking a lot healthier now. However, as you know, my literary interests extend no further than detective novels and the dirty bits of a Lady Chat and that other literary great, I forget the name, on Netflix. Therefore, I thought you might like to contribute a little to the theatre and literary sections. I know you like all the a Restoration stuff better, but I expect it’s all the same really and I know one other here with your superior intellect and huge knowledge of such a fascinating subject. Would you mind? A thousand small words will suffice. Much love Giano (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm... I wanna say Beaumont and Fletcher. Let me think. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC).
Good choice: I think they did the interior decoration for one of Aunt Catherine’s smaller drawing rooms; she’s a huge fan, not so keen on chintz myself. But I’m sure they’re great, whatever you think best. Giano (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Beaumont and Fletcher. No, it looks like they were more Jacobean. Darn. [Disconsolately.] The Caroline period was too short, with chopping off his head and stuff. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC).
Oh that Beaumont and Fletcher, I was thinking of that firm at the wrong end of South Audley Street. Yes, it’s a problem I found too, even the Banqueting House was begun under his father, but I take the view if it’s not obviously Jacobean then it must be Caroline. I think one is allowed a little blurring around the edges of reign-named styles, nothing changed overnight. Somebody must have written something readable in that period though, they can’t have just spent twenty years enjoying their own company before going to sleep every night. Giano (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
'Tis Pity She's a Whore. (Can one just turn up on somebody's talk page and say such things without being reprimanded?) Yomanganitalk 22:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Probably best to look at the works of James Shirley as the touchstone of the period. Ben Jonson's late work extended into the start of the Caroline and criticisms of his work might give some insight into how Caroline theatre evolved from Jacobean. At the other end of the period there are few authors who bridged the interregnum, but you might possible find some useful sources discussing William Davenant, to help place Caroline in context with Restoration. You'll need somebody far more expert than I to pick the best sources, of course, but there might be some usable leads amongst those articles. --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I've half a mind to leave the page to rot. In the few brief house since I last edited it, it has been crawled over and plastered with citation tags already. That it was full of errors for the last nine years is immaterial, the second one tries to improve anything out come those who only like to template. Any fool can see its a work in progress.Giano (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I've removed them (and probably caused an annoying edit conflict for you next time you save, but you can't have everything). Yomanganitalk 12:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Nope, we escaped a conflict. Some people here are extremely annoying. I had been tempted to revert them myself with the edit summary of "Bugger Off", but no doubt that woudl lead to drama at ANI, me being clocked and the page languishing for another nine years. Do feel free to chip in though there if you can think of anything to bolster it out. It's not really my subject at all. learning as I go along there. Giano (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of annoying, I have a fascinating (well I think it's fascinating) piece of trivia about Charles I - he was the only British monarch to have been succeeded by two of his sons and three of his grandchildren, but none of his sons' sons. Really ought to be in the infobox. --RexxS (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe after we've added King Charles' head. I hope there's a "literary references" parameter in the infobox. Bishonen | talk 11:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC).
If there isn't, you can add one. You know that infoboxes can only be improved by adding more parameters. Yomanganitalk
This template has nothing to do with infoboxes
Arguing over infoboxes is important work.

Don't mock the supporters or detractors of infoboxes as they go about their vital task.

Number of times touched a lizard= 7! I always thought infobox parameters were created by magical elves rather than by mere mortals. El_C 11:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
You know that elves are imaginary, so it can't be them. The infobox parameters are actually created by magical dinosaurs. -- T-RexxS (rawr) 16:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, RexxS, there you are. I was just confusing myself on my Bishonen/Sigs page.[17] It seems I have been using the sig with a coded pipe in it for years. I wonder why? It seems overwhelmingly likely that it was something you advised. Did you? Why? (I have just now restored the simple pipe, along with Swedifying my tålk link. Will that have bad consequences?) And what do the little stålkers think, would the spelling "Bischånen" be an improvement? Bönadea, you got an opinion? Bishonen | tålk 17:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC).

I don't think it was my advice, but it is a safe technique to use &#124; instead of the pipe symbol directly. Issues may arise when you use your sig inside a template. I can't reproduce this possible problem without messing about with my sig, but you can try previewing

in any page. This is what happens when I try directly using the two different sig texts that you are comparing:

  • {{subst:The Original Barnstar|1=message [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]]}} →
The Original Barnstar
talk
  • {{subst:The Original Barnstar|1=message [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]]}} →
The Original Barnstar
message Bishonen | talk

The pipe in the first example is taken to be marking an extra parameter by the template, so it tries to use it, losing the rest of the message and sig. I'd stick with the &#124; just in case. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, pipes too? I thought it was only equals signs that make templates spit up — you know, like if you put diffs in a template. I'm always coding those. Right, it makes sense about the pipe marking an extra parameter. I'll use the coded sig. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 18:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC).
Tålk is sheep! Ya! Børk! (I've been on a train for almost 9 hours. This is all very amusing to me.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bishonen

This user User:อัลเบิร์ is trying to make an edit war and I explain about the Wikipedia policy to him but I argue to block anyone who blames to edit in content that this user only thinks he is true. No one can edit on the page that the user was overseer. I need you to tell him to understand the rule and don't make another misunderstanding in Wikipedia rule, especially I need you to BLOCK him to resolve the problem that this user make.

Thank You Ministerboy (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me but are you, Ministerboy, the IP that are constantly making reverts on those pages? If you are, I believe that you are the one that are violating the rules and try to put your faults into the other's hand. The other user is asking for a discuss with you but you don't do it. Your version of edits cannot be accepted because it came later and the other user is not consenting with you. So you have to discuss first but you choose not to do it and instead, committed warring edit violation. อัลเบิร์ (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear User:อัลเบิร์ That another IP is my friend that sits behind me, I work for Wikipedia Thai football for 4 Year and I was work for Thai FA for 2 years until now. Why you delete the honor content of every Thai team and why you delete the history of every Thai team. All the information I find with my ability with my Wikipedia user friend for 4 year and you came here to delete and tell me to talk with you first. That was absurd and can't accept. STOP doing this action for the better way of finding the information from Wikipedia. Ministerboy (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Bish, already pinged you but as info I blocked all 3 for 24 hours for EW. Ministerboy left this same message to 6-7 people but I didn't realize till later. -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, well done. I saw they'd gone over 3RR, but I kind of didn't have the strength to do anything about it right then. Bishonen | talk 16:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC).

User:Ministerboy made warring edits again

Hello. Sorry. Can you check the IP 113.53.145.7, which is a suspected sockpuppet of Ministerboy, the guy who keep reverting people's edits (I'm one of the users) and make changes on Thailand national football team page and related pages(Thailand under-23, under-20,...) despite being objected to, he shows no attempt to have a discuss to reach a consensus despited having been asked for one. He just returned to make the same kind of edits again on that Thailand team page.14.231.90.28 (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey I just sign in and edit in the name of Ministerboy and I don't know the other IP why you denoted on me. You can check I edit only my mistake other revert such as User:Heemensussus I revert him because it want to revert IP: 14.231.90.28 edit that make before. It is true that IP: 14.231.90.28 is the same with อัลเบิร์ and User:Albertpda. Why Wikipedia let this one do it again. Please lock the page you can see he delete all of the information that other user edit. Please give the justice to the user who try to make Wikipedia become the better place. Ministerboy (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I just noticed you reverted bunch of edits made by other editors that edited on the page aka Puan555, Swainkinky,... so on and not just อัลเบิร์ or Heemensussus. By the way, stop assuming anyone to be sock of anyone without proper evidence. I also suspected that you are a sock of User:ThailandFootball. You also have to discuss if an user asked you to do it, before making changes that are contested. Your revisions have to be undone because they have not gained a consensus.

14.231.90.28 (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:Bishonen I'm not absolutely User:ThailandFootball, you can check me and check everyone. I suggest that this IP 14.231.90.28 come from Vietnam that has a conflict with Thai Football. You can see other user agree with me after อัลเบิร์ was block other change and revert back to my edition. I don't know why Wikipedia let this user harm on Wikipedia society and on me, I'm a member of this website for 4 year why you let some IP make a vilolate and edit war on the website. You can see that this IP and the block user อัลเบิร์ has a same writing and use the same format to harm me. You block him but not block his behaviour. Please set up a protection to all Thailand national team page to avoids the IP user make Wikipedia come a war zone. Ministerboy (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I hasn't add anything and I only reverted your edits because I saw that you are in a conflict of editing with other users but instead of doing any talk, you keep on tending the page as it is your own. You are in the offensive side and took up the same warring edits again. About "same format" and "same writing", you and this user ThailandFootball had it both. 14.231.90.28 (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
You can check that i'm not ThailandFootball I can sware that i'm not. Yo can check with my friend Paul_012 or you can check with your system. I USE ONLY Ministerboy user and I user this user for more than 3000 edit for 4 years. Ministerboy (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm pinging Ferret, who dealt with the edit war before, and have also written to User:Bbb23, the CheckUser who blocked อัลเบิร์ as a sock. He's the best person for sorting this out, I think. Bishonen | tålk 10:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC).
This user went on making the same edits that have led to previous edit war despite the warning (that you gave). Given that he did not use sock, he still engage in edit warring (again after his block expires). He should be blocked for two days again at least and have all of his recent edits on related articles undone, as a warning or this will make him free to go on.14.231.90.28 (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Bish, unfortunately my only involvement here is that Ministerboy left me a talk page (I've no idea why or how we may have interacted in the past) so I looked into the obvious edit war. I've no expertise for the topic area. With the obvious socking involved and logged out edit accusation, semiprotection across all four articles wouldn't be amiss to me. @CambridgeBayWeather: has protected one of them, Thailand national under-23 football team. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Heh

I like your customized signature. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Specially made so Swedes will understand it. :-) You have quite the collection of å's yourself, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Å's galåre, one might cåll it. [Bishonen considers changing Bishzilla's talk sig to "RÅARRR". Hmm. Maybe later.] Bishonen | tålk 14:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC).
You could have gone for "tolk" or "talg" or "tack" (the last one would have been really confusing when people wanted to thank you for your edits) YomanganiTa älg 17:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Lå-å-å-ång. --bonadea contributions talk 14:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, dear Fråding! [Falls into a poetic reverie.] Bishonen | tålk 16:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC).
You're funnier than Rowan Atkinson! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Also funny: Sigrid's husband Tor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Fresh strawberries

Bish, can you please take care of this U1 for me. thanks in advance. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Bishonen | tålk 17:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC).
Thanks. That was quick. Some strawberries for you. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

AE

Cause there's a lot to read, I just want to make sure that you know when JzG said I've been adding racist SYN to the article, that is not true. I haven't been editing the article other than reverts to removals.. If you want to ban me for other stuff, then that's fine. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've got it. Bishonen | tålk 21:12, 29 February 2020 (
What's funny is that I took a 10 year hiatus, but I have (this is probably not good) strong emotions that still come up when I see various user names, and I can't remember why. Your name gives me fond emotions, but I don't remember why. I think I used to see you at FA. Maybe. Who knows. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

How about a big collaborative FA?

Encouraged by the collaboration at Sic Bar, I have been thinking how great it would be if a few of us got together and knocked out a new FA as big collaboration. Might you be interested? Giano (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bishonen

I want to report you that User:Twainkinky is suspected as sockpuppet of this user:

and I get this report from the other member too as User:Judge41 and User:Johand199 that this user try to harassing Wikipedia pages in Thai football from the investigation I has a evidence that these accounts are created from the same person. Despite being banned, it is still trying to create a new account. The first account from the investigation and investigation is Albertpda. Disruptive Waged a war on the Wikipedia Vietnam national football team page since 2017. Important that this user live aboard (I suspect from Vietnam as I check from old IP address).

You can see this user still do the same thing that you was warn him and increse the asra of edit war to other page such as Thailand women's national football team, Thailand national beach soccer team, Thailand women's national under-20 football team, Thailand women's national under-17 football team , King's Cup.

So I need you to block him and please warn him not to do this, this is not a good thing fro Wikipedia society. Thank You Ministerboy (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Please take it to WP:SPI, Ministerboy. I really don't know one end of a football from the other, so this is difficult for me. To report a sock and ask for CheckUser, either use Twinkle from Twainkinky's own page if you have Twinkle enabled in your preferences (this is the simplest way), or go to WP:SPI and follow the link to "How to open an investigation" and you will be shown how to proceed. But in either case, you'll need to provide evidence for socking in the form of diffs. Do you know how to create a diff? See WP:Simple diff and link guide. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. Bishonen | tålk 01:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC).
The left end is opposite the right end, and never the "twain" shall meet; "kinky", huh? Nice owl.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but which end is up? The owl just became an arctic fox supplied by CambridgeBayWeather. Bishonen | tålk 02:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC).
Is you guy Bbb23, Bishonen , CambridgeBayWeather, User:ferret have any solutions to stop this guy? some thai user tell me to warn him many time I so tire to stop this user. I want to help and protect this page but I confuse how to manage with him. Ministerboy (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Bbb23, it sounds like Ministerboy finds my advice about SPI a bit overwhelming. Since you came here and made a helpful comment, perhaps you would be so kind...? Bishonen | tålk 03:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC).
The two kinky socks are blocked. Ministerboy, you really need to learn how to file a report at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"Vexatious" close at AE

I'm a bit concerned by the close of an appeal at AE as "vexatious".[18] While I would have declined the appeal, an appeal to AE and/or AN is a part of the process we tell the sanctioned editor they may follow. I'm not comfortable with saying that filing an appeal by the process we tell them they should is "vexatious". It could, of course, be meritless and declined as such. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I, too, find that appeal vexatious. Appealing a sanction that was just applied, while explicitly not making any new arguments as to why the sanction should be lifted, is bludgeoning the process. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
It was in practice vexatious, Seraphimblade — vexing for admins, as asking for yet more of their time for no useful purpose — but perhaps it expressed more Peregrine F's unfamiliarity with the process. So perhaps I needn't have used that word — unnecessarily accusatory. Bishonen | tålk 22:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC).
It was indeed vexatious, by any definition of the word. The complaint at AE was that Peregrine Fisher was guilty of a pattern of disruptive editing; diffs were provided and a request was made for standard discretionary sanctions to be applied to the editor. A considerable number of involved commentators wanted to examine other editors' conduct and suggested other measures, but did not attempt to refute the initial complaint, nor justify why sanctions would be inappropriate. Five uninvolved administrators agreed that a topic ban would be an appropriate discretionary sanction, and a sixth agreed when closing the request and applying the sanction. An immediate appeal – based on nothing more than a request to read some of the statements in the request – is extremely discourteous to the admins who took part in the decision, presuming that they didn't read those statements. It also fails to grasp how AE works, and simply wastes everybody's time. You only have to look at Peregrine Fisher's talk page to see how they were egged on to appeal, with no understanding of the process. 'Shonen, of course, is too soft, and looks for excuses for the culprits as usual. --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I melt into a puddle at the sight of a poor little culprit. But even I am hard pressed to find excuses for the ignorant and foolish, or perhaps actually malicious, advice from the IPv6 on PF's talkpage. Unfortunately the IP seems to have access to a much bigger range than the usual /64, or I might try a block. It's pretty annoying when IP's flutter about so much that there's not even a user talkpage to post Darwinbish's non-soft anonymous coward template on. Bishonen | tålk 12:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC).
Bish, there was a decent amount of support for semi-protecting the Race and intelligence talk page here which would have a similar effect. –dlthewave ☎ 13:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Right, dlthewave. I guess the discussion needs to be closed first, and maybe, before that, to run for a month. BTW, at that discussion, I see Peregrine Fisher describes the IPv6 in question as "the only always reasonable person on this page". That is the reason PF gives for opposing the suggested semi. (Not sure if Guy is suggesting a semi or something else.) OK, that changes my mind about PF as an unfortunately misled "poor little culprit", RexxS; he clearly has only himself to blame for getting, and taking, advice from that IP. (So, this time I've pinged PF — it's not to ask you to come here, PF, but simply because I'm uncomfortable talking about you like that without letting you know.) Bishonen | tålk 14:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC).

DS violations at Julian Assange

Hi Bishonen, I just pinged you at Talk:Julian Assange because, I suppose watching that page, you just blocked [19] user Jtbobwaysf for violating the article's discretionary sanctions. As I noted in my ping [20], Calton has also violated those sanctions, and despite several appeals to revert has not done so and continues to edit elsewhere. Would you please ask Calton to revert as they have so far ignored requests to do so, but I believe would honor the page sanctions if asked by an admin. -Darouet (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I would note I also went to sleep after my edit and only saw the request to self revert when I woke up. By that time my edit had already been reverted. In your comment on the Assange talk page you stated I ignored a request to self revert, and I wanted to state for the record that was not the case. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
(On your own talkpage, I think you mean?) I'm sorry, Jtbobwaysf, I didn't notice it had already been reverted. Thanks for telling me politely. Bishonen | tålk 17:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC).
Hey, Darouet, sorry for the delay. I blocked Jtbobwaysf for violating 1RR. Note, I was mistaken about that, and have apologized to the user. But I've never AFAIK sanctioned or even warned anybody for violating the "consensus required" restriction, and I'm not about to start now. I dislike that restriction. It's quite counterproductive IMO. However... I just noticed Guerillero has blocked Calton for it after a report at WP:AE. That's his right, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. Bishonen | tålk 14:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, thanks for your note. My primary complaint was that Calton didn't self-revert or even reply after multiple requests and full knowledge of the sanctions, but I entirely understand your reticence regarding "consensus required." Often I find the specific application confusing and I've seen admins interpret enforcement in entirely opposite directions, even on the same page. All best, -Darouet (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The problem with the "consensus needed" sanction is that it allows a small bunch of POV-pushers to establish a "walled-garden" around articles they own. Any changes they don't like are simply reverted and can't be restored without a lengthy discussion at the talk page where they all pitch in and then claim "no consensus". It stinks, and to be honest, I'm coming round to the idea that reversion without a sufficiently good reason deserves an AE sanction as well to prevent gaming the system. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, if that many editors don’t want something added, then it would be removed with no consensus after a lengthy discussion anyhow. And many of the additions are by POV-pushers. The problem with articles that have ended up with consensus required is that there are editors who add what they just heard on the news two minutes ago. I don’t know the solution. But, at least this tamps down RECENTISM. O3000 (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Completely agree with RexxS. WP:DRNC may only be an essay, but it makes good points. Reverting purely on the basis of (an assumed) consensus is hugely disruptive to the consensus-forming process, and effectively allows a group of editors to keep an article how they like without even having to produce/justify their reasoning. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm also with RexxS. It stinks because it works in favor of pov-pushers and drive-by editors/IPs. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't stand in the way of depreciating such a page restriction. But, it is a restriction that is currently in use --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Ask for review of List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

meganinja202 (talk) - I think that you was precipitated in your decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming, your use in concensus was wrong, or at least misinstood since even the scientific consensus on climate change isnt 100%, but instead around 98%, is there any way to revert the results or at least get into a consensus (no pun-intended) into a better alternative for a listing of promininent dissident voices?

if the page cant be recreated, at least i wonder if a new alternative can be created as subistitute, considering that would be vital for for the neutral image and status of wikipedia

Hi, meganinja202, thanks for coming to my page. (Please sign your post at the end, not the head.) You can ask for a deletion review at the board WP:DRV. (I can't find that there has already been such a review, but it's possible; the search function for the board is terrible. But you can still start a review.) But I don't think you will get my close reversed there, as you seem to misunderstand my brief discussion of consensus. I didn't close based on consensus among scientists, but on consensus among wikipedians who took part in the discussion. This is what a closer is supposed to do on Wikipedia. Also, "consensus" on Wikipedia doesn't mean everybody agrees 100% — if it did, nothing would ever be decided here — please see our page WP:CONSENSUS, which explains wikipedian consensus for decision-making.
As for "a better alternative for a listing of promininent dissident voices", I'm not sure. In such an article, you'd first have to show that those voices are prominent — that their views on climate change are what Wikipedia calls notable. Please check the page Wikipedia:Notability. I know it's long and complex, but it enshrines the most important principles for article creation. Bishonen | tålk 06:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC).

Sotuman notification of topic ban appeal

Hello, Bishonen. I am appealing the topic ban you put in place over a year ago. There is also a section in the template that allows you to make a statement. Please see the full request at WP:ARB/R.Sotuman (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Sotuman. Your appeal is supposed to go at the bottom of the WP:AE page; I've moved it. Also, please note that the outcome of the appeal will be determined by uninvolved admins. It sounds from the way you write as if you think you're appealing to the Arbitration Committee. If you actually do want to appeal to the committee, you should do it on the page WP:ARCA. I don't recommend that, though; it takes forever, for one thing. WP:AE, where you have appealed, is fine, but you may want to change your reference to the committee ("It is my wish that the committee take as much time as required", etc) to something else. And you'd better follow the discussion there yourself, rather than wait to be advised of news, in case people write things you want to reply to. You appeal is quite concise, so questions may come up. Bishonen | tålk 08:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC).
Hello again, Bishonen, thanks for your advice. I had tried emailing the arbcom a few months ago and simply copied that email to the location that I was directed to in a reply. However it is quite possible that I missed something. Anyway, my appeal was declined. As Tgeorgescu aptly put, I "...was wrong according to the norms and values of our community." This seems to be the story of my life. Maybe in 3 to 6 months you will be notified of another appeal. Until then, all the best. Sotuman (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Just noting

Just noting that I have no objection to you blocking the name, as we all have different views on what is 'egregious'. It just seemed to me like someone seeing what they could get away with in picking a username to me. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, dot, nice of you to come here. Bishonen | tålk 09:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC).

In the "news"

In case you find these things interesting. Orwell was mentioned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Category needs a whack

Hi Bish. Can you put this category out of its misery? I've tried leaving friendly notes on the creator's talk page about using WP for social networking and publicity. Not sure they'll take it in, though. I'll keep an eye his edits in case he needs a sterner word from an august admin . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm just an april admin, but I've applied the coup de grâce. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, RexxS! Could you (or Bish, or both) possibly put User talk:Kanishk1901 and his user page on watch? My previous two messages to him have fallen on deaf ears. I've now left a third. He's currently using his talk page to inform the world about the Corona virus. Sigh. Voceditenore (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Sure, Voceditenore, but user space is less of an issue, as none of it is indexed by Google or other big search engines (see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, RexxS. In the great scheme of Wikipedia shenanigans, this one is relatively minor, but he has already managed to suck up a considerable amount of admins' time—one (you) to delete his "category", two more to delete his user page (recreated after the first delete) [21]. Hopefully, he's got the message now, but I'm not holding my breath. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Bond of Nepal Development

Hey, thanks for blocking Bond of Nepal Development (talk · contribs). The user has now decided to use their talk page as a way of advertising the organisation. Could you please remove TPA? --MrClog (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, MrClog. Bishonen | tålk 13:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC).

Reply WP:BLUDGEON

Please stop going round in circles at Talk:September 11 attacks. Wikipedia is not an opinion outlet; Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy. Please consult it. I quote: "On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research." See further down on the policy page for what counts as a reliable source. You are bludgeoning the discussion by insisting that the article should depart from Wikipedia policy, despite having it repeatedly explained to you both at article talk and here on your own talk.[22] Everybody has to follow our reliable sources policies — if it's your opinion that "I never think Western media is reliable enough on various topics", you need to check that opinion at the door. If you insist on promulgating it and thereby flouting our policies, Wikipedia may not be for you. Please desist or you are likely to be blocked from Talk:September 11 attacks or topic banned from the topic September 11 attacks. Bishonen | tålk 17:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

You argue that I don't follow the policy, but how about WP:TERRORIST policy and WP:NPOV, are you forgetting those ones? normal people would consider "Islamic terrorist" is more original research through editorial bias rather than factual "suicide hijackers" found on the incident. — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't make any sense to answer in two places, nor to copy my own post back to me. I have replied on your page. I suggest we keep it there. Bishonen | tålk 18:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

Complaint

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Julian Assange. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 22:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)"

Dear Bishonen,

Vandalism? Really? For changing a subjective and emotive heading to one which is neutral? How do you justify your claim?

218.214.148.54 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

<tps>Stop promoting conspiracy theories. The article had to be protected because of your edits. Acroterion (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear 218.214.148.54: I should have said "disruptive editing and edit warring" rather than "vandalism", I'm sorry. You changed the header "Seth Rich conspiracy theory", which is strongly supported by the sources, to "Seth Rich alleged connection", which is not — that's tendentious and disruptive editing — and then you edit warred to keep your version. The article was indeed protected because of your disruptive editing, and if El C hadn't done that, I would have blocked you next time you put your favored version in. Bishonen | tålk 12:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC).

Something to look at

I believe you had already warned and blocked this user for more or less the same thing (forumshopping etc). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, my, they don't seem to be aware at all that forumshopping is a bad thing, but proclaim quite proudly that "I have started half a dozen discussions asking him for explanations" (him = ජපස). I've posted a strong warning. Thanks for the heads up, ThatMontrealIP. Bishonen | tålk 20:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC).

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

IP vandal from Sex differences in humans

This IP is clearly the same person: [23] They were using it to edit war over the same thing yesterday.

Thanks. Crossroads -talk- 22:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. For my talkpage stalkers, this is in re this RFPP. Crossroads, you may want to also look at this IP, same /23 range, same vandalism, which is blocked until December 2022. @Widr: blocked it for 3 years, which makes plenty of sense considering their block log.[24] Widr, do you see anything wrong with me blocking the range 142.161.26.0/23 for a couple of years or so? It's contributions are pretty much all vandalism afaics,[25] going back many years. (A school?) Also pinging @Johnuniq and RexxS: for rangeblock wisdom. Bishonen | tålk 00:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC).
Recent ones are unlikely to be a school IPs as Manitoba schools are currently closed (as are all other North American schools).. Meters (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Blocking 142.161.26.0/23 for a couple of years looks desirable. I sampled the 30 edits back to 2018 and they were all bad. The 2018 edits looked like more junk from the same person. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Looks to me also like the IPs are the same person and a long term troll/vandal. I say lock them out for a good long while. And while it may not be a school, they sure are juvenile. Crossroads -talk- 03:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Go for it, Bishonen. Widr (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to see an end to that long-lasting trolling. Meters (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The Podstar
For bravery in wielding the range block button. --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ha, the podstar got an airing! Thank you very much, RexxS! [A shoal of poddies bravely join in.] Bishonen | tålk 17:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC).

Pay attention to their artistry rather than their synchronicity. ---Sluzzelin talk

Hi Bishonen, this person has some back again: [26] Same 'woman can't be taller than man' nonsense. Crossroads -talk- 22:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, Crossroads. Sro23 has blocked 206.45.48.58 for six months. Bishonen | tålk 22:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC).

Back again: [27] I did RPP too but who knows how long that it'll be for, and they've been to other pages in the past, so a block would be good. I went to you instead of AIV since you are familiar with this obsessed editor and I'd imagine will give a longer block than someone unfamiliar. Crossroads -talk- 18:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

IP blocked for a month, Crossroads, and I see Malcolmxl5 has semi'd the article for six months. I'm not really comfortable blocking an IP for much longer — but please let me know if they return, and I'll overcome my inhibitions (RAWRR). Bishonen | tålk 20:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC).

I would like to report a Nazi committing ban evasion

So, someone who claims to be user Hciam has stated in a thread on another wiki that they are user Kuiet evading a ban. I can provide a link to the thread but due to site policy the wiki they posted on I cannot provided checkuser logs. I'm coming to you since you were the user that banned the original account and I'm still somewhat New to Wikipedia's internal bureaucracy, and thus am not sure where else to post. Comrade GC (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen, you might find the discussions at User talk:Hciam § Previous accounts and User talk:Newslinger § Not sure who to ask about this or where to post it... to be useful for context. — Newslinger talk 00:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:OUTING was much stricter than I had thought. Never mind, and thank you TonyBallioni for the quick correction. — Newslinger talk 00:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I had to revert the link there since our interpretation of our policy on linking accounts is quite strict (not Newslinger's fault since in some ways it is counterintuitive, though there are reasons we read it the way we do.) Anyway, don't post links or threads from other sites here. I'm a CheckUser and oversighter on this project, so I'll look at the accounts to see if there's any correlation that can justify a check, and you're also free to email me Comrade GC. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: I understand and will respect the rules. Apologies if I mistepped. Comrade GC (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Newslinger and Comrade GC: No worries. So I thought it was Roostnerve (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who is a sock of User2083146168, but they're in the wrong country and I trust the ISPs involved here to not be spoofed. I haven't directly checked Kuiet, but he didn't turn up in the checks I did run. Of course, if the editor is behaving disruptive, people should feel free to block regardless of the question of socking.
Also, hi Bish. Happy Easter :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Comrade GC and thanks very much Tony for checking it. I hope you're having as good an Easter as is possible in these dire times. Bishonen | tålk 09:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC).

Edit war in Koli people page

Hi Bishonen,

Heavy edit-warring in Koli people page. You may want to take a look. Thanks Nittawinoda (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Nittawinoda. Abecedare has taken care of it. Bishonen | tålk 19:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC).

Request for protecting the article on Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha

Hello Bishonen, would request you to protect the article on Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha. Now that I have incorporated some reliably sourced info, which goes against the POV of the ones trying to promote caste based on dubious sources, vandalism has started, and will only increase. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Ekdalian, always nice to see you. I have topic banned Leo de facto from caste pages. Looking at his edits, I'm far from sure he'll understand what I say, but that can't be helped. If more socks and vandals arrive, I'll consider semiprotection, but at the moment I'll hold off. Bishonen | tålk 15:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC).
Thank you, Bishonen. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Query on Colonial era sources

Hi Bishonen,

The article Kingdom_of_Jeypore is mainly riding on two Raj-era sources. Is this acceptable? Aren't Raj-era sources forbidden? Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, certainly whole articles should never be based on them. I've prodded the article. Good catch, Nittawinoda. Bishonen | tålk 18:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC).
Thanks for reviewing it. Nittawinoda (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, can you please tell us why you want to delete our page kingdom of Jeypore. It’s based on reliable sources please check the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeyporeRajMahal (talk • contribs) 22:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @JeyporeRajMahal: Because it's not based on reliable sources. Did you read any of the rationale in the prod that you removed? I've used the same rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Jeypore. You might want to comment there. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, @JeyporeRajMahal: I gave the answer to your question in the prod template that you removed. Didn't you read it? Sources from the Raj era are not reliable. Now can you please in return tell me why you speak of "us" and "our page"? Are you speaking for more than one person? Is User:JeyporeRajMahal an account used by a group? If so, what kind of group? Bishonen | tålk 00:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC).
Hello, This nittawinoda talks about my article riding two Raj sources and that is only because he is meddling the facts of Solar Dynasty page and I edited it out. He is clearly misinterpreting the facts and creating his own theories. For example, the book says "Iksvakus are not Dravidians

The Iksvakus was the great pre-Aryan Bharatiya race, Pargiter has tried to establish that the Iksyakus should be equated with Dravidians. 32 The Puragas do not know any Dravida tribe, It appears that the Dravidians had not gained any importance by, the Puranic. age circa 30Q. A. D."

and also

But he has not adduced any evidence to prove that the Dravidians existed in Bharata before the Aryan invasions. He has also failed to unearth any Dravidian tradition to prove that the Manavas or Iksvakus were Dravidians."

while his work says - The dynasty takes its name after king Ikshvaku who was the son of Satyavrata also called Shraddhadeva Manu, the king of Dravida kingdom.[6] As per the Vedas, Ikshvaku was the protector of the five territories of Panchajanah who were non-sacrificing pre-Aryan and non-Aryan people. The Atharvaveda and Brahmanas associate the Ikshvakus with the non-Aryan peoples, that is they are different from the Vedic Aryans who composed hymns like Rig Veda.[7][8] F. E. Pargiter has equated the Ikshvakus with the Dravidian peoples.

  • PARGITER HAS TRIED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE IKSHVAKUS SHOULD BE EQUATED WITH DRAVIDIAN PEOPLE.
  • Does not matter how much a dravidian edits pages of solar or lunar dynasty. The fact will always be the same, they were indo-aryan families, Dravida are not aryans they do not even have kshatriyas.

Please look into this, If I can be challenged for only writing an article then why not this nittawinoda some deluded dravid trying to meddle history. JeyporeRajMahal (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Bishonen, JeyporeRajMahal is making personal attacks on my talk page [28]. He has been removing referenced content and posting his own research and opinion on [29]. Nittawinoda (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me! Nittawinoda , You are the one who is posting your personal opinion by misinterpreting the source. I have only corrected it and also provided a relevant source. You are acting like a cyber bully, removing the facts and replacing them with your own biased opinions. Check : The Hindu History by A K Mazumdar (Redacted).JeyporeRajMahal (talk)

@JeyporeRajMahal: That sort of incivility aided at another editor is completely unacceptable. You have made another personal attack on their talk page. I've left a final warning on your talk page. Please take it seriously as the next time you insult another editor in that way, I will remove your editing privileges. I hope that is clear. --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
JeyporeRajMahal, as I've just explained on your page, you're lucky that RexxS saw your attacks before I did, or you'd be blocked by now. Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC).
Bishonen and RexxS Mr. Rex first of all do not teach me civility, you are not my guardian. Secondly, you are teaming up with another dude who is clearly posting his own opinions. Look at the message that I sent you, He is clearly misinterpreting and when I caught him and raised the issue here you completely ignored it. I will definitely edit out any wrong information that I see on wikipedia and especially those wrong information that is deliberately channeled into wikipedia by bigots. Nittawinoda on other hand is trying to force this theory onto every reader and scholar that 'Manu was a dravida king, Ikshavaku was a dravid king'. It is a racist attempt to meddle the history of its true facts which bolsters Dravidian ideology followed by a racist group of people.JeyporeRajMahal (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@JeyporeRajMahal: You need to learn civility, and I don't need to be your guardian to apply that lesson. I am teaming up with no-one, as I am acting as an uninvolved administrator when taking steps to curb your behaviour. Accusing another editor of racism is a step too far. --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I am requesting my main account to be blocked for 3 months

I am this user (ToxiBoi) requesting to be blocked for somewhere around 3 months. Ontop of that, I'm taking a break from editing on that account and as of now only on-and-off editing on this public account. For confirmation of affilation, you can see this account's userpage history. If that is not sufficient, I might be able to email you the CI. For the reason why I am requesting to be blocked, you can see my main account's userpage, or, in short: someone has somehow managed to wrecked the only computer that has access to the main account, so that account is inactive until further notice.

To make sure this user doesn't do something like recover the password off of my Google settings, I am also requesting a block to my main account, not my public account.

Thanks for your help. [This edit was made on a Xbox. My apologies if I mess something up.] –ToxiBoi! (public) 09:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, ToxiBoi~pub. In principle, yes, I will, but I don't know you, so I will apply my usual 24-hour waiting period before I block. During that time, you need to tell me that you have read my information page about self-requested blocks, User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks, and that you accept the conditions outlined there. I'm frankly a little worried, also, about blocking just one of your accounts, while you continue to use the other — something I've never done before. It would presumably have to be a soft block. Dear talkpage stalkers, do any of you see a problem with it? Bishonen | tålk 11:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC).
This is, supposedly, the second time their account has been compromised, and they're clearly most interested in gussyfying their user etc pages than actually editing. ——SN54129 11:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) There are certainly precedents for someone losing access to their main account for whatever reason, and that account being blocked until they recover it, while the editor continues to edit using a secondary account. (Giano/Giano II would be an example with which I assume you're familiar.) I do agree with what SN54129 is implying but is too polite to say outright above, that this looks like a textbook example of someone who's on Wikipedia to goof around rather than to contribute, and that if we go out of our way to accommodate an unusual request it should come with the expectation that you settle down and actually do something useful. (I have to say, I don't really understand why you want the block to have an expiry date. Given that you only have a total of 96 contributions, almost all of which are extremely trivial, why not just start afresh with this new account?) ‑ Iridescent 12:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Considering the messages above, I don't think I want to do this, ToxiBoi~pub. I'm sorry, and I wish you well in your future editing. Please note Iridescent's advice. Bishonen | tålk 13:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC).
That's quite alright, thanks for your advice. However, given the recent circumstances, it will be hard to do more content-creation edits since I'm still restricted to Xbox edits only (and edit conflicts are weird on here). Again, thanks for the advice, and I wholly understand your decision to not block the account. [This edit was made on a Xbox. My apologies if I mess something up.] –ToxiBoi! (public) 23:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for temporarily protecting the article on Sen (surname)‎ and action against Cleanup 9060301

Hi Bishonen, sorry to bother you once again. The article on Sen (surname)‎ has become a subject of vandalism. Cleanup 9060301 seems to be a sock of User:Dr.SunBD, and has resorted to personal attacks using abusive language (Hindi) on my talk page, in spite of informing him on his talk page. Would request you to take necessary action in order to stop this menace. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ekdalian. I've indeffed the sock and blocked the sockmaster for a week. Bishonen | tålk 09:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC).
Thank you, once again. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Komodobish gets around

I got a notification that Module:Carousel/Komodobish now has its own Wikidata item: Module:Carousel/Komodobish (Q92193785). That was amusing, but even better was when I spotted that the module also exists on the Bangla Wikipedia bn:মডিউল:Carousel. Just when we're all stuck at home, Komodobish is circling the globe -- T-RexxS (rawr) 15:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Circling with social distance, I hope, dino! I see I'm (or you are? or Komodobish?) invited to "add reference", "add value", and "add statement" at Wikidata. Hmm. I'd better not try, I'd be bound to break it. But you, perhaps? I don't think anybody can "add value", since it's so excellent just as it is, but how about for example a statement? Bishonen | tålk 17:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC).
I did. I added the instance of (P31) Wikimedia module (Q15184295) statement. It was looking a bit empty before that, but I can't think of anything else to say now. Maybe you have some ideas? You can't break it. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cold-weather warfare

Hi Bishonen, perhaps you could add some perspective to the discussion at Talk:Cold-weather warfare#Not global? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: thanks for remembering me! But I'm altogether ignorant of warfare topics, so I fear not. Of the languages mentioned, the only ones I understand are Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, with maybe a smidgeon of French. Worse, I have no skills in searching for the kinds of sources in question. Sorry. Perhaps some of my fine talkpage stalkers would like to join the discussion? Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) Random questions about warfare? Count me in! creffett (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"Or, alternatively, go fuck yourself"

Rarely have I seen the phrase used more aptly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Boing!, that's very kind. I got three five sixNote1 - edited by Ched "thank yous" for that comment, which I value very much — you guys know who you are — plus a snide complaint from PackMecEng,[30] which I frankly also value highly. Without it, there would have been something missing for me. Bishonen | tålk 10:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC).
El_C 11:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
First thank-you in May, Bish, because a click seems not enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
remotely in the context: a new IP (as of today) is going around and adds sentences about someone having died during this crisis to article leads. He did that to two articles which I watch, and where I reverted, and for one, Dmitri Smirnov (composer), they not only reverted me, but came to the article talk and to my talk with accusations. Please comment on the article talk, or their user talk where I wrote a welcome message, - on my talk I'm done. I may be wrong, believing that the lead should rather cover a person's life than death. I feel guilty of not having written (yet) more about his life. Not that it matters, but for context: the composer was also a contributor, and wrote the article, and took the photo, of his colleague Alexander Vustin who died only days later. As if all this wasn't sad enough ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Gerda, I left the IP a note (on your talk page) about observing WP:ONUS. El_C 13:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Plagiarism everywhere nowadays. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Not to dampen the mood, but deepest condolences, Roxy. El_C 11:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, it is because I care. PackMecEng (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes the people who get told to fuck off bury relatives and are grieving too, as they likewise are real people who have feelings. It's as if there was a policy written to treat other editors with respect for this very reason. --Pudeo (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, and sometimes people cherrypick (from the suspects Talk page for goodness sake) in order to stir the muck. I'll not use a bad word on Bish's page, but your post was kind of indicative of the sneaky unpleasant low lifes that exist around here. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Note1 - edited by Ched Hi there Bish. I hope you don't send Zilla after me for editing your talk page. It's just a minor edit to account for a number update. Hope you're well - Please stay safe. — Ched (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, — Ched! It's actually eight at this moment — I thought it was time I stopped boasting. (Really? Why?) But indeed I have never been so amply thanked for an edit, not anywhere close. Good night all! Bishonen | tålk 22:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC).
Want high numbers? look at the views for Roy Horn - couldn't believe it, yes I knew he was famous, but still ... - my best contrib was to not have the lion's paws cropped off. Better than recent deaths: long-ago birthdays, - I even dared to go for FAC, with the music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Go Gerda! Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC).
going nicely, thank you! - today a composer pictured who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Mrspaceowl

This user is at it again, unfortunately. Popcornfud (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) They have a block from me now, for 3 months. I only held off indefinite because it's such a nice day here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, no, having looked again I realize now that I was being misled from my grumpy character by a bit of sunshine. The block needs to be indefinite, so I have made it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hope you get to enjoy the sunshine, Boing! said Zebedee. El_C 14:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Strange case. Thank you both. [Pats Boing's grumpy character cautiously on the head.] Nice grump! Keep out of the sunshine! Bishonen | tålk 14:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC).

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mototaka Nakamura

I would like to ask you to consider relisting this afd. The notability criterion which ismet is WP:PROF, and it was not adequately considered. Mst of thecoments were based on either GNG, or other rrelevant factors, and it is an error to consider the wrong criterion--since }WP:PROF is independent of theGNG. I could of course go directly to Del Rev for this same reason, or , undelete and userify it myself, and then rewrite itandmove it back to main space, but I'd rather ask you first. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here, DGG. I've re-read the discussion, and I'd rather not relist it, especially considering the creator's bludgeoning and accusations of bad faith. Several people addressed the question of the number of citations, and I don't feel I'm familiar enough with the field to dismiss their arguments. I'm not sure in what sense Nakamura would meet WP:PROF. I'd take it to Deletion review if I were you, and go into more detail than what you have done here on my page. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC).
It's a pretty poorly sourced article and of course there's nothing to stop you from creating a new one, very different one. That would be simpler and hopefully end up with a better article. I doubt that I'd support a relist given how thin the evidence is. Doug Weller talk 10:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Doug , that is indeed immensely easier than Del Rev. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Check my reply on "No personal attacks"

You're one to talk. I see on your user page you have been blocked 3 times.

--Akb20 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Akb20

Yep. I put the link to my block log there (you didn't follow it, I bet) because I want it there, I'm pleased with my block log. I've already replied on your page. There's no need to come here to request my attention; I recommend you to use the ping function, it's simpler. Bishonen | tålk 21:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC).
So you can imagine how pleased I am with my block log. EEng 01:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@EEng: yours is a feast for the eyes, but it's a flaw that you don't have Jimbo Wales in it. You need to work towards that. It's harder now, but still. Bishonen | tålk 09:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC).
You are too modest, Bish – you caused a Lex Jimbo! Now there is something few of us may aspire to. --bonadea contributions talk 09:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
...or is that a Lex Bishonen? They usually name them after the person who suffered the consequences, I guess. Even so. --bonadea contributions talk 09:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I just fear that it'll be like scaling Everest. There will be no new worlds to conquer. Life will lose its meaning. EEng 14:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I've issued an IPA sanctions alert and I hope that Akb20 will now drop the stick. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I can understand it's frustrating to be new and unaware of policies and of where they might go to "take this further", and how to navigate the place altogether. I thought of recommending WP:ANI for complaints, but that might qualify as entrapment. Good night, RexxS. Bishonen | tålk 22:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC).

Check my latest reply on "No personal attacks"

--Akb20 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Akb20

? I've advised you to use WP:ping instead of posting here and you're not interested. Fine. Please stop posting here in any case; this is the last reply you get on this page. Talking on two pages is just inconvenient. Bishonen | tålk 21:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC).

Strike !votes?

Regarding this AE outcome – does this mean that !votes by the blocked one in this active polling situation (and subsequent sections on that page) can/should/need to be struck? And if so, is that something you'd process, or rather delegate to someone else? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If the account was a sock, as this SPI indicates, then I'd say their !votes should indeed be struck. I'll make it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Francis Schonken and Boing!. Yes, it's better not coming from me, since I blocked them. Bishonen | tålk 19:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC).

RfC closure

If you or any talk page stalkers would like a nice easy job with plenty of prestige, there's an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility #RfC on table captions that needs closing. Any takers? --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

For the Swedes

Whisky i en bar, best I've heard today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hehe, that's great. Mr Fröding, concerning "Tegnellen", did you happen to catch him with Trevor Noah on the Daily Social Distancing Show? Handled it with distinction, I'd say. Bishonen | tålk 09:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC).
That was pretty good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I enjoyed that – thanks, Gråberg! (And hey, the pub is Katalin And All That Jazz [sv]! I remember when you could go there. And have whisky, in the bar.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, Aasim 06:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

And to your pet monster as well. :) Aasim 06:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you for all of your contributions to the project, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Wishing you a very Happy Adminship Anniversary! Thank you for all the great work you have been doing here for years. Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
However, you have 148,097 edits to my 63,443, JBW, so you're really already caught up and then some. Bishonen | tålk 21:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC).

The Guardian at WP:JIMBOTALK

Hi Bishonen,
Freezing cold winter Sunday morning in 2018 - it must have been only 14°C (!) - banh mi for breakfast - <Dr Evil from the Austin Powers movies voice> "42.8 million dollars!"
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies and pinging etc.

Sorry if it seemed I was egging on the user from the last dust-up on ANI... really was not my intention, but you know what they say about the road to hell.

Just posting a quick note here because I had asked that user not to ping me any longer due to my annoyance with lots of ping-notifications[32]. But I am happy to rescind that request considering the circumstances. Don't know if that's worth communicating or not, but just wanted it to be clear.

Clear skies!

jps (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've just read that user talk page, and in your position I think I'd just walk away from it now. There are some talks worth talking, and some not, and I'd rate this a not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Roger that. jps (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi, jps. Gtoffoletto has now posted again to ask if it's all right with me if you want to "defend yourself" against their "accusations" on their page. I don't think I'll reply, because I feel myself getting quite impatient and I might.. show it. But the whole notion of "defending" oneself against name-calling, assumptions of bad faith, and character-assassination is just absurd. I mean they're not actual "accusations", just attacks. I hope and believe you don't want to engage with them. The road to hell is paved with frozen door-to-door salesmen, I thought? User:Gtoffoletto, I'm pinging you to avoid "talking behind your back", but I rather hope you don't have anything to add here. Please don't let any of us drag this out further. Bishonen | tålk 12:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC).
Thanks for the ping which I always greatly appreciate and ciao! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I have no particular desire to engage. I guess I might have a soft spot because I definitely know what it's like to feel like no one is willing to help. Still, on reflection, I realize that every time I have tried to do this in the past it hasn't worked. What did Albert Einstein not say the definition of insanity is? Okay, enough. jps (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Bad 'Shonen
On the other hand, George Darwin is supposed to have said that every once in a while, you should do a completely crazy experiment. "Probably nothing will happen, but if it did, that would be a stupendous discovery." If you stay optimistic about people, you'll be disappointed most of the time, but it's really great on the odd occasion it works out. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Interesting quote. I wonder what would have been the positive result here to the experiment... I guess: me stating that the user that has been edit warring against me for months while constantly refusing to engage in discussion is a wonderful human being for suddenly wanting to discuss once he has managed to get me topic banned. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Of course you did have something to add after all. Bishonen | tålk 11:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC).

Hey Bishonen, recycling this thread to ask if you have any idea of when you will manage to reply to our discussion on my talk page. It's been a couple of weeks since my reply. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 09:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

When I will manage to reply, Gtoffoletto? To this? Never. Bishonen | tålk 10:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC).
Hey Bishonen, as you have recognised yourself ([33]) the reason behind your topic ban wasn't very clear and has changed significantly. You also asked that I provide some clarifications after you topic banned me. I did and I also asked some questions to you in order to help me understand why I was indefinitely topic banned and how I can improve. Why did you ask me those questions if you didn't want them answered? I believe I am entitled to such a reply per WP:ADMINACCT. Am I mistaken? Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 17:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gtoffoletto: (talk page stalker) I think Bish gave you ample explanation in May. You are not entitled to continual discussion because her explanations do not please you. If you would like to appeal your topic ban to the community post something to AE. Continuing to harass Bish will result in your ejection from the project --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gtoffoletto: Seconding User:Guerillero. Please drop this stick. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you are mistaken IMO. I laid out the reason for your topic ban in great detail here. If you wish to lodge a complaint against me per WP:ADMINACCT, as distinct from appealing your topic ban per Guerillero, I recommend WP:ANI (to the community) or WP:RFAR (to the arbitration committee). Bishonen | tålk 18:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC).
Sorry Bishonen but you posted that detailed reasoning on the 17th May 2020. You then radically changed the reason behind my topic ban the 24th May 2020. So I think it is reasonable for me to ask some questions regarding your new reasoning. Please keep in mind that I do not enjoy this process just as much (if not more) than you. You imposed an indefinite ban and I think I deserve clarity per WP:ADMINACCT. Do you still disagree? Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Changing the ban reason from "pro-fringe POV-pushing" to "disruptive editing" is not a "radical change". The detailed explanation given to you in this post is as much a description of your disruptive editing as it is a description of your pro-fringe POV-pushing. You've asked your question and had it answered. You can consider the answer unsatisfactory and consider redress elsewhere; but you cannot persistently re-ask the same question now that you have received an answer. Please take note of the advice given to you above by Guerillero, because if you continue to post here, I'll consider it sufficiently repetitive to constitute WP:HARASSMENT, and I'll take action to bring it to a halt. --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: too late. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It's official then. I'm going as soft as Soft Soap 'Shonen. --RexxS (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there something I should know about...

...this editor? My inclination, as with all American politics articles, is to point my nose in the opposite direction of any drama. But something seems off here. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, my little Ponyo. Well, merely that the user states here that they have an account: "I do have an editor page but choose not to use it when I am editing on political pages because I do not want it banned because of a dispute of an editor with a power trip." Bishonen | tålk 19:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC).
That sounds more like "avoiding scrutiny" than WP:VALIDALT.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, definitely. That's why I posted one of Darwinbish's finest templates on them. (Hello, Serial, thanks for your encouragement of Mama Bear.) Bishonen | tålk 20:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC).
That is a spectacular template! Meters (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Yer, except that 'Shonen posted it at User talk:173.172.158.168 which stopped editing on 11 May, not on User talk:67.10.206.161 which began editing on 12 May and continues with exactly the same tendentious edits as previously. --RexxS (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
SOFIXIT if you like, RexxS. Everybody's welcome to use Darwinbish's templates, she says so. Bishonen | tålk 11:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC).
I fixed it, I blocked the IP. Pretty obvious even without CU. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

AN/I discussion archived

I think we're done here. Bishonen | tålk 15:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey Bishonen, the discussion over at AN/I was archived without a complete discussion/investigation regarding all the editors involved [34]. Is it normal procedure? What does it mean when a discussion is closed like that? Sorry to bother you (I know you are fed up with this) but I wouldn't want to be accused of forumshopping or some other crazy infraction. Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 19:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's incredibly normal that an ANI discussion is archived when nobody has posted to it for eight days. If anything it's abnormal that the bot didn't do it sooner — I've been wondering if it was malfunctioning. Talkpage stalkers, how soon is Lowercase sigmabot supposed to archive ANI threads when nobody's posting to them? After three-four days, I'm thinking? Bishonen | tålk 19:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC).
Near the bottom of the sprawling mass of text at the top of the ANI page it says "Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III." No idea if that is accurate or not, but that's what it says. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks like people added little joke comments buried in the middle of the section on 13, 14, and 16 May, so it makes sense that it wasn't archived until now, even though useful comments ended around 12 May. The bot is not (yet) able to separate wheat from chaff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
No prize for guessing who. EEng 17:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well, good job it's finally been put out of its misery. Bishonen | tålk 20:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC).
Shoudn't the report be addressed though? Why wasn't it? (p.s. if possible ping when you reply or I won't see it unless I check. Thanks) -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Probably because any outstanding elements of the "report" were a big nothingburger and nobody was interested, hence the thread grew stale. Very usual for ANI. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
What Alex said. You got dealt with, the rest was just irrelavent cruft. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Roxy, as always, for your kind words. Not surprisingly, you define "cruft" an incident report regarding your edit warring (which was not posted by me) that was not investigated by anyone. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand the basis of Wikipedia, Gtoffoletto: it's the volunteers. There aren't any functionaries that have a responsibility for making sure that everything that gets reported to ANI (or the other noticeboards) gets "a complete discussion/investigation" in all its aspects. On the contrary, us volunteers, including the admins, will comment on the reports or parts of them that we're interested in, and will investigate the reports or parts we think deserve investigation. From your questions, I get the impression that you see the noticeboards more like places where people can report perceived problems to something like a government agency, staffed by, say, civil servants, whose (salaried) job it is to investigate all complaints. That's not what our boards are. As Alexbrn says, if there are aspects of an AN or ANI report that nobody thinks worth commenting on, then nothing will happen with those aspects, and this outcome is extremely common. Bishonen | tålk 16:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC).
If I din't get that I'd be handing in my invoice for the last 10 years :-) I understand that very well and that is why I worry Wikipedia's handling of problematic users is so FUBAR. This case is emblematic of this. The fact Wiki is volunteer based is exactly why I don't think discussions should be archived so fast on AN/I. Especially if noone has properly investigated the report. It may lead to abuses of power ad conflicts of interest. I am still waiting for your explanation of your exact reasoning to understand your handling of this case fully. When do you think you'll have the time to do that? Thanks.-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
No, Bish... keep calm, deep breath, and relax... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gtoffoletto: If you're "waiting for ['Shonen's] explanation of your exact reasoning to understand [her] handling of this case fully", you'll be waiting until hell freezes over. That's because there was no case and no admin handled it, nor would any be obliged to even if there were. Your preoccupation with ufology is a net negative to this encyclopedia, and you need to step away from it and let it go. If you can't, I'm quite certain an uninvolved admin will come along and block you until you can. --RexxS (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: thanks for your interest. But I'm afraid you are not up to speed with this "exciting" saga :-) During that case (in which apparently I was the only one worth looking at despite me not being the main subject of the report, nor the one that opened it, nor there being any proper investigation) Bishonen HAS topic banned me indefinitely from UFO related topics. "is a net negative to this encyclopedia" is what I would like to understand. Many keep repeating this but no evidence has been provided to me or examples of what this grave menace is (such that an indefinite ban would be the only solution). What did I do wrong exactly and where (DIFFS not hearsay please)? I would expect this especially from her per WP:ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries. Not sure what promptly means usually but I've been waiting a couple of weeks. Thanks again. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 08:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Bishonen has been more patient than necessary already and has posted a long post on your talk page at your request the other day. I will try to explain why I stopped reading your talk page (this page is on my watchlist since a long time though). The topic ban implies that the topic itself should no longer be discussed, meaning that other than encouraging you to read yourself the edit summaries and comments in relation to past reverts, etc, it would be inappropriate for other editors to lure you into a permanent block for failing to respect the topic ban. A clue is also that you're still at it, rather than moving on, which topic bans are for... —PaleoNeonate – 10:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: I appreciate the time she took with that long post. However, as I have replied on my talk page, none of it is related to UFOlogy in particular and to my TOPIC ban. Many general suggestions and questions in there I will be happy to answer once this is resolved. I would have no problem with you or anyone else giving Bishonen DIFFs with examples related to the "persistent POV pushing" she has banned me for. You keep "teasing" :) so if you have it bring it forth. I would expect Bishonen to have seen it already since she imposed this sanction. I am asking for the evidence for my sanction not to start a discussion on UFOlogy and WP:ADMINACCT grants me that basic right (that one at least...). I am well aware I am topic banned and I have stopped editing Wikipedia in general (might have an exception for major breakthroughs from Italy regarding COVID-19 I think are important to share such as one that happened today and which might otherwise be missed.). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gtoffoletto: I outlined in detail and with diffs what you did wrong here a week ago. I tried to show that you had attempted to push other people out of discussions, poisoning the well against them, talking down to them, and bludgeoning Talk:Ufology. You had made complaints about "aspersions" which I don't understand, and which you have so far not answered my questions about. Altogether, you made Talk:Ufology difficult for others to use. At ANI, just before the topic ban, you made attacks on opponents ("this reaction by Roxy is a disgrace") which I did not then and do not now understand, and which you have not answered my questions about. You accused jps, Roxy and Lucky Louie of "constant threats of topic bans and admin reporting". I've asked you for an example or two of these threats, to which you have not responded. You accused opponents of defacing Ufology and degrading the encyclopedia, you linked to off-wikipedia attacks and irrelevant ANI threads — pure opposition research. But I understand that you feel these examples of disruptive editing are a poor fit for the brief reason I gave for the topic ban ("You have been sanctioned for persistent pro-fringe POV-pushing"). Perhaps I was hasty in formulating it. I have therefore changed it to "You have been sanctioned for persistent disruptive editing in the subject area." Bishonen | tålk 11:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC).
Thank you Bishonen for changing the topic ban reason. I'm glad we established that accusations of me "POV pushing" anything are unsubstantiated (I would invite others to stop repeating this lie as fact now or provide evidence). I now understand exactly what you saw and will reply to the questions and doubts you raised in your detailed report as soon as I can research it and analyse it in depth. I would suggest a second look at the original report given the misunderstandings that have emerged here and elsewhere regarding that incident. But that is not for me to decide I think so I will focus on my actions for now. Have a good day. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gtoffoletto: This will be my only comment in this thread. I suggest you note above that Bishonen wrote "Perhaps I was hasty." That contemplation hardly redefines the alleged POV-pushing, as you write, as "unsubstantiated" or a "lie." Note further that "persistent disruptive editing in the subject area" readily admits, among many other things, POV-pushing. Now won't you please please PLEASE move on from this and edit constructively on some other topics? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@JoJo Anthrax: thank you for your interest. Unfortunately I'm out of Wikipedia at the moment for anything outside of this discussion (COVID-19 project work might be a small exception). This will be my last message here I think. If you (or anyone) wishes to point out to me some problem with my editing with DIFFs I will appreciate the critique (I'm a fan of peer-review). My talk page is always open. Otherwise I'm sorry but I don't think everybody adding their general opinions here is very helpful in this (already messy) and (in the grand scheme of things) pretty useless discussion. I will let Bishonen's talk page be and reply to her questions on my talk page. Thanks Bishonen once again for clearing this up for me. I'll try to reply to you in my talk page once with a well documented reply to all your questions to minimise the waste of time. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 21:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gtoffoletto: yes, minimise it, good idea. And stop thanking people for their interest. If you think that's polite, you're mistaken. Also don't ever tell anybody again that they're not welcome to post on my page. Bishonen | tålk 21:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC).
So, the next hobby is to be lobbying for the addition of preprints as sources for COVID-19 articles. Imagine my thoughts on that prospect. --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhEKsdrzKIY Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy_y9yOrgxk Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Odoacer Rex

Special:Diff/957925981 even after your block. Seems like a obvious NOTHERE. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does. Though did you see this edit summary a couple of days earlier, Galobtter? Almost sad, isn't it? But I think they've used up all the rope now. You spotted it, would you like to action it? Bishonen | tålk 09:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC).
No I stay away from adminning on AP2 stuff which is why I posted here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I see. I blocked them previously, which is why I suggested it would be better if I didn't do it again. But OK. Bishonen | tålk 19:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC).
Just too immature. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know. Another obviously very young user I've been talking with at length recently makes OR look like a miracle of maturity and a master of the art of listening. I've unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 05:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC).

Our dear friend HiddenTempo

I remember his technical data well enough that there doesn't need to be a recent sock, for what its worth. He's not very good at hiding. I think we have some old cuwiki data on him, but I'd have to check. Mainly just go based on having dealt with him enough. Anyway, the PreferredUsername guy wasn't him, but if there's someone who looks like him, you can report it to the SPI or email me even if there isn't a sock to check... he's not very clever. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, for myself I didn't think PreferredUsername talked like Hidden Tempo — he'd have to be pretty clever to use such a different tone, even if the sentiments are the same. Thanks, Tony, I'll remember. Bishonen | tålk 09:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC).

User:SmooveMike

Pretty positive this is actually User:Urgal, who you blocked recently. Edits the same articles the same way. Rikster2 (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  • See, all I need to do is sleep through it all. And go up Urgal's block time... oh no, my little Ponyo has taken care of that too. Thank you both! Bishonen | tålk 09:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC).
I've studied the user talkpage with interest: apparently the user has been here ten years and is surprised to learn you can't simply use a sock account when your main one is blocked. Restored the declined unblock request again, and revoked tpa. Bishonen | tålk 09:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC).
Thank you all for putting this sock back in the drawer. There has been a persistent problem with socks and IPs blanking content, adding fringe views to the lead, and adding the NPOV tag to Racial views of Donald Trump. I wonder if we should consider placing the article under WP:ECP, especially in light of current events. The edit history is self-evident, but I could readily produce a list of the top 50 unhelpful edits of the past 12 months if that would help make the case. - MrX 🖋 11:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. There won't have been any IPs recently, MrX — the article was indefinitely semiprotected in December 2019. I'm not very much at home with ECP — studying the Rough guide to extended confirmed protection here... right. I might. So, Mr X, could you provide a list of recent disruptive edits to the article? Not 50 diffs! Say the latest ten diffs, while ignoring Urgal and his sock. Bishonen | tålk 11:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC).
In addition to the SmooveMike&Urgal puppet show, we have these from roughly the past six months:
  1. [35]
  2. [36]
  3. [37]
  4. [38]
  5. [39]
This is in addition to the significant disruption from bad faith IP editors up until recently. Normally, this would not be much of a problem, but because Coffee and then Awilley placed editing restrictions on the article, these throwaway accounts have been used to game the system against editors who actually research reliable sources and who are invested in improving the encyclopedia. But, there are fine people on both sides. - MrX 🖋 12:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for digging those out, MrX. But I hesitate to try to fix extreme and awkward editing restrictions (as I agree they are) by adding yet more extreme editing restrictions. Also, there won't be any more IP disruption, since the semi is (very sensibly, thank you, El C) indefinite. Furthermore, this one was a good edit, removing vandalism from an IP. No, I'm afraid there isn't enough disruption for my taste. You may want to try WP:RFPP. Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC).
OK, thanks for hearing me out. - MrX 🖋 13:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@MrX: Do you have any suggestions as to how the current sanctions could be fixed/modified to better empower editors who research sources and are invested in improving the encyclopedia? Or do you think wholesale removal of all sanctions would be an improvement? Also could you elaborate a bit on how the sanctions are being gamed? Is it the 1RR sanctions or the BRD sanctions being gamed? I sometimes imagine nightmare situations where veteran editors hoard their daily revert allowance, saving it for when its really necessary, while IPs, socks, and drive-by POV pushers edit freely. ~Awilley (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Butting in here: The BRD sanction is meaningless, except as a snare, and it has not been uniformly enforced. 1RR slows things down, but with an endless stream of socks and SPAs, good faith editors are forced to ration their revert, possibly saving to remove a suspected but unproven SPA's edit, and not use it for ordinary-course reversion of good faith edit that needs talk page discussion. The BRD sanction has been controversial from the start and should be deprecated in favor of simple 1RR, possibly with a broader exemption to help limit the SPA edits.
The BRD restriction has not been productive because there is no standard for "discussion". Disruptive editors discuss disruptively. Regulations need to be simple and clear. Revert restrictions are somewhat clear, at least. The best enforcement is the judgment of wise and experienced Admins who monitor articles and step in. That's tough work, and it's not surprising that there are relatively few volunteers for that duty. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Awilley: The current restrictions slow the damage done to articles, but they also slow the repair. Most experienced AP editors abide by the editing principles pointed out by Arbcom. That is largely the result of some of the most offending editors having been topic or site banned. I agree with what SPECIFICO wrote about 1RR slowing everything down, but I would actually propose eliminating 1RR on mature articles like Racial views of Donald Trump that are not heavily edited, and instead implementing a BRD restriction that respects the status quo/silent consensus. In other words, if an editor (boldly) adds new material (including tags, links, and categories) or removes material that has been in the article for some length of time (90 days or more?), then those edits are limited to 1RR and the editor must discuss the edit on the talk page and wait 24 hours before restoring. That would have saved numerous person-hours of dealing with the socks on this one article alone. I think we also need to lower the bar on identifying socks. Accounts jumping into controversial articles with precocious knowledge about NPOV and formatting refs are not new users learning to edit. I will say that all of the admins in this discussion have done exemplary work addressing editor conduct in the AP space, but the day-to-day burden of defending the integrity of content has largely fallen on the shoulders of regular editors who have contribute an untold number of volunteer hours to editing, research, and discussion, only to have their work damaged by the socks, SPAs, and throwaway accounts.
To answer your question more specifically, 1RR and BRD are being gamed because these socks are not new editors and they understand that they will be given additional warning before being sanctioned. All they have to do is say they didn't see the yellow warning box. When they do get block, they can create a brand new account and start the whole process over. That could be solved by zero-tolerance enforcement that gives new users a short topic ban on the first offence, followed by escalating sanctions for repeat offences.
Now I have a question for any of you three admins: What's the upside of Urgal having not been permanently topic banned from AP? - MrX 🖋 19:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
There's not exactly an upside to them not being topic banned, I suppose — it's more that not being topic banned is a user's natural state. It takes a little time and a few, uh, incidents for that state to change. For me personally, I sanctioned the user for edit warring (a 72-hour block). I don't like to give more than one sanction at a time — it doesn't feel right. And with the amount of disruption from this editor in a short space of time, I don't think I'll fiddle around with topic bans if they incur a sanction again any time soon; I'm more likely to indef. Bishonen | tålk 19:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC).
@Awilley: This is what I'm talking about.[40] - MrX 🖋 16:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Michał Cieślak

You protected the creation of Michał Cieślak (boxer) in 2016 due to multiple creations and subsequent deletions as the subject failed WP:NBOX and GNG. Could you unprotect it so I can create it? He’s since satisfied the criteria for NBOX after his recent WBC world title challenge and by being ranked in the top 10 of the WBC and Ring magazine, as well as now satisfying GNG with multiple English and Polish outlets covering Cieślak over the past few years. – 2.O.Boxing 00:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Squared.Circle.Boxing. It's not that I don't want to, but I really know zero about the boxing world. Zero is enough to create-protect a repeatedly recreated article as a pure housekeeping action, but possibly not enough to unprotect it. You may have to take it to WP:RFPP, but before you go to that trouble, let me just ask my talkpage stalkers: is there a little admin out there who is up for unprotecting the article? Please give it a day or so, Squared.Circle.Boxing. Bishonen | tålk 09:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) Squared.Circle.Boxing Sure he meets WP:NBOX with that shot. Have unprotected. Glen 09:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both. RFPP slipped my mind. I’ll use that if I encounter this again in the future. Thanks again :). – 2.O.Boxing 10:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Nobody has better stalkers than me. Thank you, Glen. Bishonen | tålk 10:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC).

User:Rk adh

is requesting unblock at UTRS 30749. Best unblock request I've seen in a while. How do you wish to proceed with considering their request? I'll be wikibreaking imminently and may not respond till Tuesday.. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You might want to consider UTRSing. All the cool kids are doing it. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I was put off UTRS a few years ago because the interface was so baffling, I couldn't handle it. It's been rumoured since then that it has been updated and improved, and, sure enough, when I followed your link this time, I merely got told I wasn't an admin. Much simpler. So I wish to proceed by not considering their request, as I'm seemingly for UTRS purposes not an admin. Also I'm in bed. Some cooler kid will have to do it. Bishonen | tålk 01:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC).
May I restore TPA and carry it over? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
UTRS does not want to be my friend, either. It always wants things — even if, as a platform, it gave much to its community and asked little in return (I know, a paradox). Anyway, I'd like to be alone with the sandwich for a moment. El_C 01:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) PS: in the meantime, I've received an e-mail from UTRS Development Team telling me, if I understand them, that I'm now an admin. There was no hint of this coming elevation in the original message, and I'm not exactly in the mood to try again to get in right now. I may take a look tomorrow. Perhaps. Yes, feel free to restore tpa and put the unblock request there, AFAIC. That may put DeltaQuadBot's nose out of joint. Now I want to be alone with my bed. I'll look at the talkpage tomorrow. Bishonen | tålk 01:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

I can assure you you are now an admin on UTRS.If still awake, will do those things. I did not have a sandwich. I had shepherd's pie. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"I'll give it a good home." El_C 01:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Cool, I got UTRS to work! It may be the new setup, but it was actually super-easy. El_C 06:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Template reverted

This is my mistake and i reverted wrong template. - BeamAlexander (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed; I've already removed my note to you. (And I've blocked the user in question.) Welcome to Wikipedia, BeamAlexander, and thank you for your contributions! Bishonen | tålk 15:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC).

Disruptive edits

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/961408190 2402:3A80:DD2:E228:2105:7FC9:7A7D:CC13 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Bishonen | tålk 16:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC).
He is trying to control information. Example - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/957010944 . This is a communal problem. 2409:4065:E9F:78D1:952A:2B9A:DF6A:8F11 (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
What is your account? Is it blocked? Bishonen | tålk 18:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC).

I'm blocked for wrong reason. I didn't disrupt anything. He argued with me and created a situation where my edits matched with others. I may be blocked but I'm telling the truth. Facts always remain same. If other editors will try to add these facts then they'll be accused as sock. Logical Man 2000 was my account. Thank you. 2409:4065:E9F:78D1:952A:2B9A:DF6A:8F11 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Sock confirmed at the SPI by a checkuser. IP now blocked. --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Which IP, RexxS? You see all the different ranges they come in from? Can they even be meaningfully blocked? Bishonen | tålk 18:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC).
I blocked 2409:4065:E9F:78D1::/64 who was evading the block of User:Logical Man 2000. I don't know who 2402:3A80:DD2:E228::/64 is, but I don't see that it's the same editor, as the 2409:: refers to him in the third person, unless they are referring to Chaipau, of course. If 2402:3A80:DD2:E228::/64 were to be blocked, it would still only affect one person. As there are 18 million million million of those /64 ranges available, the chances of another user being assigned it is considerably less than the user being hit by lightning three times in a year. --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You know I know about the /64 ranges, I was taught by the best. That wasn't my point. I kind of assumed the two IPs above were one person, though so far apart in range. It's a little surprising that two different people would find my page — I don't think I've had anything to do with the issue the IPs are both interested in. Oh well. If they are one person, they're presumably on two quite different connections. (Both of them incidentally in Guwahati, Assam.) Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC).
I do know you know about the /64 ranges, but I couldn't resist posting the lightning analogy, as it's easy to remember. On reflection, I guess you're right about both IPs being the same person. If they post again, it's easy enough to block for ban evasion. --RexxS (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Every morning IP range changes. I can create an account but I didn't because i'm speaking the truth. I thought admins are helpful. I'm disappointed. Dear @Bishonen:, I didn't think i would be cheated in this way. Thank you for hurting me. Will you block this range also ? If you'll block every range then entire city will be blocked. I'll neither edit nor contact you. I trusted you but you hurt me. 2409:4065:D95:23DD:456E:DC6F:7CAF:D5EE (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Your three years block is punishment to some other users. Please don't punish them for my mistakes. Thank you. 2409:4065:D95:23DD:456E:DC6F:7CAF:D5EE (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Then I'll make a daily block on your new IP for your block evasion. No problem for me. There are no other users on your IP, so there's no problem with leaving it blocked. --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Stay safe. I'm sorry 😔. I'm sad. 2409:4065:E95:CF60:58EE:BD6C:6342:DC1A (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Just a few clicks and ... it's blocked. --RexxS (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

G10

Looking at your deletion of Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan per G10, I don't think the deletion is valid. See AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan. Tessaracter (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Tessaracter, thanks for raising this. I didn't think Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan was any kind of encyclopedic article, but pure propaganda — I'm surprised to learn it was kept at AFD in February. But I see it was, and unfortunately I missed the existence of that AfD — I should have read the talkpage more carefully. However, the article was deleted on 28 November 2019 for being created by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban (in other words by a sock of an indefinitely blocked user), and then it was recreated by another such sock on 27 January 2020. Both these socks, Minicoyamini and Lebronplz, were run by the same sockmaster, Jishnusavith, who had been blocked on 19 June 2019. See the page log and the sockpuppet investigation, as well as the userpage of User:Lebronplz (who didn't get listed at the SPI for some reason). So, I may have been wrong to delete it as an attack page; but I still consider it speedyable per G5, creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of their ban or block. I don't think a later AfD can override G5, but it's a nice point, so do feel free to take it to Deletion review. That might be a good idea also because G5 specifies that there should be "no substantial edits by others" for G5 to apply. It's hard for me to tell how to call that, because it has been edited by so many other now blocked socks (for instance Perogyanci, yet another incarnation of Jishnusavith), though of course I assume also by some good faith editors. Would some of my admin stalkers, who can see the deleted revisions, be interested in taking a look at the history of Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan? Pinging User:RegentsPark. Bishonen | tålk 09:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC).
Looks like the article was a playground for socks so a G5 deletion is warranted and a later AfD doesn't override that. Hard to see what the quality of contributions of different editors are but a rough look at the history indicates about 10% is added by non-sock actors so my inclination is to just leave it deleted. If you like, I could take a content look to see if there are quality differences but I seriously doubt it and it doesn't seem worth the time. --regentspark (comment) 11:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Based on my own recollection of that article, I would also endorse its deletion if it were to come under review. El_C 12:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, El_C, me too, because of the crappiness and the obvious propagandistic purpose, but I guess that's not the point: we're not supposed to relitigate the AfD at Deletion review. In defending my deletion, I'm going by who created (and recreated) it, and by all the socks that edited it. It should have been speedied after the second creation, as indeed it was after the first, and never have gone to AfD. But we can't have eyes everywhere. Bishonen | tålk 13:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I suppose I just don't see how restoring it for bureaucratic reasons would be of benefit to the encyclopedia, but fair enough. As mentioned at DRV, I think starting it over (from scratch) as a draft might be a good compromise, if there is serious intent to bring the topic up to quality standards. El_C 13:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure starting it over would be much benefit to the encyclopedia either — IMO it's just a POV fork of Forced conversion, which has a substantial Pakistan section. We also have articles about Religious discrimination in Pakistan, Minorities in Pakistan, and Human rights in Pakistan. Bishonen | tålk 14:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC).
Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 9. —Cryptic 13:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Appeal to ARBPIA topic ban

User:Bishonen, shalom. I have submitted an appeal to my topic ban in the ARBPIA area, which you can see here. The procedure requires of me to inform the one who imposed the topic ban, and Administrator Ed Johnston thought that you should also be informed.Davidbena (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart page

Hi Bishonen. Hope all is well. I wanted to bring this issue to your attention. Recently, there is a user that has instigated a pattern of disruptive editing not conducive to the integrity of the newly formed Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart page. That includes other article pages for Ratchet & Clank (2016) and Ratchet & Clank. I was wondering if you can best assist me on dealing with this issue. Elainasla (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've come to the wrong admin, Elainasla. You found me on your page, didn't you? But that was about something else. I know nothing about games and their sourcing. I suggest you either a) report the problem at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (more fully than you have done here, explaining what's wrong and providing diffs), or b) wait a day or so to see if some other more game-literate admin who watches my page is willing to help. @RexxS and Johnuniq:? Bishonen | tålk 22:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC).
tl;dr: IP is removing source and content; others are putting it back. I've told the IP to discuss on talk or got RSN if they don't think IGN is reliable. I've semi'd the article for a couple of weeks rather than blocking the IP. --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Bishonen: and @RexxS:, the user in question has not decided to continue with disruptive editing after the restrictions were added to the article. The case should be closed now. Elainasla (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Arain

Dear, I always avoid violating wiki rules and tries to help improve many articles on Wikipedia with RS. I was really not aware about create space, I found it is actually self Published source. It was my lack of information about this particular source to which i admit mistake but do you think this language is allowed. I added many points into this Arain page with RS and these points are still there. It was due to my efforts that organisation/Culture/Diaspora heading were added recently otherwise other editors were discouraged and were not allowed to add any point there. I think pages are not controlled by some people. It looks like that inciting me through this type of language, people want me to come into troubled water. Regards. ScholarM (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

To keep the conversation together, I have copied your post above to your own page and replied there. Please let's keep it there. Bishonen | tålk 11:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

Gop Patna

Gop Patna (talk · contribs) has just appeared and immediately gone on a Yadav-related spree across articles, making identical poor categorisations to the ones Utcursch & myself fixed last week. An example is at Hoysala Empire. Likely sock of Vipinahir (talk · contribs)? - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to go out, I'll look later. Unless one of my dear talkpage stalkers takes care of it in the meantime. Bishonen | tålk 12:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC).
Hope so. This is not the edit of a new user. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
About as ducky as they get. Blocked.--regentspark (comment) 13:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks Bish for the earlier stuff today. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, you may notice I've incurred poor optics relating to systemic bias.[41] Competence is required in any area, though. That'll have to be my defence if there's outrage. Bishonen | tålk 16:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC).
Hopefully there won't be. I once went into a pub optimistically & left it misty optically. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I find it quite sad that critical articles related to systemic bias (such as those about caste-based violence) attract our worst cranks and least competent editors...Vanamonde (Talk) 18:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Drat!

My name is Bond. Covalent Bond.

Your ruined a perfectly good Bond quote. I even got to say боже мой. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. Bond..? OK, do you want to tell him he changed Doug's text three times and say боже мой? Be my guest. [Bishonen thinks about Bond.] Sorry, all I can remember is the bit where Bond understands his adversary is no gentleman, but on the contrary a low-life Russian spy, because the person orders red wine with fish. How uncivilised! (I do that sometimes — I hate white wine. Anyway, that's probably not your quote.) Bishonen | tålk 19:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC).
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."--Auric Goldfinger via Ian Fleming. This has nothing to do with anything but it's one of my favorite quotations in nearly seven-squared years. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Julietdeltalima:боже мой! You have squarely hammered the nail! --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments in Izak's ANI discussion

Hi Bishonen, I saw you blocked Izak, so I know you are reading the discussion and I am not commenting on the block but I would like to point your attention to this comment, one which DGG said that if he didn't already comment on the discussion might warrant a block. I would also point out that this is not the first time OID has made nasty comments in this area. [42] I tried to include the reply and DGG's comment. Thanks. I hope you can appreciate how this comment is not appropriate on Wikipeida, let alone during this type of discussion. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sir Joseph. Saying "imaginary sky wizards" isn't good. I don't like it or approve of it. It's very rude. But I don't find it blockworthy. Now that OID has already been told off by DGG, perhaps another admin will take DGG's comment as a push for a block, and take their suggestion; we'll see. It won't be me, though. Bishonen | tålk 18:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC).
Ok, thank you. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I do believe in the Sky Wizard, but take no offence at the scoffing of the incredulous. (Not to be confused with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.) --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 20:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I do think calling someone an asshole though is a personal attack, [43], and should be more than called out. There should be a place on Wikipedia where edits like this can be reported without a more ANI/AN like atmosphere. But this edit is not one of the five pillars, especially when it is part of getting Izak TBANNED. It is not just run of the mill being uncivil that many people ignore. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I brought him specifically because you blocked IZAK, that's why. I also don't think ANI is an appropriate place for something like this, since as you can see with the IZAK situation, we're now at I think almost a week and it's almost a novel length discussion. Thanks anyway, although I do recall people, myself included being blocked for "first offenses or isolated incidents" of supposed personal attacks. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
An idea whose time has passed.00:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC) --Deep fried okra (schalte ein)`
Ah, the old WP:PAIN, best shortcut ever. I had happily forgotten all about it. Bishonen | tålk 08:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC).

1RR restriction

Hi Bishonen,

You had commuted my topic ban[44] to an indefinite 1RR restriction[45]. If you notice the problem started due to the edits of Sangitha_rani111 (talk · contribs) on the Maravar page. This user was editing with bias and posted negative things about the caste with a malicious intent. The user has now been blocked for abusing socks. A review of the Maravar page would reveal that this user has used accounts like Quertonermento (talk · contribs), Ciuterpoytr (talk · contribs) all suspected socks to post negative things even recently. So, I request you to remove this 1RR restriction, not that I intend to edit-war on caste articles, but because I believe I was unfairly punished with this ban for raising my voice against the particular user's edits. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Nittawinoda. I'm a little hesitant, as I think 1RR is a good thing that pretty much everybody ought to abide by. But I can understand it if you feel the restriction is a blot on your escutcheon. OK, I consider you a trusted user, so I'll withdraw it. Done here. Bishonen | tålk 17:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC).
Thank you very much Bishonen. Nittawinoda (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Glad Midsommar

Bishonen and all lurking Swedes. Today the Swede feasts on snaps, sill and new potatoes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Glad Midsommar right back at you! I hope you will have a fun and/or relaxed Midsummer holiday. --bonadea contributions talk 10:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Juni natt blir aldrig av, liknar mest en daggig dag. Bishonen | tålk 11:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC).

User talk:Srinivasrao1980

You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. To my stalkers: Vipinahir/Srinivasrao1980 is threatening to create further socks from cyber cafés. Bishonen | tålk 11:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC).

i have mentioned you on administrator's noticeboard

Regarding your use of admin rights to personal attack user scholarM

Hey Bish, I'm protecting you. The admin noticeboard discussion is against revoking admin rights right now. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
You're safe. The complaining editor attempted the old 'logged out' trick. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I've left ScholarM's account unblocked, with advice to appeal the normal way, and a caution that further shenanigans could result in more sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw, thank you all. Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC).
Are you guys as baffled as I am by ScholarM replying on their page to Toddy below my post, and to me below Toddy's post? I mean, they did, didn't they? Maybe it's my confusion. Bishonen | tålk 20:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC).[Confused editor?]
^^^ A perfect chance to use our newest template! ^^^ EEng 21
23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Airavan

I just wanted to acknowledge that I support your action. It's good you followed through. Yes, it is a high-volume topic area, at the very least. El_C 17:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out, Chère. I honestly don't know how Sitush manages to put up with all of it. --"Kiddo" (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi @El C and RexxS:. Actually, I didn't follow through; Newslinger indeffed the user and put a sock tag on their userpage. I wanted to block, but it struck me that I do tend to drop an impatient indef and cut off my colleagues just as they are discussing a user, and, for once, why not just say what I thought, like a normal person, and leave the actual hammering to someone else. So I did. Yes, Sitush is highly respected by all sensible people, but there are so many.. other people out there. Bishonen | tålk 20:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC).
Oops, I misread. I appreciate your introspection — that isn't something on your part I picked up on, however, whatever that's worth. El_C 20:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

ARCA

I have filed a request about an arbitration decision where you had participated. You can view it here. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 21:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC).

reply about your question sir

this is your question Caste glorification is not allowed here Editing for the purpose of caste glorification such as you did for example here, here. and here is not allowed on Wikipedia, and will get you blocked or topic banned if you persist. The third of those diffs is particularly bad: it removed well-sourced content, along with its sources, and replaced it with the completely unsourced "jadeja are kings of area presently kutch nowdays. their family tree belonged to lord krishna". Unsourced claims that particular groups are descended from gods are merely ridiculous. Please use reliable sources. Bishonen | tålk 14:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC).

answer :- sir this is nothing of the caste glorification matter this is about the history vandalism . these guys who to caste are editing articles are and adding there caste there and they cleverly site the reference just to avoid the revert there is no mention of thing what they are saying in reference they are providing they are just maligning the image of other caste just to prove them as superior that is racism they promoting their supermacy only if you are citing my edits then you must check the my last edit on page and the version iam attaching links for their misdeeds with proofs what they have done there sir

here

here just have a look what i have added and the matter you raised about "The third of those diffs is particularly bad: it removed well-sourced content, along with its sources, and replaced it with the completely unsourced "jadeja are kings of area presently kutch nowdays. their family tree belonged to lord krishna". Unsourced claims that particular groups are descended from gods are merely ridiculous. Please use reliable sources" answer the order of high court of gujrat state where they give custody of fort of lord krishna to jadeja family

rest these are other references here geni website one of the world's prominent site for Genealogy and tracing the family tree· Genealogy jadeja

hopefully you can see reality now by the way thanks for raising the doubt Loneltrussia (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC) hope you understand what i described here Loneltrussia (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I have replied on your own page to keep our discussion together. Bishonen | tålk 19:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
okay you find sources are unrealible what about the these vandlers adding their caste based agenda and misleading info

here

here

can you trust high court decision copy on jadejas ancestory reliable source so that i can search it rather than you say it is unreliable like geni website

Why do you insist on posting on my page when I have already moved you back to your own once and told you we should keep the discussion in one place? Please try to cooperate here. If you want me to reply further, answer me on your page, where I answered you. Bishonen | tålk 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
And stop calling your opponents "vandals" or any form thereof ("vandlers") or I will block you for personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 19:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC).

Silly question

That's ruff. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein)

What's a dogra 

--Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
dogra are the past rulers of jammu and kashmir province
My karma ran over someone's dogma? EEng 19:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

what are you talking about i added transparency to that page because there is alot of misconfusion about zorawar singh and jorawar singh both are different but in local accent sound similar so people often visit wrong one

Would you mind terribly signing your posts? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What's a hen-way? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

sorry iam writing some articles so forgot to add Loneltrussia (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do you insist on posting on my page when I have already moved you back to your own once and told you we should keep the discussion in one place? Please try to cooperate here. If you want me to reply further, answer me on your page, where I answered you. Bishonen | tålk 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
And stop calling your opponents "vandals" or any form thereof ("vandlers") or I will block you for personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 19:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
To be fair, they were answering my question. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)*
They're above as well. But please don't encourage them further to come here. Keeping the discussion on their page, where I started it, means other editors can follow it, which is pretty impossible in this way. Bishonen | tålk 20:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
ok sir i will follow your instructions Loneltrussia (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Bishonen, some time go I wrote on the talk page of some very active female editor or other (I'm pretty sure it wasn't you) that she had a whole string of messages on her talk page which addressed her as "sir", whereas I had to search back through many years' worth of my talk page archives to find just one message that addressed me in that way. Is there something about the kind of editors who like to call people "sir" that makes them seek out women to be given that honour? JBW (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Haha. Maybe, JBW. But in my experience, Indian editors (and they alone) call everybody "sir", except when they call them "dear". I have to do with Indian caste editors sometimes — I guess you don't? If you'd like to be called "sir" more often, you should try it. And feel free to call me "dear"! Bishonen | tålk 21:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
I certainly will, Chère (referencing The Big Easy (film)). For those who are interested, there is a template {{heshe}} that can be used to remove the uncertainty if the editor has set their gender in Preferences:
  • {{heshe|Bishonen}} → she
  • {{heshe|RexxS}} → he
  • {{heshe|JBW}} → he
  • {{heshe|Darwinfish}} → he
  • {{heshe|Loneltrussia}} → he or she
You just need to check in preview at first use, and just use the appropriate pronoun thereafter. It's great for old dinos like me, who can't remember folks' prefs. -- T-RexxS (rawr) 23:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) RexxS with deep respect and an awareness of the incomplete acceptance of singular they, Template:they will return a more appropriate pronoun for those of us who prefer it, such as (and all these users identify as such on their user page) User:Alfie, User:Fæ, User:Funcrunch, and myself, whilst still returning he or she for users who have specified one of those genders in their preferences. It's inoffensive to me personally, but there are people who treat their pronouns with some gravity, and view he or she as a false binary. Folly Mox (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I reluctantly accept he and sir from strangers on the street, but online I insist on "they" since I have it stated in many places (profile pages, e-mail signature, etc.) Funcrunch (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Folly Mox: Sorry I wasn't clearer. I never actually add the template to my posts; I only preview with it to jog my faulty memory, and {{they}} would indeed work just as well. As for singular 'they', I'm its biggest fan and make use of it habitually. If it was good enough for Shakespeare, it's certainly good enough for me. It's quite behind-the-times that 'they' isn't one of the options for the gender Preferences. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
in my experience, Indian editors (and they alone) call everybody "sir", except when they call them "dear". Or "dog" and sundry other animals. Sometimes "sir", "dear" and "dog" in the same message: polite even when insulting? - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Bishonen, yes, I do know actually that "sir" for everyone is a characteristic of Indian editors, but I still find it amusing when I see female editors getting it vastly more often than I do.
  • @Sitush: Hi there. Yes, being sycophantically polite at the same time as being downright rude and insulting is another one of the things that many Indians excel at, along with writing unbelievable amounts of utter trivia about the village where they happen to live (such as the fact that there's a bus stop in the village).
  • @RexxS: The script User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js causes various pieces of information about an editor to show up at the top of their user page and talk page, including indicating a user's preferred "he" or "she" if either is set, which I find helpful. However, {{heshe}} is probably more convenient if one is not already on the user's talk page, as it doesn't require going to the editor's user or talk page to find out, so I'll try it. I wonder how many thousands more useful little things there are scattered about Wikipedia, that one would use if only one knew they were there. Every now and then I come across another one. JBW (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Exclusion of historic decision of Brahmin Council of Banaras

I saw this on Kayastha talk page and am copying it here for your advice:

"Its surprising that opinion of lesser authors are mentioned but the varna specific historic decision of council of Banaras Brahmins is missing from the article. The question was reffered to them by Peshwa himself in 1779 AD due to high controversy as some questioned the validity of the varna of CKP for posting at high posts under Brahmin kings while some members of CKP were related by marriage ties to the Peshwas themselves, for example Sadashivrao Peshwa and Sakharam Hari Gupte. The matter was thus reffered to highest court in such religious matters i.e. the Brahmin Council of Banaras. In my opinion the decision is not only historically important but also shows the volatile nature of varna status and local politics. The decision is extremely detailed and refers to several religious scriptures, it also supports the Puranic history of older northIndian group named Kayastha. The CKP ultimately won their right place in society inspite of all the challenges thrown at them. The article is incomplete and misleading without including the decision of the Brahmin council of Banaras.Bishonen Kumari (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you ask me — because of my name? The edit you quote was posted by a sockpuppet and has therefore been removed. I'm surprised you saw it, since it was removed several days before you created your account. Whose sock are you, please? Bishonen | tålk 20:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC).
Bishonen, have you heard of Shirley Ardell Mason? EEng 20:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I just looked it up, so now I have. Have you heard of the Bish sockfarm, EEng? Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC).
I was vaguely aware of it without know it was formalized somewhere. My only advice to you is that, according to my mom the psychotherapist, talking to yourself is not really a problem; it's when you start answering back that we'll start to worry about you. EEng 20:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
You might want to ask RegentsPark who has just blocked another one of their socks which made an identical post on Sitush's talk page. I still think RBI is best. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Already blocked by RP. Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC).

Blocked

Well, that went to hell in a handbasket pretty quickly. All over, I hope and trust. Enjoy, Boing and DeepFried. Bishonen | tålk 20:56, 29 June 2020 (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.

Hello, I am concerned about my block. I am a novice but have edited several articles successfully. The issue with Gutierrez is bias. I am a fan, classical music lover, arts, and film. I would please ask you to inquire other editors' bias as well. I have worked with my many editors successfully and vetted post with many. Recently, great pianist was removed from Gutierrez' post. I objected since it been there since 2006. I found additional references and asked editors to consider. There are many classical artists with great on their weiki posts that have not had word great removed. So, I raised the possibility of bias of certain editors that watch Gutierrez' post closely. I do not want to cause problems. I love editing as a hobby. I really would appreciate your help to resolve. And, my apologies. I am not sure how to unblock or if it is something you would be willing to help me with. Thank you. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Bishoen- I raised possible questions of bias of editors (not attacks) just as they were raised of me. Were these attacks on me? My goal is to make great wiki article edits and posts. My apologies for any problems. I am still learning protocols. I am willing to change, continue to reference appropriately, and resolve all biased issued raised. I love editing wiki as my hobby. I hope you can help me resolve, I only want to write excellent, unbiased, and referenced posts. Thank you. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Bishonen: I am not sure what more you need me to explain or apologize for. I have explained my conflict of interest being a fan of classical music, film, artists, and Cuban music and musicians. I have never received any payments for any wiki posts. My posts have been edited and reviewed and approved. I am deeply sorry. I am not sure what you want me to say. I apologize for any conflict of interest. I apologize for questioning possible conflicts of others. I am willing to work with the wiki community to provide excellent and unbiased articles. I appreciate your help. Thank you again. And, truly my sincere apologies. I would like to resolve and work with you and others to write excellent entries in the future. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I have helped you. I formatted your unblock request for you so that it'll work right and call an uninvolved admin to your talkpage to review the block. And I just linked you yet again on your page to this, where your actual conflict of interest (not "being a fan of classical music, film, artists, and Cuban music and musicians" or the like, but the real conflict of interest) is explained. You seem to be pretending that discussion, and the links in it, don't exist? That won't help you, and you're frankly unlikely to be unblocked. If you really like editing as a hobby, and don't merely want to promote Gutierrez, why don't you just edit other subjects? Also, please note that I have not a shred of patience left for your accusations against the people who have tried to rein in your promotion of Gutierrez. You know as well as I do that you're making them up out of whole cloth. Bishonen | tålk 19:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
Note that I have declined the unblock request for being unresponsive and for deflecting. El_C 19:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yep, I saw, El_C. Since I did the block it would be inappropriate for me to thank you for declining the unblock request... but I do thank you for getting to it so quickly, so the user isn't left hanging. Bishonen | tålk 19:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
Having read ThatMontrealIP's report, I think pretty much everyone are like-minded about this. Happy to be of (swift) service. El_C 19:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, I am sorry I have edited many subjects and entries. Please accept my sincere apologies. I am concerned about equity, and transparency for all posts. I am still learning appropriate protocol. If anyone is willing to mentor me and edit my posts, I am willing to work alongside of you. We must all check our own biases in posts. Than you for your help. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I was going to tell the user to for god's sake stop copypasting everything she says on her own page to my page as well (why? what for?), but I see there's no need, she has been indeffed. Good call, El_C. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
Thanks. On my talk page, too. Anyway, I felt like enough was enough. El_C 20:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Right. Now the UTRS guys get to have the fun. Bishonen | tålk 20:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
Gee, thanks! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
What Boing said. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2020 (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.

Sasdfjhasjkfdhaklsjfh

I have requested a CU. I have a high degree of confidence this guy is a sock. Not sure who though. With their skills at wiki-lawyering they should be on Arbcom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The disruption by this account does not qualify for a CU. Sasdfjhasjkfdhaklsjfh (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the info. I'm sure that will save someone some bother. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm tempted to take them at their word when they say "All edits deemed promotional under this account should instead be treated as vandalism", and block as a vandalism-only account. Would you regard that as wheel-warring, Ad Orientem? I'm still surprised that you unblocked them. Bishonen | tålk 08:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC).
On second thoughts, I've blocked as NOTHERE. If you get a sockmaster, Ad Orientem (which is not a given, though I'm sure one exists), perhaps you would tag the account. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC).

FWIW, concur with reblock. A great saver of time and effort, if I may say so. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

CIR?

See User talk:Ratan375#Arjuna. Is this incompetence or what? Naivety at best? - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) trivia: I saw a TV soap version of Mahabharata once, made in India, dubbed into Thai, and with (bad) English subtitles. I didn't have a clue what was going on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I have the same problem with EastEnders, Coronation Street etc, in English and with English subtitles on! - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Ha. Maybe you can find them with Hindi subtitles, Sitush? That should at least be more interesting. And yes, it sounds like incompetence + deflection ("No, you are!"). I'm writing up a sharp warning. So Krishna, when he admonished Arjuna. Bishonen | tålk 11:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC).
I'll have you know I was at one time treasurer of the Cambridge University Coronation Street Appreciation Society. Set up by nerds who had been schooled at Eton, Rugby, other highfalutin' places and minor public schools, they needed a token Northerner on the committee and I needed their booze. Daft thing was, with their huntin', shootin', fishin' flat caps etc, they looked more northern than me dressed in what, outside Oxbridge, would be considered more usual student attire. One is Guy Black, Baron Black of Brentwood but I can't find a non-primary source that would enable me to out him at his bio. I have some cracking photos, though <evil cackle> - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct article "Grace O'Malley" to "Gráinne O'Malley"

Hi

Apologies, I'm new to this so I'm not sure how to go about this but is it possible to correct "Grace O'Malley" to Gráinne and then protect the page? The reason I ask this is that 1) Gráinne doesn't have an English translation and is widely used in both Ireland and England. 2) There are several Gráinnes on Wikipedia already who have not had their name changed to Gracr 3) I don't recall other historical figures having their name angilized on Wikipedia 4) It would help clear up confusion as to her actual name.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. DarkerDai (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Related to this request, see this conversation: User_talk:The_Banner#Stop_contributing_to_the_erasure_of_Irish_culture. Schazjmd (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, DarkerDai. I see you are already taking part in a Requested move discussion of this matter at Talk:Grace O'Malley, which is the right place for it. I'm not going to shortcut our processes. Please await consensus (we hope) in that discussion and a proper closure in 7 days. Bishonen | tålk 09:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
But before that I will open a sock-puppet investigation. The Banner talk 10:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Sure, The Banner. The style and manner of the users is rather different, though. Bishonen | tålk 10:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, thank you for getting back to me. Sorry for the "shortcut" as I am new. I have also been to the treehouse to get advice on the whole process. I only became aware of the discussion through an email from Kevin Wallem thanks to the contact page. Again, thank you for the help and sorry about the hassle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkerDai (talk • contribs)

No problem,DarkerDai. Bishonen | tålk 14:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

Xhubham mishra

This user needs a NOTHERE indef, or equivalent; their dozen or so edits since their last block violate most of our core policies and behavioral guidelines, and there's evidence of block evasion, too. Their activity is so low that going to ANI seems like a waste of time. I'd do it myself, had I not reverted them at one point. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree. That was a long break they took; I've made it indefinite. Bishonen | tålk 16:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC).
Much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverts by anon

Did you ride in on one of these?

Can you or someone who is around please stick a short block on Special:Contributions/41.80.98.79. They're not getting it and I'm not sure if they realise they have a talk page, although they clearly know of the article talk. They've added the same primary-sourced stuff to Lohana four times now. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped now. Still not understanding but at least they've not reverted the next person who reverted them. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Sitush, it seems they have not edit warred since your 3RR warning. I've posted an admonitory message to them. (Not actually very much like Krishna admonishing Arjuna, I guess.) Bishonen | tålk 13:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
At least you did not assume your multi armed form. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
That's exactly what I rode in on, as always on the field of battle. Not fare well, but fare forward, voyagers! Bishonen | tålk 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
Spoke too soon [46]. --RexxS (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I saw that, it was before my warning, but I won't block for it. The user seems possible to reason with, and I want to see what effect my warning can have. Bishonen | tålk 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
Oh, you blocked? :-( Bishonen | tålk 14:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
"Weiter, weiter ins Verderben" --Rammstein. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Yer, sorry, looked to me like no notice was taken. We'll see what effect a 36-hour rest can have, unless you want to unblock? I have no objection. --RexxS (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't object to unblocking. Their last edit to Lohana seemed to suggest they had accepted that primary sources aren't ok, albeit they then added something else that won't do! - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
They added a potted biography of the author of the primary source and then coat-racked part of what they were adding before on the back of it! Ten edits to mainspace and seven of them reverts. They certainly learned where the undo button is. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sure they took notice of the 3RR warning. Did you see their post on Sitush's page, and edit summary here? It seems to me they were trying to do the right thing. After my warning, they haven't edited at all. Bishonen | tålk 14:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC).

Complaint?

Let me direct you to the head of our complaint department-- Helen Waite. Humor, I love it. --Data --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why the user keeps creating empty Complaint sections,[47] and I'm baffled that they're not blocked yet. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
I have my own theory, but this is not the setting for professional conjecture. Didn't you see? They want a mentor. I nominate Bishzilla. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, why not. I sometimes think Bishzilla is our most helpful editor![48] Bishonen | tålk 15:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC).

Support

I belongs from india sir. I need protection for my anathor page,and i am a new editor of Wikipedia so if u can guide me for best result in Wikipedia as a edior i am apriceted for u sir thanks. As per your decision sir please reply back me Masmas19 (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

All right, here's some guidance:
  • Please don't call people "sir". Not everybody here is male.
  • Please don't use the "Thanks" button for nonsense. There is absolutely no reason to thank me for a small correction I made on my own userpage. I see you thanked Tito as well, after asking three times for his contact details (something you should never do).
  • Please don't use Wikipedia to amuse yourself. There are other sites better suited to that. What you're supposed to do here is help build an encyclopedia, mainly by adding sourced content to articles, or useful discussion points to article talkpages.
  • Please follow the links (the blue text) that I have provided in the previous bullet point. They have useful information for you. Bishonen | tålk 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC).
    Bishonen, Right! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Not at all, I was wondering if they were a sock of you. If you don't see how appearances suggested that when you turned up for the first time ever on my page in a dialogue I was having with them, forget it. I meant no offense. Not sure why you're interested in them, though? Most Indian editors call everybody "sir". Compare this discussion above. Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC).
Bishonen, Found him on praxidicae talk page, sorry for showing up abruptly on your talk page but I couldn’t stop myself from commenting on the well explained “Welcome to Wikipedia” stuff above. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Cold, hard, beautiful, priceless. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh dear... I think Darwinbish must have got hold of my password and typed the above. 😬 Nice Bishonen wouldn't! Bishonen | tålk 19:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC).

DS system logs

Hi, I am a bit confused with this log and wonder if you can work it out. Mar4d seems to have been logged as applying IPA DS earlier today and I am shown too, even though I have only previewed the thing and not actually committed the edit. I'm guessing Mar4d also only previewed because there is no edit by them showing in the talk page history for anywhere near the relevant time.

OTOH, the log also shows Girth Summit notifying of the pseudoscience DS and that is in the history + still visible on the talk page. Does the filter really trigger prior to committing the edit? Seems confusing if it does.

Ultimately does not matter in this case because it turns out that Doug Weller alerted them on 9 March but it still seems odd to me. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Sitush, if memory serves you have to click through a warning in order to apply DS - did you click "ok" on the warning but not actually save the edit? GeneralNotability (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Sitush, this is a guess, but is it perhaps the way that the notifications have been added? I used Twinkle, which doesn't actually place the notification the first time you attempt to do it - it prompts you to check that they haven't been notified in the last 6 months. Then, when you attempt to place it the second time, it goes ahead and puts the notification in place. I see that Doug, SerChevalerie and I all appear twice in that log - I'm guessing that's each of the Twinkle edits. Mar4d only appears once, and there's no actual edit saved, so I'm assuming that they used Twinkle, got the prompt, and decided not to actually issue the notification in the end. Does that make sense/sound likely? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit, out of curiosity, are you using Bellezzasolo's ARB module? GeneralNotability (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hm, interesting thanks. I didn't use Twinkle - I didn't realise that I could for DS alerts, nor could I spot it when I just checked (but VERY quickly!). - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
What I did was paste the alert template manually, click on "publish" and then, as per usual for me, used the subsequent dialog to check the system log (there is a link in the dialog). I backed out at that point because of the confusion noted above. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
GeneralNotability yes, you're right - I'd forgotten that I had to install a widget to get Twinkle to do Arb notices. Sitush it's User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb - it adds an arb option to your Twinkle menu. Very handy. GirthSummit (blether) 16:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
^Can confirm that I used the same method, not Twinkle. However, as noted above, I did not save the log as a result of the trigger. Hope this helps, Mar4d (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that will save me about five seconds every time. Presumably I put it in my common.js? I'm not sure it really resolves the log issue but I'm more than happy to use it. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
So I think that's what happened - I think the first attempt to save triggers the log entry + warning. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

With all these people trying or actually alerting them, it's a wonder they're still editing freely :/ Sitush (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thing is, you have to try to save an alert in order to trigger the abusefilter. When you do, it makes an entry in the abusefilter log that you see when you check the log. Because it interrupts the save at that point, you can either commit the save by clicking 'Publish' again, or cancel the save if they have already received an alert. In either case, you triggered an abusefilter, so you would expect to see a log of it. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Mappila and WP:OWN

If I do not get a substantive rationale for reinstatement of my edits as is supposed to be discussed in the thread at Talk:Mappila#Recent_removals, can I treat it as a WP:OWN situation? I feel that my edits to the article had reasonable summaries. - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how one does treat things as a WP:OWN situation, Sitush! I don't personally much like bringing WP:OWN into play. But the behaviour is certainly non-collaborative, and I've warned them, in, I hope, an explanatory way. There will be a sanction in short order if they don't listen. Bishonen | tålk 09:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC).
OK, thanks. I'm not fond of OWN either. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Sealioning, hey? I can't keep up with all these words and phrases that come into modern usage. Sealioning, gaslighting, moving forwards, surfacing ideas, doubling down etc. Drives me mad! Well, more mad ... and that is probably seen as a derogatory word by, erm, snowflakes :) - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Surfacing idea
The sealion. What's "surfacing ideas"? That's a new one to me. Bishonen | tålk 09:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC).
I saw the surfacing ideas thing on some WMF minutes/report. They had a meeting to surface ideas. I think it probably means what used to be called brainstorming (itself a weird word). - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Instead of surfacing them, they should hold their ideas down and drown them in the tub. EEng 10:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, corporatespeak. Makes sense. Bishonen | tålk 11:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC).

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, ~SS49~ {talk} 08:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi?

We have what seem to be anon socks, probably of the person who was ranting on my talk page a few hours ago. Disruption at Martial race and Mazhabi Sikh. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Done + blocked the IP for 48 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Johnuniq they're back as Kitsa127 (talk · contribs) on a related article and my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Strikes me that the birthday committee need to sort out their comms! I got two a week or so ago and now you're up to three. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, the intentions are of the best. I hope I get more! Bishonen | tålk 11:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC).

{FBDB}

FYI, I'm seriously considering nominating {FBDB} (which I created) for deletion, because its function is to reduce drama not create it. On the other hand, this hasn't happened before so maybe it should be seen as an anomaly. (I can't even figure out what this is about so I have no position on this specific case.) Anyway, in the meantime I've revamped the documentation to avoid future trouble – see Template:FBDB/doc#Purpose. EEng 04:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't block because of the FBDB template — I'd have blocked just the same without it, so in that sense it didn't create any drama. I only mentioned it in the block notice as not being a way to prevent a block. I see you've clarified now that it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card for attacking enemies. (Yes, I know I'm supposed to say something more wikicivil like "opponents", but I'm not in the mood.) The question then becomes: is it helpful to have a template that needs so much clarification? And the second question was always there: does anybody ever read template docs before using a template? Maybe 1% of them on a good day. Bishonen | tålk 09:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
It's not that I thought you blocked because of it, but I was beginning to worry it might cause people to do things they might otherwise not. As mentioned, though, thinking back I can't remember this happening before. EEng 02:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I can't help thinking that if something is genuinely FBDB then it should be obvious in itself and shouldn't need a FBDB template to say so. If it does need a FBDB template, then it isn't clearly FBDB and is best not said. And if something is not clearly FBDB then the application of a FBDB template should be dismissed as meaningless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
then it should be obvious in itself and shouldn't need a FBDB template – No, that's just not right. By that reasoning there's no use case for winkies like ;) and ;P . Here's a classic application: [49]. EEng 02:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
No, no. Bishzilla has now committed to always using the template when she threatens to eat or incinerate someone. Bishonen | tålk 09:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
Yeah, but Bishzilla is unique. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
And it remains to be seen if she'll go through with the threats just the same. The template is weak sauce when she's hungry. Bishonen | tålk 09:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
I saw this, and feel like saying that I've used it multiple times and I like having it available. I hope that no one deletes it. Then again, I would never use it in the midst of a contentious discussion. I guess that it comes down to, if the situation is inappropriate for humor, then it's inappropriate for using the template (and I say that realizing that a lot of editors fail to know when not to use humor, something that I myself have botched a couple of times). But I've used it a lot on EEng's talk page and on my own, and always, in my opinion, to good effect. Just think of my comment here as some friendly banter. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, shut up.[FBDB] EEng 02:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Exactly! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Precisely - I've used it a handful of times when I'm (jokingly) insulting someone (my personal favorite: "comment on content, not contributors, you knucklehead") and I feel confident that the other editor will understand that it's a joke but other people might not know that and could interpret it as an actual insult. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Your phrasing has inspired me to further refine the template documentation [50]. I want it to be a source of fun, not drama, you knucklehead.[FBDB] EEng 16:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
There may also be a problem that some editors don't know humor from a hole in the ground. By no means referring to you, Tryp. But some "funny jokes" in this place make me feel like creating a userbox (ha! haha! obviously I mean asking a little talkpage stalker to create one for me) that says something like "This user is proud to be humor-impaired". Now please don't anybody go telling me humor, and also humour, is culture-dependent bla bla bla etc etc, because I know that. Bishonen | tålk 17:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
As I've often said, such editors can inhabit a grey all-work-no-play world if they want, but they can't insist we join them there. EEng 02:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
It occurs to me that there is a valid comparison to be made to the practice of "trouting" editors. There is a general understanding that it is supposed to be done only in good-natured ways, and that it can come across badly if used to express serious disagreement. As far as I can recall, editors have generally not abused the trout template. (Insert joke about me already being a fish.) Similarly, editors should understand (and mostly have) that "fbdb" should not be used in serious disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Regar sock?

I suspect we have someone socking at Regar, perhaps unwittingly. Not sure how best to deal with it - my usual approach is "ton of bricks" but perhaps a pebble would be better, just telling them to stick to their first account. See Badariabharat1998 (talk · contribs) and Bharat.badaria1998 (talk · contribs) Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's hardly deliberate socking. I've written to them. The problem with simply blocking the newest account might be that they created it because they lost their password to the first. Bishonen | tålk 11:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
Sitush, I'm not sure what happened here. I wasn't able to fix it. Bishonen | tålk 11:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
I'm not sure what happened there, either! I thought I removed it yesterday. Thanks for the words re Regar. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

ARCA closed

I have closed the AE appeal at ARCA to which you were listed as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(My apologies, the correct link is Special:Permalink/967383051#Amendment_request:_India-Pakistan.) Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks. Bishonen | tålk 18:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC).

Admins calling on Bearcat

I have mixed feelings about singling out how many sysops have called on Bearcat to backtrack (by my count it's 10 of us). On the one hand sysops are supposed to know policy so having that many sysops saying, with basically no dissension (I think Drmies is the closest there), is meaningful. On the other hand if it were 10 veteran editors who weren't sysops all saying it instead would that reduce his obligation to acknowledge the mistake and not do it again? I think our policies and guidelines say no. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Barkeep49: Ha! Yes and no. While we serve at the pleasure of the community, we have a distinct perspective. And when 10 people who do a job tell a colleague, "you're doing it wrong," he should probably listen. I'm all for latitude and independence of admins, 'cause we sometimes deal in nuances and make partly subjective decisions, but even if he were not actually involved, his actions have that appearance. That's my tuppence. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, the point of noting sysops because of peer feedback is a good one. It does feel different in that way for it to be 10 sysops than 10 veteran editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
To the general point: I'm concerned about creating a precedent where admins are barred from using admin tools on any page they have ever edited. There's no no sensible rationale for that beyond trying to appease the peanut gallery who look for any excuse to throw brickbats at admins. That's not a requirement of WP:INVOLVED, nor does it align with its purpose – to ensure that genuine content disputes are conducted on a level playing field, without one side having extra "weapons". We shouldn't be handicapping admins acting in good faith to preserve articles from unarguable policy violations.
In this particular instance: now that Bearcat is aware of partial blocking (a function designed precisely for this sort of case) and current practice regarding blocking vs protection, I don't think there's any need for anything more. What good is anything else going to do? --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible WP:GAMING attempt

Hi Bishonen I am finding suspicious editing and a kind of WP:GAME attempt by Oranjelo100 at SerieDSD. See page revision history. Please have a look. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 12:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Amkgp. I'm sorry, I've no idea what's going on. There are further pointless (AFAICS) moves in the user's contributions. I don't know how they would expect to profit from all that moving activity, as in WP:GAME. It could be that they're just as clueless as I am (you should see some of my own hapless back-and-forth moves). If you have specific suspicions, I recommend you to take them to WP:ANI, and be sure to explain what you suspect the user is trying to achieve. Bishonen | tålk 12:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC).
Bishonen, Thanks for looking at it. The issue is resolved now. Thanks to Danski454 for the help ~ Amkgp 💬 14:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User needs edification

Hi B, might I please trouble you to briefly edify wallyfromdilbert on proper procedure after he has been reverted? User has begun an edit-war that I've no interest in perpetuating, and refuses to acknowledge that or restore the status quo. User restored content here at Jupiter Ascending, after I reverted them and I went the extra step of opening a talk page discussion for them. Obviously not requesting any sanctions. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I literally just noticed that they've been blocked for edit-warring twice in the past. Sigh... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to be unaccommodating, Cyphoidbomb, but nobody has violated policy that I can see, and the user has only reverted once, so it's kind of early for you to talk about "skating by for not yet crossing 3RR",[51] The way they cited WP:V to you was pretty fresh, but I must agree with Wally that discussing content rather than policies and technicalities on talk is the best thing to do right now. Also, should you be "nopinging" them here..? Bishonen | tålk 16:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC).
Fair enough and I appreciate your contrary opinion. Though the restoration of a disputed version would by definition be edit-warring from my interpretation despite not crossing 3RR. That said, the subject area isn't something I care enough about to pursue. As for the no-ping, I wasn't seeking sanctions, so I didn't think it was a huge deal. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

PageImp

pageImp (talk · contribs) is on their third revert at Bunt (community), repeatedly inserting a mirror. I've left a couple of templates on their talk page but those may have coincided with their third revert. It won't be clever for either me or them if they repeat the edit and I revert them. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

They just made another edit, not repeating the use of the mirror site but instead removing the "Varna Classification" section. I'm going to warn them sharply. Bishonen | tålk 19:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC).
Done. You could call it a clever move, I suppose: you can't revert it, and I can't either. Let's hope somebody else is watching the article. Bishonen | tålk 19:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC).
I wasn't watching the article, but I was watching here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I love my little stalkers. Sitush, it's getting too complicated for me. Castespeak is a fog to me. Would you consider responding on their page? Bishonen | tålk 19:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC).
Thanks, both. It is as clear a case of glorification as there can be. First they want a varna status in there, but the glorious warrior one (kshatriya) rather than the one that the article showed, which is often perceived as a menial/servile one (shudra). Then when they can't have it their way, they say that the system of classification didn't exist in the region and removed the entire sourced section.
Varna is a religious ritual ranking system that has/had four parts: in sort-of perceived descending order, these are brahmin (priestly), kshatriya (warriors and kings), vaishya (merchants, traders) and shudra (labourers, producers); below the shudra, and outside the ranking system altogether, are the untouchables - the ritually polluted people who work with human and animal products, eg: sweeping the streets or tanning leather. It is true, as PageImp eventually claimed after not getting their way, that the classic system was not really present in south India but that was because the middle two ranks - kshatriya and vaishya - pretty much did not exist; brahmins were there and they just believed/dictated/preached that everyone else was shudra or not good Hindus at all. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
And to cast my dim light on the chronic problem we've had here at Wikipedia... Going by that classification, it's obvious that the vast majority of people in almost any society are going to fit into what would be the Shudra and Untouchable groups, with a still sizeable number classed as Vaishya. After all, it's the various kinds of labourers and merchants who make up the bulk of a society, and there really isn't anything like the same demand for kings, warriors and priests. But absolutely every caste promoter here wants to claim that members of their caste are traditionally kings, warriors or priests. If we believed everyone who made those claims, then there'd never have been anybody in India actually doing productive work for a living. I've spent some time there, and I met many many working people. I did encounter a relatively small number of priests. But I didn't bump into a single king or warrior (unless you count the kind policeman in Delhi who directed me when I got lost). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Did you meet anybody descended from gods, Boing! said Zebedee? Because that's what the best caste promoters claim about their own group. Bishonen | tålk 08:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC).
Oh, yeah, you get them on every street corner. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, descent from a deity is to caste Hindus what Arabic origin is the Muslim tribes of Pakistan. I think we may have more fireworks soon. - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Netoholic

Rearding your closing of the CTBAN discussion, and my after the close comment regarding Netoholic's complaints about the discussion [52], it appears that Netoholic has taken the first step towards following me around, reverting an edit I made to Peter Stumpp [53], an article he has never edited before [54] and James Wells Champney [55], another article he is a stranger to. I edited both articles very recntly, and his edits were specifically to undo mine. [56]

I would like to nip this potential harassment in the bud. Could you please tell Netoholic to steer clear of me and my edits, and I will do the same for him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

El C left a warning on Netoholic's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)(edit conflict) x2. BMK, in my opinion he is trying to goad you into breaching the image placement sanctions from last year. Definitely some hounding going on in my opinion. El C had already warned and if it continues action will be taken. Glen 03:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I have invoked IAR to include the three ANI post-close comments in the discussion. Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC).
Netoholic, per my warning, needs to start doing better as far as battleground behaviour and hounding goes. El_C 09:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted article check?

Is Chhonkar, which is the new target of the recreated Chhokar, actually a revival of the original Chhokar article that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chhokar? I suspect it is, grabbed off a mirror, because the sourcing was atrocious and at least one of those sources is referred to in the deletion discussion. (Sorry that this query is chocka with Chhoks, I should send you some virtual chocs). - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The text is substantively the same. Sources 2 and 3 are different, and there's no mention of Rajputs in the original. As such I'd say it's eligible for CSD#G4, but it is somewhat borderline, and others may disagree. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Basically, yes, except that the deleted article had two (poor) sources, while the new Chhonkar has none, and has more "also known as" suggestions. This was the text of the deleted Chhokar:
Chhokar (also known as Chhaunker, Chhoker, Chhonker ) is a clan found among Jats,[1] Gujjars[2] all of which are ethnic groups traditionally found mainly in India.
  1. ^ Nijjar, B. S. (2008). Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India: 900 B.C.-1947 A.D. Atlantic Publishers. p. 125. ISBN 9788126909087.
  2. ^ Raheja, Gloria Goodwin (1988). The Poison in the Gift: Ritual, Prestation, and the Dominant Caste in a North Indian Village. University of Chicago Press. p. 263. ISBN 9780226707280.

I think I'll just delete them both. Watch out for the appearance of new articles Chhonker, Chhaunkar, Chhenkure, and Chonkar! Bishonen | tålk 18:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC).

Thanks for the ch-ch-changes. I may try watchlisting those redlinks. - Sitush (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Heh, there is also Draft:Chhokar (surname). This is clearly someone on a mission! - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, right, brand new draft, not yet submitted for review, nor ready for it. Same someone as the creator of Draft:Chhokar, do you think? Not that it matters much, so sock-infested as the entire area is. I think I'll just watchlist the creator's talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 17:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC). PS, oh... I see they created it straight into article space, and a regular editor moved it to draft. Pity, in a way. I could have speedied the article. Bishonen | tålk 17:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC).

Talk Page Guidelines Violated in Your Warning to Me

I am not sure if you are an admin as you claim, but if so, then it was wholesale impolite to accuse me of "strange" edits. If you believed that calling someone else "emotionally involved" with the article Ebi given their numerous vandalisms to the BLP was wrong, then you should not have echoed that violation by claiming that I am emotionally charged instead. Further, you claimed that I had an "obsession" with this article. Finally, warning other users to not violate WikiPedia guidelines is not tantamount to a threat. It is a restatement of the policies that we all adhere to here, and if you are an admin, you are charged with protecting. The user you are "protecting" one-sidedly as is evident in your charged comments on my talking page is the one who left rude replies to me when I warned her of the WikiPedia guidelines violations I believed to be at hand. As he/she clearly knows how to reach an admin (if you are one), then it is odd that this person would assume a normal level editor would be able to do anything about the violations except warn of consequences anyway. That is, she knows what admins are for. You present a troubling case and I would be happy to withstand anything you believe is right as an admin. (if you are one), and to escalate the matter appropriately. Please remain as cordial and civil as possible and do not engage in negative behavior as a method to fix what you personally believe was wrong. Thank you. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I will reply on your page. Bishonen | tålk 21:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC).
I got one of those too. I originally found the page because of this -[57]. If its the same person, they haven't been happy for awhile. I did try to explain the issue with the edits on their talkpage [58] but... Curdle (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
It obviously is the same person. Thanks for the info, Curdle, it was useful (compare my latest post on their page). Bishonen | tålk 22:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC).
Fascinating. </spock impression> -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 23:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad Najeeb Naqi Khan

Can anything be done about anons at Muhammad Najeeb Naqi Khan? They are repeatedly adding outright puffery and also unsourced factual statements. Not sure if they're family or fans but it does look likely to be one or the other. - Sitush (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Sure. I've spent some time looking to see if a rangeblock is possible, but the range is pretty big and contains some constructive edits. Thanks for the semi, young Fritter. I hope a week will discourage sufficiently; please let me know if the puffery resumes after it, Sitush. Bishonen | tålk 08:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC).
It's yu-uge. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't think you understood range blocks, Bish - have you been learning or have I mistaken you for someone else? They seem like a black art to me. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Ha! Bah! Of course I understand them! Ask Floquenbeam, he's wildly envious! Actually I'm a bit of a one-trick pony — best with the simple IPv6 /64 ranges. I look up the others, it takes a while. But speaking of black arts, that's a good term for caste editing, such as you do. Bishonen | tålk 09:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC).
Heh, indeed. I must have you confused with someone else - an even greater sin. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Reply to - ["warning from an administrator, time stamp - 09:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)]

Hi, sir

First of all thank you for intervening in this matter.

I am requesting you please go through the talk page and history of edits of these pages 1. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Almas_(folklore) 2. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Almas_(folklore)&action=history) 3. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Chuchuna&action=history.

I have raised some valid points/ questions in this page, which are not being answered.

I am sorry for my naivety to say user::bloodofox: as an administrator.

If user :bloodofox's actions would have been constructive then this situation/ problem would not have occurred.

As per your valuable advice I will be posting this thread in relevant noticeboard section.

Please guide me, so that i can contribute and enrich the contents of the existing entries within an existing category.

I have a question regarding a comment - "Additions of pseudoscience will be removed on sight. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)"

do Wikipedia have a policy to not post anything related to pseudoscience?

Naturally, I have no objective to be in any form of confrontation with anyone in this forum.

Thanks and Regards --AranyaPathak (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, posts regarding pseudoscience are welcome, AranyaPathak. What Bloodofox meant was presumably that he will remove additions of pseudoscientific sources, and/or of text that endorses pseudoscientific explanations. I agree that he should, and I also agree that Bernard Heuvelmans is a fringe, i. e. pseudoscientific, source. You have posted our article Bernard Heuvelmans on Bloodofox's page, as if that proves H is not a fringe source, but I think the opposite: our article shows he is.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying you'll post this thread at the relevant noticeboard section? Do you wish to complain at an actual noticeboard, such as WP:ANI or WP:FTN? You can certainly do that, but I frankly don't think you're quite ready for it yet. Perhaps you meant you'll post it at one or more article talkpages, such as Talk:Almas? That would be fine, but I advise you to try to be concise on talkpages. Everybody here is a volunteer, and they're less likely to read lengthy or repetitious posts. Please don't post this reply of mine anywhere; too dull. If you want to refer to it, please just post a diff to it, or, if that's difficult, just say it's on my page. Bishonen | tålk 11:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC).


Hi mam, thank you for your quick response Cryptozoology is one of my interests, just as a cultural phenomenon.I have no biasness on the topic cryptozoology. I came here to learn and contribute, not to be hostile or to be in any adversarial condition.

I am having some clarity from this discussion. As i understood from Wikipedia guidelines, that any content must be substantiated, with reference, source and citation. It was my first edit post ([[as i understood from wikipedia guidlines, that any content must be substanciated, with reference, source and citation, It was my first edit post, with a considerable amount of reading and researching.(Almas), with a considerable amount of reading and researching.

There must be a possible miscommunication, about linking the Wikipedia page of Heuvelmans, the triviality of the fact that person mentioned is a founding figure of cryptozoology.

Now the question is crypotozoology itself is a pseudo-scientific discipline, isnt it obvious that the status of materials or sources of these will also be pseudo-scientific. Then no content can be entered in any of these cryptozoological pages, as no corresponding reference can be given for any content specially in these topics.

Kindly help me out in this paradoxical situation.

Any entry of folklore can also be interpreted as a promotion of superstition, which i think would be an absurdity.

While editing the Almas page, I provided total 8 references, among which one of the was of Heuvelmans's, my question was- why all the entries of around 7000 characters based on one single name are being deleted, and currently the newly edited page uses one of 8 reference that I used, to edit the same page.

And user:bloodofox is not going through any dialogues regarding the deletion.

Can you please guide me how will I add content, in this category.

I am going through all the guidelines that you have referred regarding pseudo-science in my talk page.

Also there must a slight miscommunication, as i have mentioned the term noticeboard, because you have suggested me the same in my talk page, and i have already started a discussion in the talk page of the above mentioned page.

Please continue to guide, support and teach me like this in future.

No, it isn't obvious that the sources will also be pseudoscientific; in fact, they're not allowed to be. Heuvelmans is a notable subject as one of the fathers of cryptozoology — hence we have an article about him — but he's not an appropriate source. Cryptozoology as folklore is an academic subject. Look, I do realize you're new and just getting to know your way around Wikipedia, but Bloodofox has already told you both these things. He is deeply interested in and knowledgeable about the subject, compare his userpage. You'd do yourself a favor if you listened better to him, because if you take these two points on board, the paradox whereof you speak disappears. I can't blame him much for being short with you, when all you bring to his page is accusations, and you give every sign of not listening to what he tells you. Thank you for being so polite to me, but it's not only admins you need be polite to. Bishonen | tålk 16:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC).

Bhonsle

Your ministrations, or those of some tpw, may soon be needed at Bhonsle. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's not mess around - 3 months semi-protection. Let me know in October if it needs further attention. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Boing. That's a pretty disruptive IP. I've blocked it (in the sense that I've blocked its /64 range) for two weeks. Bishonen | tålk 15:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC).
Yes, thanks. Now you're showing off, Bish <g> - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm a range-blocking machine! Bishonen | tålk 16:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC).

Karlie Kloss

Hi Bishonen. Thanks for cleaning up after the ip. Care to look into the mess at Karlie Kloss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Maile66 at RFPP would like someone to look into it [59], and GeneralNotability's work to stop the edit-warring didn't last long User_talk:GeneralNotability#Karlie_Kloss.

Any intervention or suggestions would be appreciated. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh god I hate celebrity articles. They're always full of revolting "tidbits". Nothing much I can do, sorry, Hipal, except warn/sanction/DS alert people who attack others, such as the nice people on your page. But for the article itself, time-limited full protection bec there's an edit war seems to be the only thing, sorry. Done, 3 days. Bishonen | tålk 12:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC).
I've found articles on models to be some of the worst celebrity articles, and this is a model with ties to the Trump family. Thanks for the help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC) --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Jaydoggmarco (talk · contribs) to ANI or ArbEnf seems like a good step, or start at ANEW. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
And could you please remove the disputed content per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, no, I don't want to edit the article. Bishonen | tålk 16:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC).
RexxS got it.
I'm going ahead at ANEW. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Hipal: I've topic-banned Jaydoggmarco from AP2 for six months to save the red-tape, as their reversion of GeneralNotability's pre-protection edit was a blatant violation of the second bullet point at Talk:Karlie Kloss #Discretionary sanctions. I've simply restored the version protected by GeneralNotability as a consequential admin action. Please make sure that any further edits on that content have consensus at the talk page first. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do some devil's advocate work if needed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, thanks for handling the TBAN. Since this is my first foray into AE, question for you/Bish - am I INVOLVED enough on that page (since I handed out the DS restrictions and set the "neutral" version of the page) that I shouldn't hand out TBANs to people breaking the "no restoring challenged edits" restriction? GeneralNotability (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Opinions may vary, mon général (and I include opinions among admins), but if I had made this edit, I wouldn't be handing out sanctions for infractions connected with the article. In fact, I would have hesitated to protect it. Bishonen | tålk 18:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC). PS, setting the DS restrictions doesn't make you in any way involved, though — that's a pure admin action. Bishonen | tålk 18:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC).
Understood, I'll let other folks handle the sanctions and future protection. That edit was me trying to put the article at status quo ante (before the content disputes began), but I get that it does make me involved since it wasn't a blatant BLPVIO or the like and means that I have taken a stance on the "correct" version of the article. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record

July
pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

I love your "broken record" about our most precious resource, last seen in WP:Great Dismal Swamp! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hehe. Always nice to be noticed! Thank you, Gerda. I kind of hope somebody will eventually close the thread with "Blocked 72 hours by Bishonen like a broken record". Bishonen | tålk 08:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC).
I couldn't believe the thread which I came to inspect (first in 2020, I believe), prompted by an innocent-looking "enforce" combined with rhythm. I then found that we have a sad article on a great topic, - anybody to help me expanding? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
As for the enforcement rhythm referenced here itself — it did not go great... El_C 08:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Too much force in enforcement anyway, - my last encounter with ACE should better be forgotten (and I make progress: while I remember the edit that caused it - and admit that was an intended provocation - I forgot when). Better help to get the dance into shape. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
striking per below, the link to the dance is Rhythm Is It!. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Always. Which is why no force was used, but gentle advise was given, instead. When this was not heeded, some firmer caution was accorded — all distortions to the contrary notwithstanding. El_C 11:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
El C, gentle advice, or blatant ignoring? If I'd have done this I'd have been blocked in an instant. CassiantoTalk 13:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Cassianto, I disagree. I don't think you would be. El_C 13:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
El C, really? In a conversation about infoboxes? That kind of block has Sandstein written all over it. CassiantoTalk 13:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Ultimately, I can't speak for other admins, but only for my own actions or lack thereof. I think as far as personal attacks go, it was not particularly egregious. The user has apologized and promised to do better, which is good enough for me. El_C 14:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
El C, this only goes to prove that Wikipedia hasn't got a bloody clue what a "personal attack" is. Some would block, others wouldn't. There is no consistency and one has to ask: when does a PA stop being a PA? Sure, there are worse PA's to make, but you have to look at the intent of it in the first place. The edit was designed to kick a hornet's nest. If I were to go to a contentious discussion that had seen no activity for over a month and to make a derogatory comment about members of that discussion calling them a "cabel", I'd expect to be blocked. It was not about content and all about the editors. If the cap fits... CassiantoTalk 15:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Cassianto, I don't know what to say. You are free to launch a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you feel my close was out of step with the disruption that violation represents. Maybe it will prove myself being in error there. That isn't outside the realm of possibility by any stretch. El_C 15:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
El C, I wouldn't waste my time; such boards are a waste of time as it's a closed shop. It is full of admins backing up other admins. While I agree with most of your judgement calls on other occasions, this time I've felt it was lacking. CassiantoTalk 18:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Cassianto, understood. Hope to live up to your standards —which I usually find on-the-mark, as well— in the future. El_C 19:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
El C, my standards are ones of fairness and common sense. Expect to be treated how you treat others, is also part of that. I've also just come across this. I really don't think this was your finest hour, if I'm honest. Why did you delete that? CassiantoTalk 20:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Because I found it unconstructive to have that displayed on an opponent's talk page. That "No thanks. Not interested." has gotten enough millage, I challenge. But maybe we should take it to my talk page. I don't want to outlive my welcome on Bish's talk page. El_C 20:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Bollocks. It was a comment to you, not to someone being disruptive. You had ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to remove that comment. There is nothing in TPO that gave you any right to do that. Any other editor would be warned or blocked for that, but you get a free pass because you’re an admin - and one you needs to have the last word, given the two comments of mine you’ve deleted. Deleting a comment solely on the grounds you didn’t like it before you start the harassment of messaging and pinging. Second rate behaviour, third rate admining. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC) And as this is a ‘for the record’ thread, I stand by my original comment on that talk page. There is too much use of the Tainted Award being given by GA to people who oppose both me and Cass, or who are pushy when it comes to IB discussions. It’s nothing more than baiting - that’s why you were given one of them too. At some point the penny may drop, but I won’t hold my breath. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I find your conduct in that ANI report and beyond to have been too aggressive, with a tendency toward provocations and innuendo. I will act as I see fit to moderate that. Yes, I have the authority, but it is subject to wider review at any time. That thread was done. There was no need to make a final jab. Sorry you're unable to see that. You've removed two of my comments, as well, as far as that goes. Our standards about what edits are worthwhile retaining are obviously at odds, as far as disruption goes, I argue — or as far as harassment goes, you argue (I maintain, falsely). Otherwise, I take exception to your mischaracterization. El_C 21:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC) You should not be perturbed by expressions of kindness, unless its intent is to provoke. If that was the intent there, I did not pick up on it. I actually think I have been acting with restraint, to all. I, again, am making a plea for good faith and deescalation. El_C 21:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
No, you don’t have the authority to remove that comment. Not at all. It’s pure arrogance to think that just because you are an admin you are able to do it. There is nothing in TPO that gives you the right. It’s sheer petty arrogance from the ‘you will respect my authoriteh’ school of admining – the sort that gives admins a bad name. Sorry you're unable to see that. Yes, I removed the threats from my talk page: I am entitled to do so, but I removed the whole thread - I didn’t do it to make it look like I was getting the last word, unlike this, which is just wrong. I overflow with good faith, but WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and when there is an ongoing pattern of behaviour in posting Tainted Awards, it’s not even close to bad faith. Anyway, I’m done here: it’s clear you’re not the type to admit you’ve done anything wrong, even when the guidelines specifically say so. - SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I don't see it that way. You are, of course, entitled to seek review in any forum you see fit in addition to this thread. El_C 21:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Gerda, please stop posting those resentful riddles on my page. I don't understand the half of them. You seem to assume that everybody is au courant with everything that happens on every noticeboard and talkpage, but that is not the case. Wikipedia is a big place. And, unlike El C, have you ever provided a diff to help your reader out? Not that I've seen. Bishonen | tålk 11:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC).
today's picture
No resentment was intended, sorry if that was not clear. I suggest we all look forward, per TFP "of hpe". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I hope those abbreviations saved you a lot of time, Gerda. For me they're incomprehensible, just more riddles. Bishonen | tålk 19:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC).
Sorry about abbreviating and a typing error. TFP means Today's featured picture, and it was described by The Guardian as an image of hope, according to the blurb, - {{Pic of the day}}. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I cannot find that description no matter where I click, Gerda. But I'm sorry I got impatient. Oh.. you've changed your post now and I'm supposed to look it up in The Guardian? Never mind, no need to reply, seriously. Fine picture. Bishonen | tålk 19:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC).
If you look today, you can just look at the Main page, where the pic with the blurb will show for a few more hours, below the DYK (Did you know ...?) section. If later, you can click on the link in the curly brackets. The blurb says "the photograph was described by The Guardian as an 'image of hope'." I missed that the image description (if you just click on the image) come without this detail (and therefore changed the post), but is powerful enough for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Now I also found The Guardian, linked from the image description. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"1C" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 1C. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 24#1C until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Deep111198 is not getting it

See this history. Deep111198 is not getting it and has now yet again overwritten sourced material with their unsourced opinion, even after being alerted to the sanctions regime. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 06:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks El C The India sphere seems particularly troublesome at the moment (as in, even more so than usual for what is always a troublesome area). If you have time, I left a note at User talk:Johnuniq and Martial race can be added to that list of related articles needing protection. - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Anytime, Sitush. Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks (all), after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 06:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I expect the caste warriors are getting cabin fever like the rest of the world. Thank you, boys. Bishonen | tålk 08:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC).
And it's the second block evader since midnight here. Oh joy. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Got it. El_C 10:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear oglers

Oglers, ogling this talk page from the dark

Dear oglers, please could someone put a short semi on Junejo, where a hopping anon keeps trying to add unsourced material to an already unsourced article. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the unregistered editor something else to worry about for a week. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. You do have a lot of oglers, Bish. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit bigger than that. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 20:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I have the dearest oglers! [Bishonen scoops up all the dear oglers including dogs of all sizes and Sluzzelin's kittens, stuffing them in Bishzilla's pocket for safekeeping.] Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC).
Damn it. Why do I always blink when being photographed? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

To end vandalism

Here is a small request to you on behalf of wikipedia.this user "Fire star of the heat " is responsible for vandalism,disruptive editing .He is adding fake and biased content .Please have a attention to my query .As a administrator it is your moral duty to block who is responsible for vandalism.He reverted the old data which is inconsistent ,inaccurate and vandalized.Many wikipedia users including me putting our best experience try to add original content but in vain.I have given him 2 warnings.He paid no head to my warning .I have no powers to stop vandalism.you are worthy and here is a small request to block /stop him by any means from disruptive editing,spamming and vandalism.If you stop him ,then all learners from all over the world get original content rather than fake ,unsourced and biased content.I hope you will understand my request and your own job.Thanks from Vansh stalin Vansh stalin (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vansh stalin (talk) I didn't do any edit which led to vandalism or disruption and violated wikipedia policies. I just reverted unsourced edits. Whatever edits I made with reliable sources and citations were accepted. I agree that I engaged in edit war with user Ratan375 as I reverted his edits more than thrice and violated wikipedia rule. I came to know that it was mistake. I apologized him as well. You can check my edits as well. Moreover you didn't warn me more than once. I saw my talk page just now and got only 1 notification just now. (As soon as I saw my notification, I'm replying in this discussion). In that also you abused me by calling kid and went harsh against me. One more thing is that I warned you so that you will be careful and won't get blocked by Wikipedia admins. I showed concern towards you and you are like scolding me. Fire star on heat (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I saw article Abhimanyu just now. In that also, your edits are reverted by other well established wikipedia user. That it indicated that your edits might have been wrong. It's not a mistake to make wrong edits but please be careful. Again I'm making clear that I DIDN'T DO ANY WRONG AND VANDALISTIC edits. I just REVERTED content because reliable sources and citations were not added. I'm basically a reverter. Even in article Drona Parva, I reverted back and I was about to work on it. You again reverted it. I saw now that User with name Raviprakaash also made some edits. So I didn't look into it. How can I get blamed for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire star on heat (talk • contribs)

Calling users vandals without basis is a personal attack, Vansh stalin. And this warning on User:Fire star on heat's page is indeed extremely rude, as is this post. If you talk to fellow editors like that again you will be the one blocked. I'm pinging @Sitush: in the hope of a comment on article edits. Bishonen | tålk 16:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC).
Ask and you shall receive. I've looked through some recent editsSeems like Vansh stalin (now on an enforced rest) is muddled regarding WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV, at the very least. The diff you give above would suggest that - Mahabharata is, like the bible, the work of many people over many centuries, has various interpretations and editions etc. There is no "right" version and using a so-called critical edition doesn't make it any less an ancient primary source unless it is used purely to cite the expert commentary that appears in the edition (which seems not to be the case here). Eg: while the original statements were hopelessly sourced, this edit is no better despite its claims to use of authoritative versions of the text.
I can't see anything wrong with what Fire star on heat is doing, although I'm not sure it amounts to anything terribly useful because it seems to me that a lot of the articles in question - which are mostly Hindu mythology - simply need stripping out but they seem to be doing a lot of stuff like this, which is just replacing the newer rubbish with the older rubbish. In that specific edit, they say they are reverting vandalism but whether it is strictly vandalism seems doubtful to me; on the other hand, this one seems spot on in its summary. Anything related to Karna tends to be, um, carnage on wiki. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Request

Hello wikipedia admin. I request you to look into my edits and please guide and tell me whether did I really do anything wrong. Because I just reverted unsourced content. ALSO please look into my talk page and user Vansh Stalin talk page. He abused me with unparliamentary language opposing wikipedia policies. Many of Vansh Stalin's edits were reverted not just by me but also other established users. I'm not worried about that but I'm worried because a user claimed me that Im creating vandalism and disrupting articles. I don't know whether it is correct or wrong. Please judge this issue with impartiality and justice. Don't do injustice to me. Thank you admin. Wishing you to have a nice day. Fire star on heat (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see my response above. I don't think you're a vandal. Bishonen | tålk 16:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC).

Thank you admin but need your help because these articles need correct protection and reliable sources. Yes admin Sitush is working on it. I asked him to look into certain articles like Karna etc. Fire star on heat (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Article Bhima is now Extended-confirmed-protected. Other articles have to be looked in. So your attention would result in fruitful results. Thanking you. Fire star on heat (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I did say I would try to get hold of some decent sources but I am struggling to do so. They exist but getting my hands on them is another matter. If the WMF could spend just a fraction of its income sorting out some book grants for contributors who meet certain criteria, it could go a long way towards fixing messes like this. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello admin I found that User "Dinesh 2069" is not accepting warning and replied me vulgarly on his talk page. I request you to go through this once and please warn him otherwise he might be blocked from editing. I saw his talk page, he has many warnings. Still he is very rude towards other users. I warned him again. Also let me know whether my warnings are correct or not. Even I will try to correct my self if I'm wrong. Thank you and have a nice day. Here is the link [60]

Hi, Fire star on heat. Your warnings are more or less all right, but it's much better to use your own words, rather than a template. Templates never fit any too well, but when you speak as from yourself, you can be more precise in explaining problems. For instance, this more personal post of yours is very good. This edit of yours here on my page would have been better placed at the bottom of the page with its own header, so it wouldn't risk being missed. I know it's related to this thread where you put it, but everybody stops looking at the old threads once they haven't been edited for a few days. Everybody looks at the bottom of the page! Also please don't forget to sign. I'll take a look at Dinesh2069's editing. Bishonen | tålk 16:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC).
I've looked now. I agree with you about the disruption at Bhima and Hindu mythological wars, but since it happened over a week ago, I won't block now. I've given them a final warning. If you should see more disruption from them, please let me know promptly. Bishonen | tålk 16:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen. You gave me nice suggestions. I actually didn't mean that user to be blocked but he must know the policies. From now, I will try to reduce templates as per your advice. This is a very great suggestion. Thank you very much Fire star on heat (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Admin accuses me of being a long-term sock!

See here. Can't wait for the SPI. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think he's accusing you of using a sock, isn't he? (An IP.) Anyway, so he's still an admin? That's unfortunate. Bishonen | tålk 11:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC).
That's the rulez about adminship. Best bet is still to try to educate and update as much as possible. --RexxS (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I feel like saying QED regarding admin ability but shall desist. They've had a lot of criticism since their last regaining of the tools, mostly not from me. Yes, I added some in my comment there but I was also doing what no-one else had done, ie: letting them know that they were being discussed at BN. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Bishonen, he let his adminship lapse, and asking for it back at the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard led to a huge controversy. He was eventually re-sysopped with a warning that "Your understanding of current policy is seriously questioned and your actions will be scrutinised by many Wikipedians."-- P-K3 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
This is as bad as the last incompetant Admin I got in trouble over. Get rid folks. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Roxy, yeah yeah, but was it always "Roxy the elfin dog"? This whole time I've been reading it as "Roxy the effin' dog". Bishonen | tålk 14:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC).
Roxy the ineffable dog. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
That's the problem with admins nowadays, they don't pay attention. It was effin for a couple of days, untill EEng pointed out my spelling error on a highly trafficked noticeboard. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)-Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, I think you're hot! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Stella Immanuel: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Stella_Immanuel

Dear Wikipedia Admin, I have been a wikipedia editor for several years. I am surprised that Wikipedia , reputed as it is as a knowledge source, should consider it appropriate to devote a page to Dr. Stella Immanuel who is in the news for just the past two days having made outlandish and scientifically debunked claims.

I am especially disturbed that such a person should be accorded such importance, because in the past when I had created biographies for reputed personalities, I had received severe pushback from the admins till I was able to prove that those personalities were decorated with awards and honors. I feel a certain level of credibility should be maintained.

Please consider taking down this biography as it is merely according importance to a person who is currently in scientific and medical societies being considered controversial- most lightly put. I am myself a Pediatrician and Hospitalist and a Oncology Subspecialist with plenty of publications, and it is offensive to see the biography of such a doctor whereas you certainly do not have biographies of every other doctor in the country who are far more accomplished than her. I would argue that I should perhaps even have my biography on Wikipedia.

Regards Sunil Muthusami, MD,FAAP, PEdiatrics, PEdiatric hospital Boards Medicine, PEdiatric Hematology/oncology

  • (talk page watcher) @Smuthusami: The page is under discussion for merger with another article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles about many people, even those despised or thought unworthy by some other people. "Worthiness" is not a requirement for an encyclopedia article. Please read WP:N and WP:GNG and consider nominating at WP:AFD if the subject does not meet those requirements. cheers. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, @Smuthusami: thanks for getting in touch. Personally I tend to agree with you about the Immanuel biography. But having a biography on Wikipedia is not reserved for people notable for achievements, and there has been intense interest in Immanuel. I found our article (which turned out to be very new) after reading about her in the Washington Post yesterday. It had been intensely edited, compare the article history, and also variously disrupted and vandalized, which is the reason I "semiprotected" it. (Semiprotection means our newest editors and IPs can't edit it.) I hope it's merged, as I think Immanuel is a one-day wonder. But it's not up to me. Bishonen | tålk 08:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC).
    I have to say my hope is the same - she's an idiot who will hopefully soon be forgotten. (But looking at the merge discussion, I fear such hopes will be in vain, at least while she's in the news). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    I think it's actually important that Wikipedia has something to say about the sort of nonsense she has been spouting. Wikipedia has a steadily increasing reputation for being the website where misinformation is exposed for what it is, and we shouldn't flinch from that responsibility. When a reader hears about "Stella Immanuel", they should be able to find a clear explanation on Wikipedia of her crazy theories, which are put into context by reliable sources demonstrating the mainstream view that they have no foundation in reality.
    It's unfortunate that it seems to give her undeserved prominence personally, but I think our article, as it currently stands, does a good job of exposing her views for what they are. We need that, because the alternative is to allow the gutter press free rein to spread her misinformation without effective rebuttal. When all this dies down, and she can be seen clearly as a subject notable only for one event, no doubt a good case can then be made to merge her article into something more appropriate. --RexxS (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    Well-stated. +1 Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 21:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    Well I did the heavy lifting by putting together the DYK. EEng 08:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Persistent so-and-so at Vankar

See the history at the Vankar article.

It will never fly but Primefac mused yesterday on their talk page that GS might permit permanent semi of all caste articles. I wish! I think it would fall foul of the "preventive not punitive" idea, as with blocks, and the mass of experienced contributors who know little of the day-to-day problems and thus would insist on people being given a chance per "anyone can edit". That said, the number of indefinitely protected caste articles continues to grow. (Lovely photo of the black swan cygnet, btw.) - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi'd for two weeks. Yes, fine baby birdie! Bishonen | tålk 19:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC).
It's true that we shouldn't be semi-protecting caste articles that don't have any history of vandalism or problematic edits. Nevertheless, if the community imposed general sanctions (GS) on caste articles, it would allow any uninvolved admin to take whatever measures they deemed appropriate to protect those articles from damage, so it would be seen as reasonable to use lengthy semi-protection once problems emerged on any article. That would be far more realistic, imho.
Perhaps it's time to ping a few concerned parties like Primefac and see if we can make a good case to take to WP:AN asking for GS for caste articles. We already have discretionary sanctions for India-related articles, so that might be considered as enough, but caste articles are a very particular problem and quite probably would benefit from GS. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Already done, RexxS. The community has placed caste articles under GS, see WP:CASTE. Bishonen | tålk 21:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC).
Oh, excellent! That should make it far easier to protect the articles, and I'll bear that in mind for the future. We need the talk page notices {{Castewarningtalk}} on more pages to raise awareness. Thank you, chère. --RexxS (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Quite a few articles do have that template but I'll try to remember to check as I wander round in future. Bania (caste) is a problem right now and I suspect the anon isn't even aware that the talk page exists, though I have left an explanatory note there. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sitush, RexxS, Bish, it may interest you that ProcrastinatingReader is working on a rework of templates and talk page notices for GS, if you're planning to apply a bunch of talk page notices or editnotices you may want to talk to them and see what the timeline is for the new version. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
fwiw: Talk page notices were synced yesterday. Ideally, {{Gs/talk notice|sasg}} should be used, but for now {{Castewarningtalk}} works too (it's just a wrapper around the former). Editnotices are still a work-in-progress, but WP:CASTE doesn't authorise any topic-wide restrictions (eg 1RR), so my understanding is that editnotices should not be used for CASTE (except for individual pages where a sysop has applied a restriction under DS). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Submitting an appeal to my Topic Ban in the ARBPIA area

This notice comes to inform you that I have submitted an appeal to my Topic ban in the ARBPIA area, which you can see here. I was asked by the administrator EdJohnston to inform the previous administrators involved in my earlier topic bans when submitting a new appeal, which I take the time to do now. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Asking you to reconsider arbitration enforcement Markbassett

User:Bishonen Per the guidance to ask the admin, I ask you to reconsider this action.

You have been topic banned indefinitely from post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed.

This was put in my talkpage here, and in the log at American politics 2.

Please reconsider this for removal, or modification as to breadth or duration. I would suggest considering the context and looking at my edits for the multiple articles affected, as well as whatever process you generally apply. In any case I would also appreciate whatever you may wish to share of the considerations, criteria, and process. Thanks. Markbassett (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi, Mark. I have long watched Awilley's page, where interesting things (IMO) often happen, and I noticed this discussion. In it, MrX sounds kind of despondent, and he quotes a talkpage post by you that he had found incomprehensible and asks for a second opinion. Awilley, in replying, uses the expression "disruptive in that it makes people's heads explode when they try to engage in logical discussion with him". That made me look for myself at Talk:Donald Trump, where the quoted RfC came from, and I too found your comments difficult to comprehend and also thought them pretty bludgeon-y. So I posted a warning to you against making people's heads explode (quoting Awilley). I found your response rather difficult to understand[61]... Anyway, it wasn't a response that suggested you had any notion I, or MrX, or Awilley, might possibly have a point, or that you'd try in any way to do anything differently. I gave up. But having once posted on your page meant I was now watching it, and so I caught sight of MrX's long post. It was very well documented and very clear, IMO. I got a sort of impression that it was MrX's final push, and final appeal, to you before he'd feel forced to report you at a noticeboard. (That is my impression only; especially from his use of the word "final" in the sentence "I am asking one final time for you to please practice good talk page communication going forward" — I'm not in his head, and don't know his actual intention. Perhaps it was just an appeal.) In any case, he was clearly disappointed in your reply to his effort to reach out. So was I. You called his post "a bit vague plus TLDR", and suggested it would have been better if he had picked on item to discuss (presumably meaning one item at a time). For my part, I could only reflect that if MrX had posted that very clear and complete piece at WP:AE, it would have been a slam dunk for a topic ban. So, to save everybody (you, MrX, the AE admins) both time and patience, I actioned it myself. I really thought it was an obvious case for a topic ban, and still think so. No, I won't lift it.
  • As for breadth: American politics is the arena you have been disruptive in. Do you have any suggestion for reasonably making the ban narrower? I would carefully consider such a suggestion.
  • For duration: I like to avoid time-limited t-bans. The trouble with them is that people can simply leave Wikipedia for the duration — wait out the ban, learning nothing from it — instead of editing other areas constructively, building up a record that they can point to in an unban appeal.
  • You haven't exactly asked about appealing the ban, but I'll tell you what I think anyway. You have a choice between WP:AN (where the decision will be made by the community), WP:AE (where it will be made by uninvolved admins), and WP:ARCA (where it will be made by ArbCom). At AE, the discussions are more structured — or, if you like, more rulebound — at AN more free-form (or messy). If I were you, I would read a few appeals at both those noticeboards, to decide which to use. Personally I would never go to ARCA first, as it's quite risky — "once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred". And when should you appeal? There are two roads to take: if you think the sanction is unfair, and think you'll be able to convince the community or the admins that it is, you can always appeal right away. The other road is to wait about six months, diligently editing other topics (and perhaps other Wikimedia projects), and appeal with good work to point to. Bishonen | tålk 16:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC).

<snip - my earlier comments were interleaved contrary to TPO, and moved here I felt lost the meaning so will redo Markbassett (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)>

@Markbassett: An admin has come to the conclusion that your edits were: (1) "difficult to comprehend"; (2) "pretty bludgeon-y"; "an obvious case for a topic ban"; and "disruptive". In addition, she "still think[s it's an obvious case]" and has told you that she "won't lift it". You have been asked one question "Do you have any suggestion for reasonably making the ban narrower?" and apart from answering it, you have no further business here. If you really think you can persuade any admin to rescind a sanction by criticising another editor, you haven't figured out how sanctions work on Wikipedia. If you wish to appeal the ban, I'll give you a piece of advice that you genuinely may find useful: a ban and a block share a lot of characteristics, notably the reasons why they should be lifted. So have a good look at WP:GAB and see how much of that might be useful to you. You're going to need a fair amount of self-reflection before you ever go back to editing in the area of your topic ban, so please try to avoid attempting to re-litigate here the entire set of problems you've been having: it won't be productive. --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


User:Bishonen Thank you for the quick response and reconsideration, and for stating background not previously apparent to me in this decision. I will reply to more below by sections (... reposted here because Rexx pointed out interleaving to your text above was inappropriate per TPO)
1. Regarding your first section
"*Hi, Mark. I have long watched Awilley's page, where interesting things (IMO) often happen, and I noticed this discussion. In it, MrX sounds kind of despondent, and he quotes a talkpage post by you that he had found incomprehensible and asks for a second opinion. Awilley, in replying, uses the expression "disruptive in that it makes people's heads explode when they try to engage in logical discussion with him". That made me look for myself at Talk:Donald Trump, where the quoted RfC came from, and I too found your comments difficult to comprehend and also thought them pretty bludgeon-y. So I posted a warning to you against making people's heads explode (quoting Awilley). I found your response rather difficult to understand[62]... Anyway, it wasn't a response that suggested you had any notion I, or MrX, or Awilley, might possibly have a point, or that you'd try in any way to do anything differently. I gave up. But having once posted on your page meant I was now watching it, and so I caught sight of MrX's long post. It was very well documented and very clear, IMO. I got a sort of impression that it was MrX's final push, and final appeal, to you before he'd feel forced to report you at a noticeboard. (That is my impression only; especially from his use of the word "final" in the sentence "I am asking one final time for you to please practice good talk page communication going forward" — I'm not in his head, and don't know his actual intention. Perhaps it was just an appeal.) In any case, he was clearly disappointed in your reply to his effort to reach out. So was I. You called his post "a bit vague plus TLDR", and suggested it would have been better if he had picked on item to discuss (presumably meaning one item at a time). For my part, I could only reflect that if MrX had posted that very clear and complete piece at WP:AE, it would have been a slam dunk for a topic ban. So, to save everybody (you, MrX, the AE admins) both time and patience, I actioned it myself. I really thought it was an obvious case for a topic ban, and still think so. No, I won't lift it."
  • I do think the unwieldy size of over 19,000, and manner of stating diverse negative claims for every post I had done was not the best approach. Just too much to manage a response in one go. And of course not helped by the source being MrX that had just been solely doing negative claims at *every* Oppose view for a while (before switching to a subthread excluding any Oppose), so a long list of negative claims at almost *every* post I had seemed the same sort and lacking much for any actionable engagement. How should one respond to a long monologue making negative statements about a week or three old posts anyway? I did however give it a few hours efforts, mentioned other points I wished, and made some explanation towards a bit of the many items he’d mentioned like ‘Running “Oppose All”’ was done at the time of several such in a row. I did think he did right venue in making it my TALK page,
2. Regarding your breadth bullet

*As for breadth: American politics is the arena you have been disruptive in. Do you have any suggestion for reasonably making the ban narrower? I would carefully consider such a suggestion.

I will ask for some unpacking why you phrased it as disruptive for that entire area. For example, did you set it based on any article edits, or participation in other articles of that, and is it the value judgement that none of my edits have value or more that it is so too often ?
The reason I ask is I saw here one lengthy post from a source who had negative immediate context with me, about one specific article TALK thread, and about 10 hours later I made did a couple hours responding, then 12 hours later a sanction occurs. Your explanation made a longer period concern apparent, but not clarified the reasoning about breadth. I have seen here & elsewhere editors remark when (not if) I’m not understood, other times compliment the writing or thank me, sometimes ask further questions, and usually hear nothing back or a talk goes that way or not or an edit just stays. Sometimes there seems irritation over a phrasing (‘empty hyperbole’) or I’m given an odd phrase (‘heads explode’). Again, thanks for any info.
3. Regarding your appeals bullet

*You haven't exactly asked about appealing the ban, but I'll tell you what I think anyway. You have a choice between WP:AN (where the decision will be made by the community), WP:AE (where it will be made by uninvolved admins), and WP:ARCA (where it will be made by ArbCom). At AE, the discussions are more structured — or, if you like, more rulebound — at AN more free-form (or messy). If I were you, I would read a few appeals at both those noticeboards, to decide which to use. Personally I would never go to ARCA first, as it's quite risky — "once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred". And when should you appeal? There are two roads to take: if you think the sanction is unfair, and think you'll be able to convince the community or the admins that it is, you can always appeal right away. The other road is to wait about six months, diligently editing other topics (and perhaps other Wikimedia projects), and appeal with good work to point to. Bishonen | tålk 16:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC).

Thank you for being fully forthcoming on appeals in addition to the other information, and for kindly offering advice about it. I’ve only gotten as far as ‘first, talk to who made the sanction’. I have been hitting edit conflicts and dropouts, so will revisit here for any responses later. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Your point 2: I said you have been disruptive in the arena of American politics. That's not "phras[ing] it as disruptive for that entire area". I'm not saying, and never said, that none of your edits have value. The main reason I banned you is your talkpage manner. Look, rather than this arguing on the basis of something I didn't say ("you phrased it as disruptive for that entire area"), why don't you simply make a concrete suggestion for narrowing the ban. A concrete suggestion would be for example "I think it would be enough to topic ban me from Donald Trump" or "Please consider only topic banning me from post-2015 American politics". Those are just examples. I would take that kind of suggestion under advisement. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC).
User:Bishonen I already asked for reconsideration on removal, or modification as to breadth or duration. Whatever went into those I accept you did whatever you do before applying such a ban and have since reconsidered to reaffirm it as ‘banned indefinitely from post-1932 American politics, broadly construed’ rather than other terms.
Here I was asking for some unpacking about the decision to state that breadth, however much and however you perhaps were willing to state what that was or any process or criteria. “For example did you set it based on any article edits, or participation in other articles of that (category), and is it the value judgement that none of my edits have value or more that it is so too often ?” Was to illustrate my lack of knowledge about all of that, mostly concerned it might mislead you away from stating whatever you otherwise might about the decision and later review.
From the ban saying ‘talkpages in the area’, and now seeing ‘the main reason’ and ‘talkpage manner’, I would guess there were multiple talkpages and also something you previously considered minor in article space were also part of the breadth decision and reconsideration. I may have that wrong, but thank you for your additional reply above and I won’t be looking here for more. Markbassett (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


Markbassett, FWIW, as an uninvolved editor, your writing does make my head explode: I saw here one lengthy post from a source who had negative immediate context with me, about one specific article TALK thread, and about 10 hours later I made did a couple hours responding, then 12 hours later a sanction occurs. Your explanation made a longer period concern apparent, but not clarified the reasoning about breadth. I lose heart even trying to figure out what you're trying to say. I can only guess what the phrases mean, and then I have to put them together to figure out the context. —valereee (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Valereee—you don't have to "guess what the phrases mean". Simply ask for clarification. A bright person like Markbassett would probably rephrase and probably apologize for any unclear speech. Awilley also called it "kind of a WP:competence issue". I have to disagree. I understand that competence is required but few editors are more competent than Markbassett. And I have not always agreed with them. Bus stop (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hacking my account

Bishonen, I was hoping you could point me in the right direction. Today I've received 6 notices saying there have been 45 failed attempts to log into my account. These notices have been spread out over most of the day. Is there any place I should report this? Thanks Springee (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: Can I CU your account to make sure no weird IPs have done anything as you? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Please do. Looking at my contributions list I don't see any edits that I didn't make but, other than actually logging in as me, I don't know what else might happen. Springee (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Springee: CU brings up no new IP addresses performing any CU logged actions. If your password is both long and unique to Wikipedia then you should be fine. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I just upgraded my password today. I'm really surprised they couldn't guess 1 2 3 4 5. I mean it's the same combination as my luggage. Springee (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Ach, I'd got to 1 2 3 4 4 before you stopped me! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
That's some interesting stuff you've got in your suitcase. -- Cornelius the Hacker 12:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
According to nuclear safety expert Bruce G. Blair, the US Air Force's Strategic Air Command worried that in times of need the codes for the Minuteman ICBM force would not be available, so it quietly decided to set the codes to 00000000 in all missile launch control centers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)
@Springee: this seems to be becoming normal. It's happened to me a few times recently. I use 2FA so I'm not too concerned. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller I use a password created by taking the first letters of each word in a 20-word quote that I know well (but that is not a well-known quote), and that I use nowhere else, so I'm not concerned at all. How long would it take to brute-force such a password, Cornelius the Hacker? 2FA, bah. I scorn your 2FA. I bet the first thing that happened with that would be I locked myself out. Bishonen | tålk 11:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC).
2FA certainly isn't for the faint of heart; if you're that rare sort of person who never loses track of the papers in your desk then you're likely okay to use it, but otherwise, it's quite a risk. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bishonen: "for $25, you could rent enough Amazon Elastic Cloud Computing number-crunching power to crack an eight-character NTLM password hash in about 12 minutes." At that rate, your 20 character password would take about 9,000,000,000,000,000 years to crack using brute force. Like you, I won't use the 2FA on offer because of fears of losing the second authenticator. I'll just rely on a 31 character password that I don't use anywhere else. -- Cornelius the Hacker 17:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Cornelius. I might could have also mentioned that the quotation I base my password on is from an obscure book in an exotic language. Do you have any suggestion for how it could be cracked other than by brute force? Bishonen | tålk 20:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC).
Indeed, Chère. Top five methods are:
  1. looking over your shoulder while you log in;
  2. installing a key-logger on your computer;
  3. working out what the obscure book is and trying the first letter of every 20-word sequence in the book;
  4. tricking Darwinfish into revealing the titles of all of your obscure books and then trying the first letter of every 20-word sequence in the books (still quicker than brute force);
  5. using very sensitive radio equipment to pick up the signal going into your monitor and waiting for you to type your password somewhere that doesn't disguise the characters with dots.
HTH -- Cornelius the Hacker 20:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Or trying the first letter of every 20-word sequence in every published book in the world? On a really paranoid day, I suppose I might worry about method 2. If I get an e-mail from a stranger and, say, open an attachment in it, could it plant a key-logger on my machine? Or could the e-mail do it just because I read it? (I wouldn't actually open a strange attachment, since Darwinfish has taught me about virus.) Bishonen | tålk 21:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC).
Opening attachments from untrusted sources is the easiest way to get a trojan or similar, although your Mac is rather more resistant than PCs are. My email client blocks images and other stuff from unknown sources, so if yours is similar, there's no way that just reading an email can do anything. Of course, clicking on email links that you don't recognise is another bad idea unless you're running inside a virtual machine that you can throw away and re-install from an image. -- Cornelius the Hacker 22:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I think the tech world is advancing, brute force or dictionary attack are not the only ways of retrieving passwords in a user based system like Wikipedia. Every system has a weakness or a loophole (that we can’t avoid). To reduce on the possibility of that system getting compromised by 70%, I guess most should enable 2FA. That’s my opinion Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Megan Barris: Wikipedia only stores hashes of passwords, so stealing that table still means a lot of cracking to get a password that would unlock my account, which would take billions of times longer that the estimated lifespan of the Earth with current technology. Reducing the chance by 70% doesn't seem like a good trade-off for the hassle of recovering my account if my mobile phone is stolen. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
People also overestimate how valuable a Wikipedia account is (even a functionary account.) Most compromises here are caused by data breaches on other websites, not hacking. I have 2FA because I have to because of IntAdmin (and I can just ping Joe Sutherland on IRC to undo 2FA if I lose it.) I’m also aware it doesn’t provide much additional security. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
As well as being cautious of email, be careful if anyone sends you a large wooden horse rabbit badger. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
And generally, don't tell anyone how you form your password. Vladimir Putin now knows to only check 20 character passwords, to use first letters of quotations, and to only search obscure books in exotic languages. (Donald Trump, meanwhile, would still be banging on a rubber keyboard with a large inflatable hammer). In this case, mind, you're still pretty safe. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, if Putin's that keen, I'll just tell him for the asking. Bishonen | tålk 10:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC).
There are about 130,000,000 books ever published, with an average of about 90,000 words each. That means each book has about 90,000 20-word quotes (as near as makes no difference). So the brute force attack would only need to check 130,000,000 x 90,000 20-letter passwords, less than 12,000,000,000,000 passwords. That represents one-hundredth the number of combinations in the eight-digit password, so (assuming that the text of every book is available in machine-readable format) could be cracked in about 7 seconds. Not what you were expecting, I guess? --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) @RexxS: this might be a silly question, but a) doesn't a brute force attack require trying each password in some way, and b) if so, can this step not have a rate-limiting feature that makes it virtually impossible to crack? My phone, for instance, only allows me a certain number of login attempts before it locks me out. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Vanamonde93: of course. But the usual way of cracking is to first hack the server and steal the hash table. Then generate hashes for each potential combination of characters and test each one against each of the stolen hashes. As soon as you get a match, you have a combination of characters that generates the same hash as the password for the associated account (i.e. a password for the account). As the hackers will usually start with all 1-character passwords, then all 2-character, etc. I'm counting on there being lots of juicy accounts with shorter passwords than mine.
    I suppose it's a bit like the two explorers in the jungle who suddenly come a across a hungry lion. One explorer starts putting on his running shoes, but the other one says "What's the point of that? You'll never outrun a lion." The first explorer says "I don't need to: I only have to outrun you."
    Incidentally, that often also gives you access to any other sites where the same username and password is used. Hence the advice not to re-use passwords. The hacker doesn't have to breach security on the Wikipedia servers if you've used the same password and username on a less secure site. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    @RexxS: Thanks; so, for a brute-force attack to have any chance of succeeding it needs to hack the WMF servers first? And, presumably, the encryption they use when storing the passwords must also be known? That's only slightly comforting; I'm quite certain my password can "outrun" those of most other users, and I have 2FA enabled also; but if a brute-force attack occurs at all, then very many accounts are likely vulnerable... Vanamonde (Talk) 22:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    You guys remember when somebody hacked Jimbo's password? (Chortle. I think I know how, but better not discuss that here.) Unfortunately, I stared at the account's vandalism for a whole second before I hit the block button, so somebody else got it first. A pity. Jimbo blocked me once, and there would have been a pleasing symmetry in me blocking him. :-| Bishonen | tålk 22:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC).
    Who is Darwinfish? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    In my comment above it's code for a member of my RL family, as I think RexxS may know. It's also a member of my sock family: the good twin of the evil User:Darwinbish. In both incarnations, Darwinfish is somewhat whitehat-hacker-inclined. Bishonen | tålk 22:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC).
    Like a trekkie EMH? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    [Bishonen unconvincingly tries to pretend she understands the language of the internet.] More of an anime otaku, really. Bishonen | tålk 23:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC).
  • Is it Xhosa? I'm fascinated by click languages. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The information here (I'm talking about the password security stuff, not anime!) is very interesting, and I've been watching it closely (and a little nervously). I haven't looked for a long time at the help pages here pertaining to protecting one's identity, but some concrete examples like those above would, I'm sure, be useful to a lot of users. (And, of course, the fishes are all white hat!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Dinesh2069

Hello Bishonen, this user seems to be impertiment and rude. Once have a look at his latest contributions on his own talk page: [63] and [64]. I'm trying to explain him but he's not taking it. Instead he himself asking to block him. Once again I replied. You adviced me not to use templates and text in own way. I did as you directed. Please look into this and make him to understand and tell me whether did I do correct or wrong. He also used rash words on articles in wikipedia. Kindly look into this. Thank you and have a nice day. Fire star on heat (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Fire star on heat. I've seen their remarks on their page. They don't much matter in my opinion, especially since they don't attack individuals. Your comment to them is OK, though probably superfluous — you don't have to reply to everything, and I had already warned them. They haven't in fact edited any articles after my "final warning", so I don't think there's more for me to do right now. Bishonen | tålk 09:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC).

Thank you Bishnoen. I understood. Thanks for your suggestion and guidance. Fire star on heat (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

tålk

YOU HAVE A CAPYBARA. My friend Kelapstick spent his quarantine hanging out with capybaras. He says he never ate one, but he's Canadian, so I'm sure more than one of em got hid in poutine. I saw you just blocked someone named "Bros over Hoes"? What a tasteless name. (Oh, that one...) Drmies (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The name was the other way around, actually, not that it affects the quantity of taste. I had the block user page open after reverting their edit, but got distracted, so thanks for covering for my ADD, Bish. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Wait. Do I detect a pun? Drmies (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Aren't the capybara babies cute? And probably delicious! I watch Doug's page, and your rv of the Hoes turned up, Writ. My fingers just absentmindedly blocked without involving any higher cognitive functions (too hot for them here anyway). Bishonen | tålk 15:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC).
I have eaten one. But they only told me afterwards, and it was before I spoke fluent Spanish. In fact, it was before I spoke passable Spanish. It was quite good, but had I known it was not a rabbit, it might have tasted awful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Ew! You ate one! Bishonen | tålk 10:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC).
Yes, but don’t tell anyone. Fortunately, I have never eaten poutine, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Rodents are going to be the staple food of the future. And the bigger, the better. As for poutine, it was all we could get in Montréal, but as it lacks meat, it's only suitable for vegetarians (ugh). -- T-RexxS (rawr) 16:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I ate squirrels in Thailand many years ago, and I asked my Thai friend why they cooked them with so much chilli. "They taste like shit if you don't", apparently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee:, I ate squirrel, once, in the Southern US. My little brother went hunting, and proudly presented it to my mother, who "gamely" pan fried it for dinner. Edible, yes, but... The squirrels were safe, thereafter.Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 22:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
My gift to you all:
This user has eaten a rodent.
I had cuy about 15 years ago, which looked very, very similar to this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Wut. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, you do NOT want to know about Cuy (Ecuadorian). Do Not Google Image— you will never be the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, rodents and insects. —valereee (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: [Appalled] Dinos don't eat insects! "Nasty wee things, I cannae taste 'em!" -- T-RexxS (rawr) 20:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Roarrr!
Even these? (admittedly hundreds of millions of years before your time; I keep forgetting that not all prehistoric animals lived simultaneously.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
What?! They didn't all live at the same time?! Then this documentary that I saw as a lad needs updating :-) Bish the pic of the barred owl that graces the editing page is wonderful. Cheers to all. MarnetteD|Talk 22:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Fine owl, indeed, but did you realise the edit notice pic is a carousel, MarnetteD? This thread was started by Drmies because he saw the capybaras. The luckiest guest of all will see a roaring chaise longue from Nordisk familjebok! Bishonen | tålk 09:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC).
No I hadn't Bish. Clever and fun - it gives me a reason to stop by each day even if I don't leave a message :-) MarnetteD|Talk 20:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hehe, yes, do, MarnetteD. Shall I tell you who made the carousel for me? Neither I nor Darwinfish can make things like that. Hmm. Maybe not. The kind creator may be snowed under by requests if I mention them here. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC).
This wonderful pic came up this time!. Many thanx to the creator!!! MarnetteD|Talk 20:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
"Manul in a Hole" is great, isn't it! The grumpiness! I also have some Manul kittens. Bishonen | tålk 20:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC).
Soooo cute. After a long week the ear-to-ear grin on my face is very much needed and, therefore, deeply appreciated :-) MarnetteD|Talk 20:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Seeking Insulation from Administrative ‘Attack’ for Contribution and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. I believe you have a well-known COI, in regards to cryptozoology, per your affiliation with the Mighty Bishzilla. Who is, no doubt, using her time-travelling abilities to hunt both Megafauna and wildebeest as we speak. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 22:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The delicious megasquirrel! Fine square meal! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 09:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC).

Could I ask for a moment of your time?

If you have a minute to spare, would you be kind enough to cast a glance at MediaWiki talk:Common.css #CSS to left align the text in the first column of a table and explain to Timeshifter that talking like that to an editor (me) who is trying to help them isn't productive? --RexxS (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

RexxS: a minute? I've just emerged from bootlessly reading that and also this (long!), in the hope of enlightenment, for many minutes. I'm sorry; I do agree they shouldn't talk to you like that; but wouldn't it be better if an admin/experienced editor who can understand any of it did the explaining? Suppose they reply with "But RexxS gobbledegook gobbledegook gobbledegook"? I really am sorry; I'd love to help, so many times as you've helped me with the assorted gobbledegook, but I feel so out of my depth. Little talkpage stalkers? Please? Bishonen | tålk 16:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC).
I've been following that thread, and Timeshifter's tone is indeed, as who should say, not constructive, but I'm missing a little bit of background before I really feel like I can wade in. I've asked TheDJ about where they're getting the "don't add stuff to Mediawiki:common.css" from--not that I disagree with it at all--since I think that would help cool Timeshifter's jets if they saw it in writing. Unless you know where that is, RexxS? User:RexxS Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper: No decisive decision, but there's been a fairly consistent trend, enforced by the interface admins (who are the only ones who can edit Mediawiki:common.css), to trim as much stuff out of Mediawiki:common.css as possible. This is because the file is delivered by the server to every page request. The WP:TemplateStyles was developed specifically to move styles out of the common css and into smaller style sheets specific to each template that they are attached to. That means the styles can be developed and maintained by anybody with appropriate permissions, but as each one applies to just a single template, they can't cause site-wide damage, and the server only has to serve the style file when the template is requested. You could probably find scattered discussions in the archives of MediaWiki talk:Common.css, but it's easy to see from the Common.css] page history that folks like Galobtter have been systematically moving styles from Common.css to template styles. Anyway, I've made a tool to convert copied table data into the wikitext for the corresponding wikitable along with proper headings and scopes. Let's see if that solves the problem for them. --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
It didn't. I've just had this response You and Justin show your unbelievable cluelessness about the visually impaired in the discussion on his talk page. Surely I don't have to put up with any more of that? --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I've reluctantly taken it to ANI. --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for issuing the warning. I'm not at all convinced he's taking any notice of it: "previous history of RexxS lack of cooperation or understanding" is his latest post at ANI. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I just saw the latest development of the ANI thread. What a curious idea to remove my warning from their page and paste it at ANI (and reply to it there). Waste of space. What's wrong with a simple link, if he insists on having all of ANI enjoy my eloquence? Just weird. I went to replace the copypaste with a link, but the hell with it. If he wants to make a strange impression, let him. Anyway, I hope the affair has run its course. Bishonen | tålk 20:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC).

Trolling an expert?

What do I do when someone claiming to be an expert and citing primary sources accuses me firstly of vandalism and now, in this edit, of trolling? - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I NPA warned. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
... and I just reverted on the basis of the PA alone. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I've piled on. I actually think ignoring your info, Sitush, is even worse than attacking you. I mean, you don't care, do you? If you cared about attacks... oh my. Bishonen | tålk 09:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC).
This is beyond the Pale. I've blocked for egregious personal attacks. --RexxS (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

About the hatting thing

Hey, so just wanted to state The Times of India (RSP entry) isn't deprecated either, it can still be used a source albeit with considerations and mostly only in non controversial areas. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Tayi Arajakate, Yes, I know, "a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government". And Twitter can be used under some conditions, too. I couldn't put everything in the hat, but I did want to mention The Times of India. It's not like the user who created the so-called "list of resources" was using it for something non-controversial. But feel free to change or add to the hatnote. (I've signed it, though, so please make it clear when it's you talking, not me). Bishonen | tålk 13:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC).
Just wanted to make sure you know. Sorry about editing your comment without making it clear that it was me. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh no, Tayi Arajakate, I didn't mean that was a problem. Just, in case you add something more substantial, please sign it. Bishonen | tålk 16:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC).
Got it, although the hat is long enough already so I won't be adding anything more. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

case request declined

The case request "‎Seeking Insulation from Administrative ‘Attack’ for Contribution" that you were a party to has been declined by the committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request.

The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. A permanent link to the declined case can be accessed through this wikilink.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Community interaction at the English Wikipedia

I spotted this ~2013 visualisation of "Community interaction at the English Wikipedia" at WT:MED, courtesy of WAID. It's fun to see who was interacting with whom and nostalgic as well. You'll find yourself a little way North-by-NorthWest of Jimbo's blue dot. I'm a little way NW of your dot, and I'm sandwiched between Bishzilla and Utgard Loki. A fine place to be. --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd love to see that, RexxS, but I can't seem to find it. Have you got a more specific link? Bishonen | tålk 19:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC).
I forgot to include the actual link. I wasn't teasing – just chalk it down to advancing senility. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I saw "advancing senility" in an edit summary, and for some strange reason, assumed I was being pinged! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Moi aussi —valereee (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I miss Geogre. He made Wikipedia fun. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@Guy: He still does, but a lot more rarely, and a lot less obviously, than in the Golden Age. --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Meh. My neurologist asures me my MRI brain was fine. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

UsaforPennies Talk page BLP violation

I saw you redacted some of his recent edits and summaries, please see their talk page for more User talk:UsaforPennies. Not sure if this is another sockpuppet of User:SJMccarthy. Similar phrasing and only a week or so after his last sock was banned. Koncorde (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The blocking admin didn't notice, I guess, see section below. I lengthened the block a bit and revoked talkpage access. Now Salvio is going to indef, though. Good thinking. Bishonen | tålk 21:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC).
Thanks, didn't see the existing block as I was just monitoring their subsequent edits - should have checked their page. Koncorde (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for catching it altogether, Koncorde. Most likely a sock as you say. Bishonen | tålk 21:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC).
I agree with bish, Koncorde. Thanks for noticing. And sock or not, good riddance anyway. Salvio 21:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No...

...I hadn't seen that edit. I'm about to change the block to a WP:NOTHERE indef. Thanks. Salvio 21:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, apparently you beat me to it. Cheers. Salvio 21:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
No, feel free to indef, Salvio. I like the way you think. Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC).
It is done. Salvio 21:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Hi B, am I correct in interpreting that Mr IndianCotton is topic banned from subjects pertaining to India? And if so, is this in violation of that, since the article is about the death of an Indian actor? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes and yes, Cyphoidbomb. He really, really should be getting it by now if he's ever going to, since he has already been blocked once (48 hours) for topic ban vio. I have also e-mailed you. Bishonen | tålk 14:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC).
Email received, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

List of massacres in Bihar

Hi plz see now i have added similar article Caste-related violence in India can we remove orphan tag now Heba Aisha (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done The article still needs copy-editing to tone down some of the more sensationalist adjectives used. See WP:Encyclopedic tone. --RexxS (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Is everything okay?

People, including me, have been emailing you but getting no response. Have you changed your email address? CassiantoTalk 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying, Cassianto. No, the address is the same, but I've pared down my Wikipedia activity a good deal, and there didn't seem anything I could do, or was prepared to do, about the problems you and another user indicated. Bishonen | tålk 11:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC).
Bishonen, firstly, I'm glad your okay. Secondly, whilst you are under no obligation to reply to an email, it does come across as extremely rude acknowledging here that you've read my email but have chosen to ignore it. Your reasons for not carrying out the request I made are indeed your own, and I have no problem with your reasons whatsoever, but I like to think we have had a good relationship over the years so it would've been nice to know your reasons privately rather than it being said for the peanut gallery to read, here. Anyway stay safe and apology accepted. CassiantoTalk 11:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's hoping all is well and that the down-paring is temporary. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

erm ...

(omg, what an adorable owl). I feel a bit uncomfortable asking you, but hey, whom else? Do you know (or can you easily determine) whether Pippi Longstocking's horse has a name in the books, or whether that name only appeared later in the television series? Thanks of Pippian force, in advance. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, (talk page stalker) here, The Swedish article sv:Pippi_Långstrump says the horse was first named in the TV series. That's how I recall it too. Vexations (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Vexations! ---Sluzzelin talk 08:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Finally a cultural question on this page, thank you for raising the tone, Sluzzelin. And thank you Vexations. I read the books as a child, with the cool monkey name Herr Nilsson and the anonymous horse, and seem to remember being affronted to see the horse named in the movie. And a stupid name like Lilla Gubben, too – kind of soft and sentimental. (Lilla gubben is a term of affection for a little boy, and fine as such — I still call my tall son by it.) So the promotional text on Amazon is incorrect! Bah! Bishonen | tålk 09:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC).
Thank you! I remembered it that way too, but I had the German translation read to me. There the horse is just called 'das Pferd', but German publishers sometimes changed things without rhyme or reason (Emil became Michel, Anna became Inga. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) ---Sluzzelin talk 11:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing and approving article page for Henry Gayden

Hi Bishonen. Hope you're doing well. Just wanted to request some support on this query. I recently created an article page for Henry Gayden. Would you mind reviewing the page for approval? If you can also approve it, that would be much appreciated. Elainasla (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Elainasla, that's not for me; I don't have much time. In order to get an article reviewed and potentially approved, it's better to first create it as a draft, rather than directly as an article. Would you like me to move (= rename) your article to Draft:Henry Gayden? Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation for the simple review process that comes next. Bishonen | tålk 20:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC).

No worries Bishonen, I understand. For now, I think it's best to leave the page as it is. Have a nice day! Elainasla (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing

Good evening, I'm writing to you because you're a sysop and you've replied in WP:ANI about a case of canvassing. I'd like to have your opinion (just this for the moment, nothing more) about a suspicious case that I think can be considered "canvassing".

  • A user, Barefoot through the chollas, not stranger to a certain kind of misconduct, usually makes edits, mostly constructive, about phonetic transcriptions, among which Italian words.
  • Last month, he made this edit; the summary is as follows: "Carnby [another user] set this right last November". The edit consisted in moving a phonetic symbol to another place, like that "Carnby" had already done last year. This means that Barefoot through the chollas was aware that Carnby's opinion about the placement of that symbol is the same as his, if he hadn't written that edit summary we wouldn't have been sure about that but, because of what he wrote, we are.
  • Some weeks ago it was created a survey to discuss regarding this particular matter about Italian phonetics. Barefoot through the chollas strongly supported his opinion about the placement of the phonetic symbol. Nothing bad, so far. But.
  • But. Since the discussion, at the beginning, seemed to be stalling because just one user supported his opinion, he did a thing that I suspect that can be considered canvassing. He notified that particular user, Carnby, about the survey: Canby joined and supported Barefoot through the chollas's opinion.

You already know which is my doubt: is the fact that Barefoot through the chollas invited Carnby, precisely Carnby and nobody else, to join a discussion where he knew he'd support his opinion "canvassing", in your opinion, or not? In case it isn't, everything was regular and legitimate. In case it is, please suggest me what to do about this fact (relying on you, reporting Barefoot through the chollas to WP:ANI, something else...). I'm standing by for your answer, thank you.--Setcori (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, User:Setcori. What you describe is not ideal, but it's not a big deal either, since it was openly done and only one message. See the guideline Wikipedia:Canvassing, specifically the table here and the commentary after it. It's not worth doing anything about, in my opinion. Bishonen | tålk 20:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC).
Thanks for your answer. So, this message isn't exaclty "canvassing", got it. Do you think the same also for this, which is the same thing but addressed to a user with an opposite opinion about that matter?--Setcori (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
That one is more worrying. From the account's contributions, I can't believe they are a new user. I have written on their page to ask whose sock they are. Do you happen to know anything about it, Setcori? Bishonen | tålk 21:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC).
The page where the user named Mosidan did the same edit done by Barefoot through the chollas but opposite about the placement of the phonetic symbol was mentioned in the discussion by Barefoot through the chollas himself. It was easy to find that user, and I noticed the message left in his talk page, almost exactly the same left by Barefoot through the chollas in Carnby's talk page. The user seems no longer active, in fact he hasn't replied so far and probably he will never, but I'd like to know why in your opinion there's a difference between them: the message to Carnby aimed to make him take part to the discussion knowing already his opinion about it has no problems while the message to Mosidan aimed to the same reason actually has, right? What's the difference for you?--Setcori (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The difference is not in the messages, which are both pretty harmless as such, but in the fact that Uccellidicortile is an obvious sock who's here for no good. Did you see the recent change of date here? Note, they're not called Mosidan — User talk:Mosidan is the page they posted on, it's not their name. Bishonen | tålk 09:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC).
I wrote: "...the user named Mosidan did the same edit...the message to Mosidan aimed to the same reason...". I know that Mosidan is the one who received the message, not the one who wrote it. If I got it right, user "Barefoot through the chollas" didn't do anything bad because he was already registered, while user "Uccellidicortile" who did the same thing actually did something bad because his account wasn't already registered and was created as a sock, is this correct? In this case I understand the difference, but I'm not yet sure that Barefoot through the chollas's message wasn't written there "for no good".--Setcori (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Setcori: what I find interesting is that there are two accounts using that name, Uccellidicortile created August 9th[65] and UcceIIidicortiIe created August 26th at 18:33. I'd like to ask you the same basic question Bishonen asked the person behind those two accounts, why did you change the timestamp of an edit to User talk:Ritchie92?[66] - that was just a couple of hours before UcceIIidicortiIe was created. Are those two accounts yours? Doug Weller talk 10:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Doug Weller, first let me ask you whether I've done anything wrong, it's possible I did but perhaps I didn't realize it. I wrote a message in Ritchie92's talk page to ask his opinion because he had already to deal with the user I asked him about. After 10 days he hadn't replied yet even, so I went back to his talk page and used the tiles again to change the date to notify him that he had a message that maybe he didn't notice. I could have written another message, or used the ping template, but I did what I considered simpler. If this was forbidden, I didn't know but I can undo my edit and apologize to him. Then I thought I could ask someone else, and since my question was about a suspicious, in my opinion, case of canvassing I looked for threads about canvassing in WP:ANI and found a sysop who dealt with one of them, Bishonen. I asked him my question, I read his answer. I wanted to hear a second opinion, so i found another sysop, Cullen328, and asked him the same question. If this was forbidden, I didn't know and I must apologize again. I'm not going to do anything like these things again unless you tell me they aren't against rules. You have to understand the reason I did it, the reason I asked those questions: I wanted to know if the behavior I described was considered "canvassing" or not. I didn't mean to do something wrong, against rules, but the opposite, know if another user actually did something against rules. If I broke the rules myself while I was inquiring about that, I didn't mean at all. Was what I did against rules? I'll behave differently from now on if I did, and if I didn't I'll be more careful anyway.--Setcori (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Setcori, you didn't answer Doug Weller's question: are the accounts Uccellidicortile and UcceIIidicortiIe yours? Softlavender (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You say "If I got it right, user "Barefoot through the chollas" didn't do anything bad because he was already registered, while user "Uccellidicortile" who did the same thing actually did something bad because his account wasn't already registered and was created as a sock, is this correct?" No, it isn't. If you don't know what sock means, why didn't you follow my link for it? Here it is again: sock. It does not merely mean somebody not previously registered.
Spamming several administrators with identical messages is certainly a poor idea. If you didn't like my reply, you might have said so — something like "OK, well, I hear you, now I'm going to ask somebody else". And moreso on Cullens' page: you should have told him you had already asked someone and were coming to him for what you call a "second opinion". I don't understand why you want us — let alone three of us — to spend so much time on this very, very minor — tiny — matter, or why you repost identical messages, which is obviously rude in itself. I'm disinclined to have anything more to do with you for my part. Please don't bother any more admins individually. If you would like still more admins to waste time on this, you may post it at the noticeboard WP:ANI. Bishonen | tålk 11:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC).
I apologize for bothering you. I won't disturb you ever again. Thank you for your answers and your patience. I'm not going to call on other sysops, even if I didn't "spam several admins" but just "write two identical messages to two different admins in two different days". I could have been more polite with you and Cullen328 when I decided to ask another opinion, you're right. I'm thinking of following your last suggestion and post this in WP:ANI, but I'm not sure I will. I just hope that Mosidan won't join the discussion about phonetics because, according to your explanation, that would be "canvassing" unlike Barefoot through the chollas's, even if I still think his behavior wasn't exactly "crystal". Good night.--Setcori (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Setcori, you still have not answered Doug Weller's question: Are the accounts Uccellidicortile and UcceIIidicortiIe yours? Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
It's all right, Softlavender. They've answered on their page now. Bishonen | tålk 09:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC).
Out of interest, does it usually work to ask a sock whose sock they are? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
A true lady or gentleman should never tell. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
It's actually a surprisingly effective technique. I assume it works on the "when in a hole" principle, because if the sock/master lies about it, they can be fairly sure that if the truth comes to light, they will be in trouble for two offences, not just one. --RexxS (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, new users often have an inflated idea about what admins can do and what they know. (You can see some of that on User talk: Setcori.) They may think we already know about the socking and are merely trying to trap them into denying it. Lord knows why we would do that, but never the less. Bishonen | tålk 19:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC).

Never too late

The Disco Ball of Awesomeness
I, obviously, checked you out when you blocked me. And checking you out actually worked as a stress reducer. Just when I was about to lose faith in the project, your many profiles helped me to see what this means. Thanks. You are one freaking Godzilla of AWESOMENESS. Trust me. It takes a lot to admit that for someone who had a very hurt feeling just the other day. No, I am not a modern day Jesus coming to turn my other cheek. You are bloody goddamn that awesome. I don't have to agree to you to admit that. RRRoarrr. And sorry for the French. (they are very expresive, innit?) Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Yep. Happy to see myself in the list too.
Bishzilla, you could have tried cleaning that pocket every once in a while. It really smells here. :D Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Not at all! Except perhaps when Darwinbish is visiting. But Victorian salon scrupulously... hmm. Well, scrupulously handsome furniture! Catflap scrupulously clean! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 07:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC).

Hi thanks ma'am

I am thankful that u took fast action but this may continue.I have faced 7 such attacks by new accounts and they may return with new one.Btw thank u for ur recent action for blocking the socks Heba Aisha (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Heba Aisha. That wasn't me blocking the socks, it was a checkuser, an admin with special access for making sure if someone is a sock or not. Would you like me to semiprotect your page for a while? Semiprotection means a user can only edit it if they have an age of at least four days and have made at least ten edits. That prevents socks quite well, usually. But it also has a downside; you may want to hear from some new accounts and IPs. So please consider that before you reply. Bishonen | tålk 09:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC).
Yes of course tq in advance......as you can see i m hit by vandals 9 times as of now.And this may continue.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I think i would like to consider the suggestions etc of autoconfirmed user only as new users and ip are here to disturb me only.Plz you may proceed.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, done. (I've fixed your indents in this conversation.) Bishonen | tålk 11:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC).

Ban

Hello. I am messaging you to appeal a ban on American politics that was placed on me after I attempted to remove biased information from the Proud Boys Wikipedia page. I mistakenly left the biased news sources, but I will remove them. At the beginning of the article, the editor Jorm has listed the Proud Boys as a fascist and possibly racist organization when this directly conflicts with the group's core beliefs Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If you remove them you will be blocked. You are topic banned from the subject area. Please read WP:TBAN to see what topic banned means. You ignored my warning and went on removing sourced content and adding stuff that wasn't covered in the sources that were there, and you have provided no sources of your own. It's just as if you didn't see my warning. Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources, not by what an organization says about itself. I am declining your appeal. Bishonen | tålk 20:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC).
(edit conflict) Can't speak for Bish, but. Sounds like you want to continue making the edits that earned you a ban to begin with. Wikipedia uses information from reliable sources unconnected with subjects. What subjects say about themselves is of little encyclopedic value. That you choose sources connected with the subject over independent sources makes your efforts incompatible with building an encyclopedia. And, as an uninvolved admin, I endorse your topic ban. If you wish to promote what they say about themselves, you may need to find a different venue than this encyclopedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Chrisburke123: Lost ping in ec. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The news sources accuse the organization of possibly being a White Supremacist organization when the leader is a black man from Cuba Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have had this account since 2014 and I am sad to see what this website has become. Goodbye Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PS, Chrisburke123, I take it back that you've added no sources, as I see you did add one source minutes before I published your topic ban on your page. However, that source was a link to the Proud Boys' own site. As we keep telling you, that's no good. Reliable secondary sources are the only sources that count. If we went by how wonderful all organizations themselves think they are, we could just as well replace half our articles with links to organizations' own websites. Bishonen | tålk 20:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC).

In that case, is there a way that I can have the topic ban removed after a time? Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

(provided I do not make similar edits) Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Realistically, almost all of my edits have involved making grammar corrections, and political pages on Wikipedia are what I find the most interesting and occupy most of the time I spend on this site. If I am not able to take part in it, I do not see the point of having an account. This is the reason why I ask if I can make edits after a period of being topic bannee Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the ban is indefinite, you are going to have to appeal it successfully before it can be lifted. You have appealed to me; I declined; you can go on to appeal at either WP:AN or WP:AE. At AN, the decision will be made by the community; at AE, by a consensus of uninvolved admins. Theoretically, you can appeal right now, but practically speaking, you'll have a much better chance if you appeal in a few months (preferably six months) and spend the interval editing in other areas, and/or other Wikimedia projects. The idea is that you'll then have constructive editing to point to, to show that you're able to also do it in American politics. A personal point about the best kind of editing to do in other areas: you really, really need to learn about our sourcing policies and show, in practice, through other editing, that you understand them. In other words, grammar corrections are nice and useful, but they're not what you most need to show understanding of now. Bishonen | tålk 21:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC).

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Konnichiwa Bishonen. You just topic banned me from articles related to India and Pakistan. Can I edit draft articles related to those countries? Can I edit articles of celebrities from those countries? Can I edit articles related to Bangladesh or Afghanistan? Can I appeal my topic ban after 3 months if I edit other articles satisfactorily? Domo arigato.—Dr2Rao (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Dr2Rao. No, you can't edit draft articles related to those countries, or articles of celebrities from those countries. You can't edit any page on Wikipedia related to those countries, or discuss anything related to those countries, including on talkpages and user talkpages. The sole exception to that is that you can discuss your topic ban with me on your own or my page. Yes, you can edit articles related to Bangladesh or Afghanistan, provided nothing India- or Pakistan-related comes into it. And yes, you can appeal the topic ban after 3 months if you can show you have edited other articles satisfactorily. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC).
Bishonen, can I edit articles related to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism?—Dr2Rao (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Provided nothing India-or Pakistan-related comes into it, yes, you can. Seriously, nothing India-or Pakistan-related. You can, but I should perhaps warn you that posting the way you did here about Muslims is likely to get you further sanctioned even if India/Pakistan are not involved, most likely indefinitely blocked. You'll need to up your game when you write about religion, not just in articles but on talkpages also. Bishonen | tålk 08:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC).
Holy cow! I redacted and revdel'd that tidbit referenced above. From what I've seen, that's true of some adherents of many religions, including my own. And also not true of many adherents of many religions, including my own. If one does not understand how inappropriate such a statement is in a multicultural project, I lack the skills to explain it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, so do I. The comment was mentioned by a user in the Dr2Rao AE, and I also linked to it in my ban rationale. Nm, now that it's revdel'd, and hopefully Dr2Rao can remember what they said. Thank you, young Fritter. Bishonen | tålk 10:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC).

Welp, I certainly hope @Dr2Rao: does remember that, 'cause I will. And I must say, I would likely block indefinitely if I saw it repeated. There is a precedence for wp:zero tolerance blocking a user years after making such an edit. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Bishonen, how do I get other editors to reply about something without being accused of canvassing? A friend told me that I can e-mail editors through Wikipedia but is there a way to do it overtly?—Dr2Rao (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Dr2Rao, the system is based on other editors voluntarily, of their own accord, taking part in discussions. You're not supposed to "get" them to do it. You could have put a note about your RfC at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics (you can't do that now, since you're topic banned from India-related pages), so as to get a more neutral selection of eyes on the RfC. The problem with pinging people individually is that the group you ping is likely to be mostly people who agree with you. But I'm very glad to see that you understand it's even less appropriate to canvass people by e-mail. You are very right to want to be open about what you do. Hey, talkpage stalkers, I had a notion RfC's were also advertised at AN, but perhaps I dreamt it — they don't seem to be. Anybody? Bishonen | tålk 20:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC).
Yashi, domo arigato. So can I e-mail other editors through Wikipedia now?—Dr2Rao (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, I will remember. How do I get to make my username show up in different colours like yours?—Dr2Rao (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Dr2Rao, No, that's not what Bishonen said; you decidedly should not email other editors to draw their attention to a dispute in which you are seeking to build consensus. In fact email should ideally only be used for matters that involve private information; bringing things to admin attention when you're worried about the consequences of doing so on-wiki; and to discuss matters that would not be appropriate to discuss on-wiki, per NOTFORUM. RfCs will draw attention normally, and can be advertized through neutral notifications at project noticeboards. The Feedback Request Service (is that what you're thinking of, Bish?) will also draw some editors to them. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Something like this-- --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, how do I use the "Feedback request service"?—Dr2Rao (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Dr2Rao, you do not use it. It is automated. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, do you sign with 4 tildes, "~" and then replace it with what you posted above or can the signature be made to appear in colour automatically?—Dr2Rao (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
How do I cite references for medical articles on Wikipedia?—Dr2Rao (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Signatures are a setting in preferences (see link at top of any page while logged in). Ask at WP:HELPDESK for technical assistance with that kind of thing. Re references, they are tricky. A good place to start is to examine existing references in the wikitext of an article of interest (what you see while editing the page). Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks Bishonen, Johnuniq, Deepfriedokra and Vanamonde93.—Dr2Rao (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Sandstein has asked for reactions/opinions here, can I reply there now?—Dr2Rao (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Dr2Rao - In your original post to this page you said - "You just topic banned me from articles related to India and Pakistan." Sandstein's request is about Pakistan. Are you being deliberatly obtuse? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
No, but since that is not an article and since Manasbose and I were its chief editors, I thought it was allowed.—Dr2Rao (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Re-read Bish's first response to you: You can't edit any page on Wikipedia related to those countries, or discuss anything related to those countries, including on talkpages and user talkpages. --bonadea contributions talk 17:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down? DFO

:::::::: (edit conflict) Yes, please re-read my first reply above, User:Dr2Rao. It might help to read WP:TBAN also, as I already asked you to do in the ban notice. It's quite short. Just read it, please. Your ban is not just about articles. Bishonen | tålk 17:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC).

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 -- Manasbose (talk | contribs) 14:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't notice there were so many Indian weebs on wiki. Lol -- Manasbose (talk | contribs) 14:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea at all what this means? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog:42, obviously --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: it means we're all degenerates. -- Manasbose (talk | contribs) 06:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, VR, but for such a topic ban, you'd have to go to WP:AN and request one to be placed by the community. Islam and Muslims do not come under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. But that doesn't mean disruptive editing about these subjects is allowed. I'll take a look at the edits you indicate when I get a little more time. Bishonen | tålk 08:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC).
If he's going to spam talk pages with hundreds of questions each time he wants to add a reference that he hasn't actually bothered reading, perhaps a WP:CIR block is the most appropriate. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, or a block for disruptive editing; copying over content when you haven't verified the sources for yourself is contrary to core policy, and deserving of a block. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Earlier today they changed a neutral wording into a POV one.VR talk 20:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, VR. They claimed they had copied two edits from within the article, but I can't find it there. That's pretty disruptive, but I'm not going to revert it, since I want to remain uninvolved, i e not edit the article. It's not really relevant to the topic ban. I've given them a final warning for tendentious editing. Bishonen | tålk 20:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC).

Raj-era sourcing question

Hey Bish, I know we have some rules about Raj-era sources about India, I know you have some familiarity with the topic area, and I'm not at all familiar with it, so I'm hoping you could give me a little advice. I'm working on expanding Nain Singh Rawat and have found an obituary of him from 1882 by a British officer) (if you have a Wikipedia library card, source is [67]). My question: what sorts of statements should I be skeptical of? I'm guessing anything involving caste or tribe (it describes him as a "Bhootiah," which I think either refers to Bhotiya or Bhutia), but is there anything else I should be wary of? Or should I just scrap the source entirely? GeneralNotability (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A good place to start is User:Sitush/CasteSources and it's sometimes worth checking User:Sitush/Indic publications of dubious merit. Sitush has spent a lot of time collecting discussions on the reliability of India-related sources and I'd always trust his judgement on them. He's only editing sporadically at present, but if you're not in a hurry, I'm sure he'd eventually reply to a question on his talk page. --RexxS (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Mon Général. Yes, Sitush is your man. Meanwhile, I'll just say that British Raj ethnographers are not reliable sources.[68] However, your source doesn't seem to be an ethnographer, or at least does not speak as one, but from personal knowledge of the subject. So I would have thought that you could use it, just nothing ethnographic from it (such as caste). Bishonen | tålk 10:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC).
Bishonen, RexxS, thank you both. I'll give Sitush a ring. Bish, my thinking aligns with yours, I just was concerned that there might be other problematic areas other than ethnography. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hlw mam

Mam Bishonen....you are looking after many issues everyday and i hope u still remember you helped me few days ago against a sock by protecting my talk page. I have a request ..... Sitush is not active on wikipedia for many days and talks on Rajput is not coming to conclusion.It is getting longer and longer. I don't want to blame anyone and i also don't want reliable sources to be removed and there are chances that it will happen sooner or later. Also being a student i have a lot of other troubles in my life and regular futile discussion is giving me headache.Many times me LukeEmily and NitinMlk tried to make an another editor with whom we are in dispute to understand but i think its not gonna work until an established editor whom we all respect interferes.

So can we all wait for Sitush to come again and decide what shud be the fate of that article. If you can help here to make all of us wait till arrival of Sitush it will be a great help .Also i promise u ....i and those on my side will accept what Sitush decides.Tq....Heba Aisha (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, Heba Aisha, I'm not well enough informed about caste matters to take on what you ask. Pinging a few knowledgeable admins: RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, and Vanamonde93. Bishonen | tålk 17:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC).
@Heba Aisha:, messy discussions often take a long time to reach a consensus, particularly when due weight is concerned. Kautilya3 seems to have intervened in this discussion, and it doesn't seem likely that drastic changes are going to be made any time soon; why don't we let the discussion play out? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This is because......a number of editors put many reliable sources and reiterated same thing again and again but Sajaypal007 who consider the edits made by LukeEmily derogatory is dragging it long......Also i tried to explain that derogatory words like untouchables etc etc are on various caste articles but things are not working as the main issue seems removal of all those terms which Rajput community can thing of being derogatory.Vanamonde93 this issue can be fully dealt with when an uninvolved admin who is aware of the matter intercept.As none of us have broken the rules yet and we don't want to do so.But we also don't want our changes to be undone as those are sourced from oxford and other top quality sources.Also...Let me explain in brief NitinMlk, LukeEmily and me had the same opinion about the article. ....kautilya is the moderator and others were not interested just made few comments.Sajaypal007 has opposite view.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Caste edit war...

...at Banaphar. I wonder if you might care to cast an eye over the recent changes there and decide if anything needs doing? (For reference: Talk:Banaphar#Wrong information on the page) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Funny that, I was just writing up a warning. Posted. Bishonen | tålk 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC).
Hmm, "two minds with but a single thought". I guess that means I'm responsible for half a thought, which is good going for me on a Friday. Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Review request.

Hello, I have recently started an article on a stockbroking company. Could you please review it? Thank you :) Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading212 NinjaWeeb (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, NinjaWeeb, I don't think so. It's not my kind of thing, and I'm a little busy. Bishonen | tålk 18:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC).

Your Yangcheon District reversion

I had intended to eventually try my best to make sense of the edit that you ultimately deleted. Since it's still in the history, I just might get back to it, though it's not high on my to-do list. If the article's not on your watch list, please put it there just in case I get around to giving poor Vnaroddrux an assist since I THINK I know what he or she meant to say but I'm unsure that it can be properly sourced. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Kent Dominic. Vnaroddrux can certainly use assistance. Did you notice my discussion with them on their page? My own recent contributions tell the story. Bishonen | tålk 10:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC).
I just read the discussion. You're reverting 500 edits? Ouch, that's harsh. It's bound to get someone's attention. But, to the merits of the Yangcheon thing, I live in Seoul and tried locally to find the root of what Vnaroddrux mentioned and it's beyond everyone's knowledge here. Indeed, I found some contradictory etymological items re. "Yangcheon" transliterations - namely "sheep cloth" - from Traditional Chinese to Korean and, ultimately, to English. My initial thought was that it'd be as easy as Yongsan. Shows how much Korean I (need to) know. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
(Please indent using colons.) Good luck with the Korean! Btw, I didn't exactly revert 500 edits — I know I pretty much said I did, but I meant I was reverting the revertable edits from the user's first 500 contributions, i. e. edits where nobody else has edited in the meantime. In practice that means I reverted some 100 edits. Bishonen | tålk 15:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC).
Re. style: I've seen most editors revert to the same indentation as their immediately previous comment as I'm doing now and as Alice does in her third comment in indent Example #4.--Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
It's easy to follow and it saves white space as compared with her second comment in that same example's thread, as I'm doing now. But, hey, I'm I guest on your talk page, so I'll follow the house rules here. Please don't kill me if I revert to habit.--Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think our system of sequential indents rots, and is outmoded by the reply templates and the ability to colorize text. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Khant (caste)

Hi Bishonen I think the protection needs to be re-installed for Khant (caste) as content disputes/mass deletion has resumed again. Please have a look. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 19:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Amkgp, but I don't see what good a renewal of my semiprotection would do. The last time an IP edited the article was in March. And surely it's too soon for full protection for content dispute: the content dispute so far consists only in a user removing a section, and you restoring it. That's it. If they should revert in turn, please take it to the talkpage, with an edit summary urging the other user to come there too. Please let me know if an actual edit war should develop. Bishonen | tålk 19:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC).

Any chance...

... of doing some archiving? Scrolling down this talk page to find what one is looking for is a nuisance when done on a computer, and a real pain when done on a phone. If you don't mind my saying so. (Or even if you do.) JBW (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

She is, perhaps, trying to catch EEng. (I see a comment that interests me, I click the sublink in my watchlist). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You think 120 sections is a lot, JBW? I saw a page with 476 yesterday, starting with a "Welcome to Wikipedia" from 2006, and it wasn't even EEng's. But if you seriously find it inconvenient... OK. Bishonen | tålk 20:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC).
FWIW:
EEng 278 851,086
DFO 103 206,855
Bish 120 ~350,000 (before) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


WP:OTHERSTUFF ??? JBW (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Question

Question: When a user is blocked indefinitely in Wikipedia, is their account on Wikimedia also blocked? I am enquiring about Mariolovr's recent block. He had uploaded hundreds of images from a website into commons. [69] Normal Op (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Normal Op, no. Every project is independent, so a user blocked on en-wiki can still edit commons, for instance. IPs can be globally blocked and accounts can be globally locked, but that requires a steward and specific levels of disruption.
Incidentally, Bish, I have proposed a topic ban on Mariolovr's talk page. If he agrees to that, would you also agree? Do you think there are any topics I have forgotten to include? Salvio 16:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Salvio giuliano: If you had read the numerous conversation I had had with Mariolovr in the last week, and his method of communicating with other editors, then you wouldn't be suggesting this. Normal Op (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Normal Op, it doesn't really matter, since he's opposed to the idea. As such, I am about to decline his unblock request. Salvio 16:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Right, Mariolovr tried opposing the idea first; when that didn't work he changed his mind, and is now saying he'll accept your topic ban. Salvio giuliano, are you done with him and leaving him to make a new unblock request? In any case, I can't think of any more topics, you seem to have covered the problem area very well, and I'm happy to go with whatever you prefer. Normal Op, you may want to be more specific about your opposition to the idea of a topic ban, with links, or at least page names. Bishonen | tålk 18:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC).
Sure, I'll get that for you shortly, Bishonen. Normal Op (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, Bish, Mariolovr has apparently changed his mind. As far as I'm concerned, the topic ban is still on the table; however, I'll wait a litte, to give Normal Op the chance of showing why he thinks that sanction would be insufficient.
Normal Op, please, provide examples of problematic conduct that you think would not be prevented by the topic ban. Salvio 18:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Here are 14 threads Mariolovr was involved in, contentiously. I'm not even counting the ANI or his many edit-wars which were conducted mainly with edit-summaries (they would be in the edit-history of the articles corresponding to these Talk pages). As you will see from these examples, I wasn't the only editor having similar problems with Mariolovr and his edit style. In my conversations (the ones I am most familiar with) I felt like I shouldn't answer some of the time in order to let the thread die, then M would come back and goad me into continuing the conversation ("you just refuse to communicate with me", "Are we ever going to get back to the original discussion at hand?", "not wanting to cooperate with me", "don't change the subject"). But the convo never got anywhere. Several times he insulted me and I felt like I was in a sparring match with someone and I wasn't trying to spar but kept getting sucker-punched. He was aggressively trying to push his POV at all times, regardless of WP policies/guidelines, and he was conducting his battles on so many fronts that it was exhausting to even read all of what he'd posted since the last time I'd logged in (let alone answer him). He also had a habit of editing his talk page comments after posting them and getting a response, thus changing the conversation for the next person to read. This list is just the ones I already knew about; I did NOT go back and see which other articles he had been doing this same stuff with in the last few days.

Threads I participated in:

Threads in which I was NOT a participant:

And some poor other editor got temp blocked for fighting with Mariolovr. Normal Op (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, when I presented policy to him, he either couldn't or wouldn't see how it applied to his edits. Then he would come back and argue how WP policy favored his viewpoint against me/mine. I gave up. Normal Op (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Can I also add that I've just identified that the images MarioLovr was trying to get included in the horse slaughter article are actually from an illegal halal slaughterhouse that was shut down by the french government for violation of slaughterhouse, animal welfare and food safety laws, a fact they completely failed to mention in the addition, captions, talk page discussion and RfC, where they have instead presented them as normal slaughterhouse operations. see my comments here. 192.76.8.79 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Wow, thank you for your research and disclosure about the facts behind those photos. I was unaware that halal requires animals conscious before slaughtering or that these photos were from a halal slaughterhouse AND one that was shut down for other reasons. I knew there was something wrong with these photos but had no idea of that backstory! This makes it even more interesting that Mariolovr presented himself as someone who had worked at a slaughterhouse and presented these photographs as ordinary and typical. Thank you for exposing that falsehood. Normal Op (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Minor correction, 3 of the images are from the illegal halal slaughterhouse, 2 of them are from this case in which illegal slaughterhouse operations resulted in 3 slaughterhouses having their licences revoked, and the final image is from this case where revelations that race horses were being slaughtered created a major social media storm. You could probably argue that the last image is standard practice, but 5 of these images show illegal operations and animal abuse. 192.76.8.79 (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
These discussions show that Mariolovr's conduct has been problematic and that is why I upheld Bishonen's block. Mariolovr's editing style has definitely been tendentious and pugnacious, but he has only been disruptive in a specific topic area and that could be prevented by a topic ban rather than a full block. It's possible I am too lenient, but, in general, I think that we should try the least onerous sanction that gets the job done before telling someone to go away permanently. And I have also seen that sometimes an editor who is disruptive in a topic area can edit productively in another. Which is why I am still on the fence regarding him.
Now, I also see that he has been accused of sockpuppetry. That doesn't really surprise me, as he looked fishy to me as well, but, as much as I want, being fishy is not enough to support such an accusation. So, basically, I think I'll let the SPI run its course first. Salvio 11:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately the SPI will likely be a dead end for Mariolovr. I strongly believe that he is Zalgo but I can't demonstrate it with diffs this time. But one thing is clear he is not a new user from his editing skills and I guess will be back editing the same articles in the future. On his talk-page he has filed his own SPI and is now saying Normal Op/192.76.8.79 are the same person. This might be an abuse of talk-page use. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Per WP:OPTIONS, "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of their user talk page". I was very amused by Mariolovr's accusation, however I don't need more false crapola posted about me. He has stirred up several other bits of crap, getting other editors involved (who I'd had problems with in the past like he's asking for them to dogpile on me), accused me of having had a topic ban just weeks ago [70] (when it was over a year ago and it has been overturned), etc. His sockpuppet accusation is over-the-top and shows his desire to continue to be contentious. "Getting back at me" for doing an ANI on him isn't going to get his block overturned, so I am viewing this latest attempt as pure vindictiveness. I agree that we'll likely see a return of him in another form, but in the meantime would you consider flipping the option and turning off his user talk page privileges? (He's continuing to edit there. I just saw 3 more edits he made.) Normal Op (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I believe Salvio guiliano may want to talk with the user on their page once the SPI is closed. RexxS offered some evidence (namely that provided by you yourself above, Normal Op), which the CU hasn't considered yet, and so the SPI remains open. On the other hand, of course Salvio can restore talkpage access when/if he wants to communicate with Mariolovr. I agree that there's too much trolling going on there. OK, I'll revoke tpa. Hope you don't mind, Salvio. Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC).
Oh, great, that worked fine, not. Re-pinging Salvio giuliano Bishonen | tålk 20:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC).
Well, that'll teach me I guess. *facepalm* The next time I'm feeling charitable, feel free to remind me of this train wreck. Salvio 21:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Trainssteam enginesteam engine

Look out! Oncoming train!

Thank you, everyone, for your contributions to the effort. Thanks, Bish, for hosting this tedious convo on your talk page and allowing us to continue the discussion until a (hopefully final this time) resolution. Normal Op (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Your range block

Hi Bishonen. I was wondering if you could expand the range block special:Contributions/2600:1008:b101:5cc::/64 to disallow talk page access? Aasim (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I see the problem. I've expanded the block to a month, with tpa revoked. Thank you, Aasim! Bishonen | tålk 08:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC).
No problem @Bishonen! Aasim (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

User (Dinesh2069 (talk))

Hello Bishonen, the above user is not listening to neither your words nor my words. Take a look at this edit [71]. User is using words like 'beg' for characters like Indra- king of Gods without any sources. He claimed that we were hurting religious sentiments but the user himself is doing that. This violates wikipedia's 'neutral' policy. He also added words like 'great danveer' to elevate a character without proofs or sources. This shows that he is fan of character Karna. This can be called as fan boy vandalism. The most important thing is he is editing in a wrong way even after being warned. I request you to look into this carefully as you already gave him final warning. Also please look my latest edit over his talk page and please tell me whether I did correct or not. [72] Thank you. Fire star on heat (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review for Restoration Spectacular

I have nominated Restoration Spectacular for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

That article should be kept intact forever as it contains one the most significant events on Wikipedia: a welcome from Geogre to 'Shonen. --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and have taken your advice

Hi Bishonen, thanks for your message and I've taken your advice and removed the section. Sophoife (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Good thinking, Sophoife. Don't leave downers on your page, that's what I think. Bishonen | tålk 16:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

User (Dinesh2069 (talk))

Hello Bishonen, the above user is not listening to neither your words nor my words. Take a look at this edit [73]. User is using words like 'beg' for characters like Indra- king of Gods without any sources. He claimed that we were hurting religious sentiments but the user himself is doing that. This violates wikipedia's 'neutral' policy. He also added words like 'great danveer' to elevate a character without proofs or sources. This shows that he is fan of character Karna. This can be called as fan boy vandalism. The most important thing is he is editing in a wrong way even after being warned. I request you to look into this carefully as you already gave him final warning. Also please look my latest edit over his talk page and please tell me whether I did correct or not. [74]

Hello Bishonen, this user seems to be little rude as you can see his latest edit. [75]. I don't have any personal enimity with him. But he is not editing properly. You gave him final warning and asked me to report you if he persistently edit in a wrong way even after warning. I already informed you. Once again I'm reporting you so that you would take some action on him. He had record of disruptive editing and vandalism. Kindly look into this as you already told me that you would block him if he edits in a wrong way. Thank you and have a nice day. Fire star on heat (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
He's a little rude, yes, and can't seem to make it clear who he's talking to. I've posted a question about that. But religion really isn't my subject; I'm not comfortable being dragged into it. Any admin stalker out there who knows a little about Hindu gods and sacred texts? Even a little knowledge would definitely be more than I have. Bishonen | tålk 10:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC).

Another rangeblock may be in order

Hey there, Bishonen. I've subtly kept an eye on TurokSwe's IP range editing of articles he has a history of tinkering with on the Swedish Wikipedia, though I haven't said anything about him violating his site ban, as his edits have been innocuous and harmless - plus he hasn't appealed his ban yet. However, I did see that he vandalized Deepfake, which I would consider problematic. Perhaps this would warrant a range block? I don't know; he doesn't edit much, so even a 2-month range block wouldn't accomplish much. If nothing else, it would be good to monitor the situation with that IP's activities. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 01:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hiya, Darth. Yeah, I suppose the usefulness is borderline. But it may be good to send a message that we're watching. Blocked for two months. Bishonen | tålk 08:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC).
Like clockwork-- he's notified that his image will be deleted, so magically an IP from his location that exclusively edits his areas of interest swoops in and saves the day. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 05:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
DarthBotto, yes.. yes.. I agree, I bet TurokSwe was using that IP. I've blocked the range for another three months. The question then becomes: should I revert the edit as block evasion? Technically, yes. But it seems perhaps too unkind. Little talkpage stalkers, what do you think? Bishonen | tålk 09:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC).
The only reason why he broke cover was that Anaconda (film series) was vandalised by 2409:4072:6D93:411C:0:0:C14B:2F08 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). If the block-evasion revert is carried out, that IP has succeeded in their vandalism, and somebody else would have to restore it. In this case, I think the best interests of the encyclopedia are served by leaving it alone. Just IMHO, of course. --RexxS (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You speak wisdom, RexxS. I won't do it. Bishonen | tålk 10:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC).
Very well! The edit wasn't disruptive this time, anyway. Therefore, I won't raise any mention until he starts disrupting things. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Have 'zilla draw his own version of the cover art and upload and use it. OK, more practically, since AFAIK fire-breathing lizard creatures don't have opposable thumbs making it hard to hold a pen or paintbrush, find a different image, maybe of a boxed set of more than just the first 4 films in the series, and use it instead. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

[Blushes]. Is that still around? Bishonen | tålk 15:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC).

Hello! My name is Giano and I once used to edit Wikipedia. I hope you are all well. I seem to remember this was the best place too ask a question and can get a reliable answer. This is about copyright - In the USA there is no copyright on photographs of ancient objects such as Rembrandts and antique furniture, my question is, does this also to apply to the UK? Giano (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Little UK stalkers, please? RexxS? Bishonen | tålk 18:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC).
Not British, but... it's complicated. In the US simple reproductions of out-of-copyright two-dimensional works do not get a new copyright. Photographing a 3D work can result in a new copyright in the US because there is some degree of originality involved.
In the UK, the standard for 'originality' has traditionally been lower, to the extent that in some cases photographing ancient paintings could potentially warrant copyright protection, if there was some degree of skill and judgment involved. However, it has also been the case that Commons/WMF consider reproductions of 2D works to be in the public domain regardless of country.
So the short answer is, (1) for our purposes there is no copyright on photographs of ancient 2D works regardless of where they are, but (2) in most cases there will be copyright on photographs of 3D works even if the thing pictured is ancient. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Nikkimaria, that’s helpful, but I am thinking specifically of private publishing in the UK, for ones own use and not for profit, rather than Wikipedia. I have had a professional opinion, but I don’t agree with it, or indeed like it, so wondered what the feeling was here. British museums and galleries seem to be rather protective of their exhibits and professional opinion keen to support them. Giano (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah, well in that case I'd expect the most conservative legal opinion would be that they are covered by copyright. But recent legal cases suggest things aren't so clear-cut. (Not a lawyer though). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Giano: there's a good summary of the UK copyright laws at c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list T-Z #United Kingdom. If you are thinking about photographs that you take yourself, Excellency, then skip down to the De minimis and Freedom of panorama which gives a good idea of what you can take photographs of without infringing the copyright of the creator of the object you photograph. I suspect that Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 will be of interest to you. You might also find some relevance in the 2014/5 advice note from the Intellectual Property Office:

According to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.

Under section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this decision remains generally binding on UK courts. Hope this helps, but I'm happy to do more research for you if you have a particular case in mind. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Rex, you seem to be coinciding with my own interpretation. Which is, if one wanted to use a 10-year-old sale catalogue image of an antique item (say a valuable 200-year-old table which has now disappeared from public view) to illustrate a book on the maker of said table, that would not be an infringement Of copyright as the said table has existed in that form for 200 years. Similarly if a museum has illustrated a chair, on its website, by the same furniture maker, that illustration too cannot be copyright. However, I fear the Victoria and Albert Museum may not agree. Giano (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Giano: I'm no lawyer, so I may be very wrong, but my impression is as follows. The Victoria and Albert Museum certainly does not agree, and nor do most if not all other UK museums and art galleries; many of them have messages claiming copyright on reproductions in postcards and the like. However, their claim to own copyright has never been tested in court, and a pretty solid proportion of lawyers are very doubtful that any court would uphold such claims. (It may even be that the reason the claims have never been tested in court is that the museums' legal advisers know that they are on shaky ground, and therefore don't ever take cases to court for fear of a judgement which would stop the museums from being able to plausibly claim copyright.) JBW (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Giano: The precedent is well-documented at National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. The NPG proved unwilling to pursue their claims of copyright, but it was an unpleasant experience for all involved. The IPO declaration some six years later seems to completely undermine the NPG's stance, but that was all about two-dimensional objects. A photograph of an antique table or chair is much less clear, because the photographer might argue that they made a creative arrangement of angle and lighting when taking the photograph. My inclination would be to contact the museum and the owner of the sales catalogue and ask for permission to use the images to illustrate the book (offering complete attribution, of course). It may well be that they would find the publicity of using their images would be of far more benefit to them than any possible commercial reuse could generate. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that, RexxS. Several interesting things come out of that case, including an example of progress being made by collaborative discussion between the parties, which is of course in line with what you are suggesting. I agree with you the IPO declaration "seems to completely undermine the NPG's stance", but the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation seems itself not to have any clear bearing on the copyright position within the United Kingdom, as a central point in that case was the dubious nature of the claim of applicability of UK law to a person residing and acting in the USA. However, my own impression is of a firm of lawyers posting a long and intimidiating letter in the hope of creating a chilling effect but having no will to follow through with legal action when their bluff was called. JBW (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Interesting interpretation which rather follows my own thoughts. Most British museums seem to adopt the scare tactic with little substantiation and no back-up. Perhaps a test case is overdue. Thanks both for your thoughts. Giano (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No, I hadn’t, thank you for bringing it to my attention. What a nuisance for him, bloody virus is everywhere so it seems. I have quite strong views on the subject, but here and now is not the time to air them. However, I will say that people like that Trump man are criminally stupid! Giano (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
If you can possibly manage to forgive me, Bishonen, for moving in on a personal message addressed not to me but to Giano, I hadn't seen that either, and I'm very grateful to you for pointing it out. I have a high regard RexxS as an editor and now as an administrator, and the news is most unwelcome.
Giano it's interesting to see you say that you "once used to edit Wikipedia". Back in the days when I first became significantly involved in Wikipedia I used to very frequently see you around, but times move on. I see you haven't lost your sense of humour over the years, as evidenced by your explaining to Bishonen who you are. JBW (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome here on any errand, JBW. Actually I wrote that note to Giano here, rather than mailing him, precisely because I wanted other friends to see it too. Yes, we're all concerned for RexxS. Bishonen | tålk 11:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC).

Dealing with Proud Boys

Hey! I saw your really helpful and reassuring revert on Talk:Proud Boys, and thought I'd drop you a message. I'm thinking that the only way that we can actually head towards a more irrefutable and formalised consensus than the hodge-podge (though still a strong one) consensus across multiple conversations is to have a structured discussion with a bit more oversight - the discussion on NPOV/N and even on the talk keeps spiralling into personal attacks, personal opinions, original research, and blatently biased assertions. I don't really know how this could be done, but if you're interested, I'd really appreciate a bit of guidance on trying to resolve the issues with respecting, or even recognising, the consensus. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, ItsPugle. Well, there are already two pink boxes at the top of the page which explain that you need reliable sources before making an edit request, which obviously the indignant members/sympathizers of PB that come to the page don't read (which I can sort of sympathize with — the amount of stuff at the top of the page is off-putting), or else they read them and don't like them. I thought of suggesting an RfC or a FAQ page, but I guess that would only lead to more stuff that they don't read. And I don't really want to semi the talkpage either. That's only done in extreme cases, and then only briefly. Actually, my best advice is for experienced editors to not be afraid of simply removing posts that violate WP:FORUM, with a clear, explanatory edit summary. I hate seeing constructive editors waste precious volunteer time replying to those kinds of posts for the nth time, so I'd simply remove them before that happens. And if the posts are then restored, warn the restorers on their page and/or ask somebody like me to act (for instance with a brief semi). Any talkpage stalkers got a better idea? Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Yeah, great point. I'm not sure if I've just missed the general tone of the discussion when I was reading it or something, but it looks like a consensus has kind of just popped out of the discussion on the talk page (this diff removed the POV tag and hasn't been reverted in ~18h). Now that I know that it's okay to just simply remove posts that violate WP:FORUM, I think that'll probably be what will happen for most of these repetitive stuff. Thank you so much! 🙂 ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, I have a worse idea: tell them to stand back and stand by. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Bahahaha! I can only imagine the sort of crap we'd get for that 😂 ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This genuinely made me chuckle. Very clever. And apropos given all the disruptive “boys” coming out of the woodwork. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Hey again! I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the RfC that's seemingly coming to an end on the talk page, and maybe if you have the time, close it? It's been going on for 25 days, and hasn't had anymore !votes for about two and a half weeks, so I feel it may be time to derive a closing consensus. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, ItsPugle, no, I don't have the time. Bishonen | tålk 11:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Of course, no worries! :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Deprodding of Jeffery D. Long

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Jeffery D. Long, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Please sign your posts, Walwal20. I'm surprised you think a mere large number of absolutely terrible citations make a subject notable — I thought I explained, in my prod, what was wrong with them. Bishonen | tålk 08:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC).
Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffery D. Long. Bishonen | tålk 14:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen. Sorry, I thought the {{subst:deprod}} template signed it for me. I don't think it makes anything notable. WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletions only, and it does not seem uncontroversial to me. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 16:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

IP editor back after a few months

I'm assuming good faith here, but Special:Contributions/98.184.68.246/(talk) is back with the history lesson of the 49-star United States flag. This time it's much more along the lines of WP:CIR than outright vandalism, which is why I'm not asking for the person to be blocked. However, you might want to watchlist Flag of the United States for a week or so in case this editor makes edits that demonstrate "CIR". By the way, the 2 edits this editor has made today have already been reverted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, David. It's hard to know what to do. The case seems rather sad, and the person certainly seems to be a long, long way away from being able to edit usefully. I'll watchlist Flag of the United States and perhaps more importantly, the redirect 49 star flag. Bishonen | tålk 14:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC).

Hello

It's been a while. Hope you are doing well. Tex (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The young Tex! [Bishzilla, much moved, sticks the little Tex in her pocket.] Stay there! Bishonen just fine! Darwinbish no better than she should be![76][77] Hope little Tex is fine! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 19:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC).

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

Strawberry cake, yumyum, thank you for offering. We just had Kirschstreusel on a special day some years ago, sax music on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I stole your lead pic - have music to offer instead --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

diskret dregel

For Bonadea per ADMINACCT

Gnn, now I want a Daim bar. Shouldn't ADMINACCT require that you deliver one? (Or is that covered by the cake for the visitors? More drooling!) --bonadea contributions talk 17:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Mmmmm.. I knew it, only Swedes understand the finer points of chocolate. I've been considering trying the new cookie dough Marabou, what do you think? Bishonen | tålk 19:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC).
I think you ought to. For Science! --bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No action needed

In light of WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by IP on Beer in Denmark and Ferrero SpA, as an FYI - the IP pest had also targetted Giovanni Ferrero and Pietro Ferrero Jr.; but as of now, has been appropriately reverted. Narky Blert (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Narky, protected. I fear the IP is more interested in the kind of disruption than in the particular articles; I may end up blocking at least the two major ones, I guess. Sigh. Bishonen | tålk 19:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC).

List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"

Hey, this is a very interesting page actually. I find the topic intriguing and would love to contribute, not entirely sure what the issue with that page is but any suggestions on how I may improve it and make it worthy of 'staying'? :) Berehinia (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Berehinia. Well, the reasons given for deletion are mainly the lack of sources discussing the works as a group, and the lack of sources altogether for the introduction, so I suppose providing such sources would be the thing. I kind of doubt they exist, though. So it's probably a lost cause. But I'm glad you like it! Bishonen | tålk 07:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC).
I think I understand what you're saying. Well, either way this gives me a whole new area to research and contribute to. I'm very much into exploring the subject of virtue and what that meant throughout history. Berehinia (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, that’s all I can say: Well! Words escape me. Well! But I will say it’s come to a pretty pass and rum kettle of fish when informative and useful pages are now being deleted because some cis gendered, woke upstart in some God forsaken state, of God knows where, has got out of bed and left their sense of humour between the sheets along with their sex drive, I wouldn’t be surprised; so they try to compensate in other ways. Why can’t they just buy one of those little blue pills on EBay? All this wokeness and stupidity, where is it all going to end? I’ll tell you where: in tears and depravity! It can only be a matter of time before we are all so completely depraved that we and don’t even have a hook for our toilet tissue! The same thing happened in Russia or Munich or maybe Florence or some such outlandish place; guillotining worthy editors’s work - it’s akin to burning books, no different at all and we all know where that led! I demand the nominating editor is banned before things get out of hand and even more worthy pages are deleted by some half-witted admin with acne. I won’t comment as to do so is to give such behaviour credence. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    My word! An appearance by Lady Rollbacker-de Burgh herself! GeneralNotability (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    A hook for our toilet tissue? Dear Lady Catherine, I hope you recollect the hook for toilet tissue of yore — the elegant page, the most elegant parts of which were contributed by your honoured nephew. O tempora, etc. Bishonen | tålk 20:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC).
Of all the userspace subpages, that's one I didn't know about before. Thanks for linking to it, as I particularly enjoyed reading the talk page. And here I thought that DYK had all the good hooks. Obviously, poor young Tryptofish started editing here after much of the real fun was already over. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for proxy editing by an IP

Hey I can see you and make some thing on Daim bar Wikipedia website and that is not made in 1953 that is made in 1952 in Sweden by Marabou can you make that to 1952 instead of 1953 because they was the original owners of Marabou in Sweden made by Marabou in 1952 in Sweden, I hope you can do that for me my friend and PS you can find the right information on the other website somewhere else on the Internet, and you must have a very nice and very good day my friend ;) :) And if you also add this for Daim bar Wikipedia website because everybody can see what kind of things they are making and so every person on this planet can have to change so see what they do and what kind of chocolates they made as well too my friend ;) :)

Overly long lists hatted.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Daim bars :

  • Daim Original (Sweden original) and (Denmark, Norway and Finland)
  • Daim Wite With White Chocolate (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Drak With Dark Chocolate (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Licorice, Daim Liquorice (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Orange (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Mint (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Lemon (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Forest Fruits (Limited edition Sweden and Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Blueberry (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Lemon-Orange (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Cappuccino (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Cool Breeze With Orange and Lemon (Limited edition Sweden and Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Summer Dream With a Pear-Mint flavor (Limited edition Sweden and Limited edition Denmark)[1]
  • Daim single (Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland)
  • Daim mini, Daim mini's (Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland)
  • Daim Dobbel (Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland)
  • Daim Family bag (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Germany)
  • Daim XXL bag (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Germany and United Kingdom)


Daim Chocolates:

  • Marabou Daim (Sweden original and Norway original), (Denmark and Finland)
  • Marabou Daim Bites (Sweden original and Norway original), (Denmark and Finland)
  • Marabou Daim Milk Chocolate Bar King Size (Sweden original and Norway original), (Denmark and Finland)
  • Marabou Milk Chocolate Roll with Daim (Sweden original and Norway original), (Denmark and Finland)
  • Milka Daim (Switzerland original), (Switzerland) ,(Germany)
  • Milka Daim Snax, (Milka Snax Daim) (Switzerland original), (Switzerland), (Germany)
  • Mikado Daim (Limited edition Germany), (Germany)
  • Cadbury Dairy Milk with Daim (UK original), (UK)
  • Freia Daim Small Pieces (Norway original), (Norway)
  • Freia Milk Chocolate Daim

(Norway original), (Norway)

  • Daim Chocolate Pieces Milk With Caramel Snax (Sweden original and Norway original), (Denmark and Finland)


Daim Cakes:

  • Daim Milk Chocolate Mousse Cake With Crunchy Caramel Almondy (Sweden), (Denmark), (Norway), (Finland)
  • Daim Cake Strawberry Almondy (Limited edition), (Sweden), (Denmark), (Norway), (Finland)
  • Daim Almondy Cake (Sweden), (Denmark), (Norway), (Finland)
  • Daim Orange Cake Almondy (Limited edition) (Sweden), (Denmark), (Norway), (Finland)


Daim cookies:

  • Daim cookies
  • Daim cookies XL
  • Marabou Daim cookies
  • Marabou Daim cookies XL


Daim Ice Creams:

  • Daim Vanilla Flavored Ice Cream With Crunchy Pieces of Daim
  • Daim Waffle Ice Cream
  • Daim Waffle Ice Cream (Mini)
  • Daim Waffle Ice Cream Balltop
  • Daim Waffle Ice Cream Balltop (Mini)
  • Daim popsicle Ice Cream
  • Daim popsicle Ice Cream (Mini)
  • Daim Ice popsicle Ice Cream
  • Daim Ice popsicle Ice Cream (Mini).
  • Daim Ice popsicle Ice Cream Stick
  • Daim Ice popsicle Ice Cream Stick (Mini)
  • Daim Mini Chocolate Ice Cream
  • Daim Mini Chocolate Ice Cream Bars
  • Daim Ice Cream Cones
  • Daim Ice Cream Cones mini
  • Daim Caramel Ice Cream with Milk Chocolate
  • Daim Caramel Ice Cream with Milk Chocolate mini
  • Daim Bucket Ice Cream
  • Daim Bucket Ice Cream mini
  • Ice Cream Rolls - Daim - Ice Cream Rolls
  • Ice Cream Rolls - Daim - Ice Cream Rolls mini
  • Daim Bar Ice Cream
  • Daim Bar Ice Cream Sandwich
  • Daim Ice Cream Sandwich
  • Daim Mcflurry or Mcflurry Daim (Sweden), (Denmark), (Germany)
  • Marabou Daim Mcflurry
  • Marabou Daim Mcflurry De Luxe
  • Marabou Daim salt licorice Mcflurry
  • Daim Bar Mcflurry (UK)
  • McFlurry Daim Chili Chocolate
  • Daim salt licorice Mcflurry

Daim bars imported from Sweden (manufactured in Upplands Väsby) have been sold in many countries. {{citation needed|date=October 2020

Hey my friend, I can see you made something here on Beer in Denmark Wikipedia website, and here in Denmark they over 200-300, breweries here in Denmark, and if you will add this for me here on this Wikipedia website, and that is actually all of the breweries here in Denmark in The Kingdom of Denmark, if you can do that for me and add this on Beer in Denmark Wikipedia website, my friend ;) :)

Væggerløse

  1. ^ http://www.chocozone.net/index.php?action=8&id=3592&mode=2
  2. ^ https://christianiabryghus.dk/
  3. ^ https://christianiabryghus.com/
  4. ^ https://christianiabryghus.dk/ol-med-hamp/
  5. ^ http://www.christiania-bryg.beer/?page_id=2
  6. ^ http://xn--hjtskum-q1a.blogspot.com/2012/04/christiania-pilsnere-fristadens-etiketl.html?m=1
  7. ^ https://Boneyardbeer.dk.
  8. ^ https://flyingcouch.dk/
  9. ^ https://m.facebook.com/fredenskaelder/?locale2=da_DK
  10. ^ https://m.facebook.com/fredenskaelder/
  11. ^ https://skagenbryghus.dk/
  12. ^ https://sn.dk/Koege/Kaelderen-er-oellets-hjoernesten/artikel/719658
  13. ^ http://www.jo-hansen.dk/beer/Historie/Nedlagte_bryggerier.html
  14. ^ https://www.visitdenmark.com/denmark/things-do/danish-food/denmarks-local-beer-breweries
I'm sure that 5.186.116.173 and other IPs from the Copenhagen area is Spidy30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (if you haven't already figured that out). Sjö (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I was not aware of that user, Mr Lake. Checking out their contribs and the SPI, of course I see what you mean. Could you list the IPs for me? If they form a not overly large range, I'll block. You get cake! Bishonen | tålk 20:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC).
Oooh, cake! It looks really good! Well, apart from 5.186.116.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), there's 80.62.116.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 80.62.116.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 80.62.117.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 87.49.147.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that have been active during October. Sjö (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hrmm.. well. I thought of blocking 80.62.116.0/23, but there's quite a bit of helpful gnoming in there. I'll block 5.186.116.173, because it's so obviously Spidy30, and supposedly static, but I dunno about the others. Johnuniq, what do you think? Bishonen | tålk 21:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC).
All this talk of cake makes me want to expand the Britt G. Hallqvist article a bit. (I suspect that reference may have been a bit obscure...?) --bonadea contributions talk 20:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Seed cake
Uh... I know her mostly for the translations. Check out this remarkable list! [Bishonen tries to remember some cake in The Hobbit or King Lear. It's not going well.] Guess what, I sort of worked with her once, though without any contact to speak of. I translated a novel, and she translated the poems in it, which was utterly beyond my skill. The article could certainly do with expansion. Bishonen | tålk 21:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC).
You worked with her!! Oh, wow... we are not worthy! (Seriously, that impresses the hell out of me.) The cake connection is from the lovely rhymed story Festen i Hulabo, where the three chickens keep asking for cake! But there is cake in The Hobbit as well: seed cake, I think, consumed by the unexpected dwarves coming to tea. --bonadea contributions talk 21:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm impressed too. It's just as well we only had minimal contact, because I would have been too starstruck to do anything but gawp and giggle. Oh, the seed cake for tea... right. That has a really grandmotherly vibe. Bishonen | tålk 22:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC).
Two beautiful round seed-cakes which he had baked that afternoon for his after-supper morsel, I believe. —valereee (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
This place is full of Tolkien nerds! Bishonen | tålk 11:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC).
Say what you will about MediaWiki, but it's pretty clever. When someone says "Tolkien nerds", I get a ping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Unless it was the "full of"? Did you get a ping now? Sorry I can't actually ping you in this reply, but obviously that would ruin the experiment. Bishonen | tålk 15:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC).
Uh oh. I just got a notification that my "Tolkien nerd" card has been revoked, because I can't spell "Tolkien". You'll have to ping me the old-fashioned way from now on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@B: As you mentioned, the IPs are 5.186.116.173 (blocked) and 80.62.116.0/23 and 87.49.147.27. If there is a small list of problematic articles, the /23 could be partially blocked from those pages. I can't tell if the edits are useful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, John. No, I don't believe it's a small list of articles; they'll go anywhere where it's possible to add huge WP:UNDUE lists of details, like the lists of chocolate bars (which excited Bonadea so much) and Danish beer that I hatted above in this thread. Partial blocks wouldn't bother them any. Bishonen | tålk 11:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

Editors misbehaviour matter

Hi Bhumi2tandon here Thanks for your opinion on the post regarding the vindictive editor. Have already reported the matter to Submission help desk they will resolve it so you need not worry. Has put up that post on the edit page because the other reviewers were not accepting the resubmission so to give them so background.

Bhumi2tandon, please log in to edit. Don't edit from your IP. Also, please sign your posts. You can type four tildes, ~~~~, which will be turned automatically into a signature with timestamp when you save. And you're still not assuming good faith. Just stop talking about a "vindictive editor", please. It's nonsense, and offensive nonsense. Also, you are mistaken when you say I "need not worry". The help desk doesn't resolve disagreements; it's run by experienced editors who answer questions and explain things. (I hope you have read their replies and explanations to you.) I, on the other hand, am an administrator, and I can resolve this by blocking you. Perhaps my post on your page wasn't clear enough. It wasn't just my "opinion", but a warning; if you don't stop attacking people, I will block you. I hope that's quite clear now. Bishonen | tålk 13:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC).

Exquisite

Hi, your comment prompted me to carry out a very quick search because I was wonder why the hell my mind came up with such adjective. It turns out I used "exquisite" in the literary sense, as in "A good comedian needs to have an exquisite sense of timing." That is, something "admirable and beautifully apt". My source here is the Cambridge Dictionary. The reason I made a literary use of the word is surely rooted in my native roman language so I can bet I sounded awkward and old-fashioned! MarcelloPapirio (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Horrible user names

I know it it's redundant but I find the best way to get rid of that sort of thing is to block locally as well, that should stop it being reported again, and blocks are cheap,especially for stuff like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, right. Of course. I must have thought the very in-your-face-colored notice "This account is globally locked" meant "Leave it alone, local admin!" Or when I say I "thought", I'm giving myself too much credit. "I stupided" would fit the case better. Thanks, Beeb. Bishonen | tålk 22:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC).
It'sstill not optimal, because it creates a local log of the username, but for sure is better than is popping up on a noticeboard again and again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

User's request to be unblocked

User thewolfchild has after around 18 months requested to be unblocked.

But see how rude he was to me when I supported him for an unblock, https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewolfchild&diff=prev&oldid=892978225 his response was "didnt ask".

So take note of this.

Thank you and regards,

BlueD954 (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

? I was surprised to read your message, since it says he was rude when you supported him for an unblock. That would be strange, and would indeed indicate a hopelessly rude person. But it turns out you posted on his page to say you didn't support removing the block. Well, then. He's allowed to remove comments on his page, and his edit summary was nothing out of the ordinary. Mind you, I think, personally, that it's obfuscating to remove negative comments and leave the positive, since it gives the casual reader a wrong impression of the amount of support. But that's me; it's allowed. Bishonen | tålk 07:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC).
I found him rude and I didn't want him indefinitely blocked. Now on his own talk page [78] his is talking nonsense; he never helped me on Wiki but stalked me at each edit I made, only the military-related edits. Many people I add on their talk page they do not remove and debating nicely unlike him. He has never, repeat never helped me! If you want to unblock him, stop his stalking especially on me please. BlueD954 (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I only just realized you were complaining about an edit summary in April, BlueD954. That's not really of interest, it's more historical. (And also, as I said, it wasn't particularly egregious.) But I'm not specifically supporting an unblock; I'm just, as the blocking admin, leaving it to the reviewer, Nosebagbear. Bishonen | tålk 18:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC).
That is half disappointing that you say it is not of interest. But I'll end it here and hope that user won't bug me once unblocked. BlueD954 (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

take a look?

User_talk:Jack_Morales_Garcia could probably use a couple more watchers, if you'd be willing. —valereee (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Warned. Bishonen | tålk 15:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

Hi

Hi, isn't this user topic banned from India, Pakistan related articles? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I've blocked again. Thanks, Berserk. Bishonen | tålk 19:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC).
You are welcome. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

thank you for cakes, some apples left --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

a big adventure

We're so going to be on YouTube. —valereee (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Really? That's always been my ambition. Bishonen | tålk 23:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC).
Right?! —valereee (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

NOTHERE block

Hi Bishonen, hope you are well. I saw you left a message on the talk page Dr FASHOLA ADEGBOLA AKEEM (talk · contribs) regarding using their userspace as a web hosting service. They continued with their spamming so I blocked them per WP:NOTHERE. I just wanted to let you know. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

[Slightly disappointed:] Well, you're faster than me, LuK3! [Cheers up:] But I have revoked tpa! That's where the disruption was taking place, after all. So maybe we're even on this guy. :-) Bishonen | tålk 17:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC).
Haha, we are definitely even, completely forgot to revoke TPA in the first place! Thanks for your help. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Caste warrior

Hi bishonen, This account User:Universalrahu has made the article Vanniyar to look like a caste website. If you go through their edits, they have made edits mostly adding citation needed templates to articles to gain extended confirmed status and then edited the vanniyar article to glorify the caste. The account has promoted vanniyar caste associations and is trying to give the caste a mythical kshatriya (warrior) status. I've seen you in indian caste related articles. Now they are citing misleading policies and edit warring with another editor. Please look into it.42.106.177.24 (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, 42.106.177.24. I have taken a look at the user's edits of Vanniyar. I'm no expert, but they don't look particularly glorifying to me. What do you say, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff? Bishonen | tålk 20:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC).
I'm tempted to revert to the last Sitush version. But, perhaps @Mr.Sarcastic: has better ideas?--RegentsPark (comment) 02:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I too did the same earlier, there are two editors, the one Universalsahu is attempting to glorifying the article and other editor keeps degrading the same. I intervened and kept in neutral point of view by reverting to the last best version of sitush. So in my opinion its better to protect the article for further edits like this one and give both of them a topic ban on caste related articles. Mr.Sarcastic (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I see. @Mr.Sarcastic: The article is already extended-confirmed protected (read about it here), that's as much as it's possible to protect it. I have reverted to your version. Topic bans can't be issued at present, as the users have not received a discretionary sanctions notice. (I have done it now. You can do this yourself another time, Mr.Sarcastic, by pasting the template {{subst:alert|ipa}} on their talkpage.) @RegentsPark:: what do you say to a week's block for both? Or wait and see what happens after my long revert? I put in a threatening edit summary. Bishonen | tålk 10:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC).
I think we can wait. Neither of them seem to be married to the page so, if they stay away, we should be good. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Everyone first to note is that I am not mostly involved in editing caste pages. My area of interest is related to films. I saw other caste pages but this Vanniyar Page seems to be different from others omitting all useful information and focusing on some Varna issues only. So I edited with some useful other information with aim to building better Wikipedia. There is no issues with sections like Demography, Various titles, Associations and adding some more notable peoples. If someone thinks the lead section is problematic they are welcome to restore it to previous best version. But omitting other useful information doesn't seems look good. Thank you.--Universalrahu (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Universalrahu. Reverting me without first discussing on talk was a pretty poor idea. (Have you ever used an article talkpage — any article talkpage?) You may be on the road to a topic ban from caste articles. If they're not your main interest, all the better. @RegentsPark:? Bishonen | tålk 09:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC).
Bishonen, I've dropped a caste sanctions notification on their talk page. @Universalrahu: I'm reverting your reversion without comment on the content of the reverted material. Please discuss your additions/concerns on the article talk page and get consensus before re-inserting the material. Any further disruption will result in blocks and/or a topic ban. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

[Merged from below. Please don't start new sections when the subject is the same.. Bishonen | tålk 17:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC).]

Hi.! Recently you have reverted Vanniyar page as a whole. Vast and better information was added to the page with complying all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I feel whole removal of vast reliably sourced content doesn't seems building Wikipedia better. There was no edit warring or disruptive editing with the other user Byasa banarjee. There were no objection from any user regarding Demography,Various titles,Vanniyar associations and notable peoples sections. The only problematic issue is with the lead section. I have quoted Wikipedia policies for removal of those content in lead section. One more thing is the user Byasa banarjee is likely sock puppet of user Sangitha rani111 and this have been discussed before with user Ponyo who have already blocked the user Sangitha rani111 in the past for actively editing in Vanniyar page. He have recommended to WP:SPI to investigate on Byasa banarjee for sock. So please wait for some time to prove these two users are sock puppet. And also you have mentioned in edit summary as glorification! Each and every word is from reliable sources and if that is the fact then passing such comment doesn't seems commenting neutrally.--Universalrahu (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

A Sockpuppet investigations/Sangitha rani111 is going on so please slow down until problem is resolved. Thanking you.--Universalrahu (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) An example of a dubious edit you have made is to use this source (which reeks of a vanity journal) to add "Kshatriya" label in Wikipedia voice. This article even claims that there is something called a "Smriti law" which dictates the surnames people are "required" to add! You need to junk this source and all content sourced to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
As a rule, note that journals that are truly "international" rarely call themselves "International Journal of...". Most journals that do so are pretenders, often started by corner place University or College departments to put themselves on the map. These journals are then put into their annual reports to buttress their claim that they are research-active and seek funding. You need to check who the publisher is and see their track record in actual research, not in starting up journals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi!Kautilya3 (talk)Thanks for your reply. I don't see this source is a junk. The author have cleverly mentioned each and every point to the core in detail. And I don't see i-scholar(the source) have been abused here in past. Even if you thought "Various titles" section to be dubious there are other reliable sources to that point cited clearly with them. And Its a big joke here is that even demography section seems to be dubious! which is clearly cited with reliable source. The Vanniyar Association section also seems to be neutrally written just as a piece of information on when and where was it started and its role in Vanniyar caste... rather than exaggerating them. What about notable people section? each and every one is well cited to show there notability. So please mention what is your problem clearly by section wise. Which section you like to detest? I think Talk page must be used when the content is disputable. Except lead section I didn't get any contest from any user. So I request to restore all sections with whatever consensus we get on lead section alone which is disputable.--Universalrahu (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I have merged this section with the one above, as I don't understand why you started a new section about the same thing, User:Universalrahu. I'm interested to see that you think "Talk page must be used when the content is disputable". Your content is disputable, but you yourself never use article talk pages. Who do you expect to use them? Feel free to start a discussion on Talk:Vanniyar. Bishonen | tålk 17:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC).

User:Universalrahu is a caste warrior with a single aim of caste of Vanniyar glorification and his edits are similar to vanniyar caste promotion. Other editors are complaining against him as well, Universalrahu please stop the caste glorification and also stop false accusations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

  • This is not the first time, I had blocked and given a final warning in 2016. It's across all pages connected to the caste, not just the caste article itself. If this continues any further then I will block (and if I'm not around, anyone else should feel free to block). —SpacemanSpiff 05:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
As I suspected user Byasa Banerjee is sock puppet of old disruptive user Sangitha rani111. It has been concluded in SPI investigation and the user is blocked indefinitely. In wake of this reason I reinstate all my valid old edits. Hope there will be no more disruption. User Kautilya3 have questioned a source to its reliability. So I remove that source. RegentsPark, Bishonen If any other user have anything to say please come forward. The discussion is always open.--Universalrahu (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Universalrahu, Mr.Sarcastic, RegentsPark, and Kautilya3: I've placed Vanniyar under a "consensus required" restriction, so there will be no further edit-warring.
Universalrahu, please make sure you understand what is required before editing the article further. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Guys (Hindi speakers), as long as you're here, does anybody know what this means? Bishonen | tålk 22:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC).

Well, an English Lit or Art professor would ask, what does it mean to you? Ducks, runs away.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Google translate offers a definition "(of a person) deal effectively with something difficult." So I may suppose it's a compliment. On the other hand, Google offers "make out" as a synonym, which is a bit worrying. --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

deleted Article Sastha Aravind

sir/mam,

i had left a message in the talk page for the person who nominated the article,citing the reasons and further edits i made ,checking the notability guidelines.i have also added two media files from other sources to prove that.

i would be very glad,if the particle article is restored and left for few more days to add few more media files and citations.with respect to the reasons,i have already given enough citations.if there can be more clarity with regard to what exactly is needed.i can try arranging for it. thank you so much .

It was (almost) twenty years ago today ...

I saw this edit, just now, and was reminded that it was in November of 2004, during Restoration Comedy's FA candidacy, that I met you (and Geogre and Filiocht) ;-) Anyway, while wondering about that edit, and how to rewrite that confusing sentence, I thought I'd ask your opinion as to whether it might be better simply to remove it? Paul August ☎ 16:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Paul, long time indeed. Hope you're holding up in these extraordinary times. As for the IP's edits, the change of "the plays of Aphra Behn" to "the plays of Restoration comedy"[79] is definitely not an improvement IMO. Montague Summers specifically rescued the plays of Behn from oblivion — not RC in general. And this is just poor prose. The rest is fine by me. Obviously it was a good idea to remove "important". I hope my edit notice gave you nice cake — the quality can vary a bit. Hit preview a few times to get a wider selection! Bishonen | tålk 16:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC).
I'm holding up very well thanks (and my outlook is much improved as of a couple of days ago). And you? (Just got a nice Charlotte, yum!) Paul August ☎ 17:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Toxicity

Swear to God, WMF should hire clinical psychologists to wrangle ANI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

They do. Last I heard the clinical psychologists were seeking psychiatric help. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to see my primary care physician, but couldn't, because he has COVID. Sigh. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
No lie. The medical director for my employer's ICU was in ICU with COVID-19. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

N.Ravikiran

I admit that I am an Idiot of the first order and you are the wise one here.Please can you help me make further edits if required so that it does read like an "Advertisement".Please do help if possible.You know best Rajeshbm (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've found it necessary to block you from the article. Bishonen | tålk 13:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC).

Allegations are not facts.If they were,they would have been handled by law enforcement authorities.Anybody can allege anything.Dones not prove a thing Rajeshbm (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not able to judge what are facts and what are not. We simply report what has been published in good-quality reliable sources. You may challenge or remove content that is not supported by reliable sources; but for content that is supported by reliable sources, you only have the options of finding equally reliable sources that contradict the present content, or of making the argument on the article talk page that the content is being given undue weight in the article. If you try to remove properly sourced content, you run the risk of having your editing privileges here curtailed. --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Just saw this continuing after your warning about gravedancing. Not sure if you had that page watchlisted too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh noes, Darwinbish got to it already!
No, I didn't know it existed, Kingofaces43. I've watchlisted it now, so thanks for alerting me. Not much else to be done about that post, I reckon, especially as it's not a high-profile page. Oh, man, I got the rare and delicious-looking almond cheesecake in my edit notice this time, yum. (People who edit this page get different kinds of cake at random. Almond cheesecake... [Bishonen falls into a reverie.]) Have some cake! Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC).
Did you know the Prinsesstårta is called "Schwedentorte" where I live? In any event I love it too (but it's hard to find a cake I don't like, and thus, I keep returning to this page). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
It's a rare pleasure to see you here, Sluzzelin, no matter if it's because of your cake voraciousness! Oh my, of course I need a prinsesstårta in the edit notice carousel. Added now, in place of the Homer Simpson glazed doughnut that nobody liked anyway. I hope it turns up soon for you. ...OMG, Darwinbish's been at it already! Bishonen | tålk 21:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC).
(I got the Lenja pita, looks better than it sounds!) Anyway, I agree that it is best not to do anything more about that post. Does the post-er seriously think anyone is going to remember to inform him? Eye roll. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Rajeshbm

Hi. Since you dealt with them today: Rajeshbm seems intent on wasting more time at Special:Permalink/988443869#Help improving articles. Hard to believe they are the person they claimed, and now claim not, to be (Vappala Balachandran). The picture they uploaded to Commons (c:File:Vappala_Balachandran.png) and claim is that person is from a (presumably copyrighted) paywalled online magazine article about a trip to Scotland. They claim to be new, but the account was created in 2009 and has edited occasionally over the years. I don't know what's going on. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, AlanM1. Compare Judge Judy: "If you tell the truth, you don't need to have a good memory." I wouldn't indef just for that, but together with their persistent promotion... I will. Bishonen | tålk 11:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC).
A few years ago they claimed to be someone else (except that maybe they didn't). I think they are simply a SEO type person (also probably representing N. Ravikiran), and I'm convinced that they are the same person who edited as Suntug11 / Chriswilkins / Rama2015 (blocked five years ago as socks of the same user at Commons, though not here). There were some weird tag-team shenanigans around the (deleted) Arvind Iyer article back when, too. I should report this at ANI but I have a seminar starting in 15 minutes so I'll need to put my teaching hat on – they have been here for years and years, so another few hours or days won't matter. Many thanks for the lovely frog cakes, Bish! --bonadea contributions talk 08:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. As for "new", I was impressed by their ping coding here. I'm sure they're a sock of some blocked user, but it's frankly more trouble to take these people to SPI than it is for them to create new socks. Don't bother with ANI, bonadea. The shenanigans detailed by AlanM above are the last straw AFAIC. I'll indef. Bishonen | tålk 11:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC).
Thanks! ANI is never a pleasant place to go. --bonadea contributions talk 13:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, both. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
BTW, I'm seeing the same bad habit on the socks Bonadea mentioned above, as well as Vendromeblah (already blocked). Should I open an SPI case, since they will almost surely be back? Also I've CSD'd the VB image on Commons and removed it from the article since we obviously can't trust the uploader's statements, relying on the obvious copyright status instead. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, if you have the energy for it, AlanM1. Bishonen | tålk 21:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC).

November

November

Thank you for taking the pic I saw and took for you greeting above, - feels soooo good! ... and the cakes had matching colours ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

look for bright memories, and we had cake --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

BN and WP:ELEM and some thoughts on ArbCom

Hi Bishonen,

We've chatted here from time to time and I hope you know how much I respect you. I noticed post at WP:BN, and I do understand why the walls of text at the ANIs have been offputting... but I think the state of the A/R/C and recent comments from the participants at WP:ELEM are actually illustrating a way in which ArbCom can serve a useful function in DR without taking a case. We have a group of editors of good-will dedicated to the encyclopaedia who have slowly drifted into a conflict that is disproportionate to the content issue. I would not have started a case request nor recommended any of the participants initiating the request – I wanted to try a within-project resolution one final time – but the request was made and the potential for a full case seems to have helped the participants to reflect and move to avoid a process that would be awful for all.

In fact, I wonder if Arbitrators can help to resolve cases by making it clear that the process is brutal and is something to avoid if at all possible. ArbCom is inevitable for the cases needing a desysop but in cases where that or other advanced permissions are not in issue, maybe the inability of involved parties to work towards avoiding a case when one appears likely is a useful proof that intervention, and likely action like imposing DS or sanctioning individuals, is actually necessary. And if they can move to avoid the complexity and unpleasantness of an ArbCom case, they will be better for it as will the community, and the Arbitrators will have done us all another service without holding a case.

I'm not posting at BN because I see this as an unhelpful tangent from its consideration of gender biases and under-representatoin of minorities... but I also think that the ELEM situation is illustrating a possible means of conflict resolution that potential Arbitrators can facilitate – and only necessitating reading all the ANI walls if the editors involved demonstrate again at the request stage that they cannot step back from the brink. ArbCom has a difficult job and has had members over the years from the excellent to the... how should I put this... not. We need good people willing to take on a likely unpleasant job with plenty of scrutiny and criticism, both fair and unfair. The ELEM request shows both one of the unpleasant parts of the job but also a way to help the community and our task, by helping disputing parties to see that what they have in common in goals and values unites them more than whatever disagreements that they are having. If you can think of editors with the time and strength for the job, and who can do it for the sake of the community, ArbCom can benefit from their contributions and so can the entire community.

Regards,

EdChem (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. (And no, Bishzilla will not run for ArbCom, she's too lazy.) I haven't read the RFAR with great thoroughness, but I did notice everybody praising your own input. Why don't you run for the committee yourself? Bishonen | tålk 05:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC).
I would love to see you on ArbCom. That panna cotta is spectacular. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
KrakatoaKatie summarized it very well when she explained that ArbCom is like a beltsander, not a nail file.[80] This wisdom should probably be recorded in an essay somewhere. Jehochman Talk 15:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I think wood chipper or car crusher might be a better analogy. Also, I've never understood why a belt might need sanding. EEng 17:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Why might it need sanding? That's a cinch. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
EEng might sometimes be editing while wearing an unsanded belt? :O *passes out in astonishment* EdChem (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • After groggily sitting up* Bishonen, a 'zilla on ArbCom could be fun, given her willingness to crunch through the trivia to the meaty heart of a matter. I couldn't get elected (not an admin, for one thing), nor would I have the patience. And, if I was elected, the mental health professionals who supervise some of my treatments might call for one of the nice jackets with the extra long arms and my recollection to a nice padded pocket somewhere... As for the analogy that suits ArbCom, I wonder about the instant relocator from the movie Galaxy Quest – the one that transports up the creature which materialises inside out and then explodes? EdChem (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Why did you attack me?

Bishonen, I'd like an explanation for this comment you made to me on Drmies's talk page:

(talk page stalker) I'll belittle User:Geographyinitiative's efforts to pursue his concerns too: they amounted to picking a fight with Diannaa. I will also belittle your own efforts to frame Drmies's calling the DRN "specious" as implying "you know it's going to be closed because you're an admin and he has no recourse". That's a very far-fetched "implication", and so much assumption of bad faith is disappointing behavior for a DRN volunteer. Bishonen 12:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC) [signature as per original]

Specifically, I'd you to explain:

1) Why did you respond to a note I had left for Drmies about an incident between him and another editor?

2) Why didn't you allow him to reply to the issue I had raised before offering your opinion?

3) Why did you "belittle" my attempt to raise concerns about Drmies's behavior?

4) Why did you accuse me of "framing" Drmies?

5) Why did you accuse me of having "bad faith"?

Thank you.

Coastside (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Coastside. I watch Drmies's page. Sometimes, if I believe I have anything to add, I post there. This is normal practice. I did not belittle your attempt in general; I belittled your use of the word "specious". I did not accuse you of "framing Drmies"; I spoke of your efforts to frame Drmies's calling the DRN "specious" in a particular way. See sense 7 (not 8) of "frame" in Wiktionary. Do you see the genitive form, Drmies's, in there? You implied that he knew the report was going to be closed because he's an admin and [the other user] has no recourse. That's not framing Drmies. It's framing an issue in a particular way. I think I may have expressed myself in a rather convoluted way about the "framing", sorry about that, but I didn't think it was unclear. I wouldn't dream of accusing anybody of framing somebody. Nor did I accuse you of having bad faith; I accused you of assuming bad faith (on the part of Drmies). Compare WP:AGF. Bishonen | tålk 11:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC).
Hi, Bshonen. Thanks for your response, for being respectful, and for taking me seriously. I do see how I misread your comment about "framing" Drmies. Communicating on talk pages isn't easy, and like anyone else, I don't always read others' comments as they were intended. I'd like to point out that I didn't respond directly to you at the time, because I was trying hard to focus on the issue at hand, and I didn't want to sound defensive (and yes, I'm being sincere and trying not to sound defensive in saying that!). I only commented about it here, because I honestly couldn't understand why so many admins felt it was appropriate to gang up and hurl insults at me for trying to defend someone. I especially appreciate that you were courteous in responding to me directly without bringing other admins to "help" resolve the situation. That kind of calling in the cavalry can really make someone feel ganged up on, especially when the cavalry are other admins. For me, it made a huge difference for you to acknowledges my concerns, focus on the issue, respond without hurling insults or threatening to ban me, and generally take me seriously. I wish the other admins in all of this were as respectful and helpful as you were in your response. If every editor on Wikipedia followed your example, it would be a much more welcoming and healthy place to be. Thanks again. Coastside (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

COVID stress

raise your hand if COVID stress is making you tetchy. (quickly raises and lowers hand. sits on hand. trembles) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

+ + + Raises all four paws. Lands painfully on belly. + + + -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Let's see: case numbers exploding, hospitals nearly full, peak of the current wave nowhere in sight, health-care workers burning out (or worse) at a breakneck clip, right-wing lunatics trying to kidnap the governor and overturn the election results... nah, I'm fine. MastCell Talk 19:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I've dealt with the biggest source of my COVID stress. Now I'm gonna fashion masks over woolen caps. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

#TrumpVirus is now trending on Twitter, and for good reason. I'm retired and basically self-isolate 99% of the time and am very careful when I go out. My wife is a nurse, and 100% of her special needs patients would likely die if they get COVID-19, so we're super careful. Now this shit is blowing up and out of control thanks to T@%^&*!! My hopes of never getting this are about gone because the herd immunity approach is now the practical reality for all but the very few who will be able to get the vaccine very soon. I don't know if I'll survive it when I get it; I'm not young anymore. So yes, I'm starting to realize that that idiot in the WH is squandering my best efforts to stay well. This is so fucked. Yes, #TrumpVirus is a real thing now. He owns it. -- Valjean (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll raise my fin, too, although my real stress is coming from the political situation itself, rather than the epidemic (more fear of the end of democracy than fear of medical harm), although I say that with profound concern for all the many victims of the disease. May we all live in UN-interesting times. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, indeed. Our "political" stress level has dropped some, but this COVID crap is just increasing, and the spectre of Trump's inspiring a real, armed, civil war as a private citizen is still a very real danger. Putin knew what he was doing; he studied all the kompromat gathered on Trump over several decades and said "This is a guy I can work with, so I'll back him and let him do the destruction for me." This has been the most successful intelligence attack on the USA, aided and abetted by Trump, with no end in sight.[81] The Steele dossier describes why Russia supports Trump in amazingly accurate and prophetic(*) detail. So while there is hope with Biden, we must still be alert for Trump's ever-present danger as an active national security threat. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. (*) It's hardly "prophetic", because the CIA had an agent literally in Putin's office[82] who had to be extracted because of Trump's sharing of classified intelligence with the Russians.) -- Valjean (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
For the good doctor – your slightest wish ...
We've been in quarantine for almost a week, after one of our children tested positive. Some kind soul dropped a box of cookies on our porch today, but they forgot the bourbon. We are running low on bourbon. Need bourbon. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Do you want an IV bag with that? -- Valjean (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
A friend of mine is spending a week quarantined in a hotel room, she did a half marathon, it took her six hours. Her brother brought ice cream and two bottles of wine. (I'm really here just for the cake). Paul August ☎ 22:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I was going to give you a piece of apple cake, but none of the photos on Commons are the right kind of apple cake. Instead, just imagine a square piece of cake that's got so much cinnamon in it that it looks like a chocolate cake, only with a better chance that you can pretend that it's healthy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I remembered this morning that it is my Unbirthday, but Commons has no Unbirthday cake pictures either! (A plethora can be found by asking Uncle Google for images of "unbirthday cake", though.) A very merry Unbirthday to all whose Unbirthday it is! --bonadea contributions talk 13:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, ETOH can be infused IV, and I would be more than happy to set that up, pending acquisition of supplies. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

^Medical disclaimer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
We're completely locked back down with our alcohol, which fortunately in Ohio we can purchase with our regular grocery orders. We're thinking we're going to need to start alternating orders to two different grocery stores because the people who run the orders out to your car are starting to look funny at us. —valereee (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Almost mentioned

Hi Bishonen. This AN complaint is about a page that you G10-deleted earlier this year: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#This was not an attack page. I see some kind of mirage of a cake above… EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I hope you got a nice cake. My edit notice is basically a carousel of Bishzilla's cake fridge, so I have no control over who gets what. But I try to keep it well stocked with the best and most delicious. As for the AN complaint, I think I'll just leave its fortunes to others. Bishonen | tålk 16:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC).
Did you know the image doesn't show up for me when I edit on my phone? Not using mobile view, but desktop view, just on a phone. The "this is a talk page" thing shows up, but no cake. :( --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
What?? Stand by, young Floquenbeam! Bishonen | tålk 16:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC).
Yup, the notice doesn't show up when editing on my mobile phone using desktop view. Until I rotate the phone 90° to landscape view when the cake magically appears. It's because the software hides page notices if their images that are wider than the screen. You get the same effect if you simply make the window narrower while editing this page on a desktop computer (or laptop): eventually the page notice and cake disappear. --RexxS (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Might it be different in different browsers on a desktop computer, RexxS? Because the cake never disappears for me, no matter how narrow I make the window. I get half the cake, then just a sliver, then two crumbs, but it never disappears altogether until my entire page is gone too. That's Firefox and Mac. Bishonen | tålk 20:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC).
You're quite right. It only happens on Chrome for me (desktop or phone). Firefox, Opera, Safari, Edge and Internet Explorer all just cut the cake. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Update: it's not the browser, it's the skin. I didn't bother to log in on my other test browsers, so they used vector skin and cut the cake. On my Chrome browser where I'm logged-in, I use monobook and the cake disappears on narrow screens. --RexxS (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
But.. that doesn't fit my experience, RexxS. I use monobook and I get cake. The mystery deepens. Cake for everybody! | tålk 12:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC).
That is odd. I just tested on Firefox using monobook, and the cake disappears for me! When I switch to vector skin on Firefox, a slice of cake remains. The same thing happens when I try on the Opera browser. This is on my Windows PC. I'll try on a Linux box later. --RexxS (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the latest Firefox, but something... uh... Extended Support Release. (I just do what Darwinfish tells me.) Maybe it just shows that Mac is better than Windows? Bishonen | tålk 13:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC).
Almost anything is better than Windows, but I still have to support it (and I build my own PCs, so Mac isn't part of the equation for me). We probably need to get some more info from young Floquenbeam to get any further. --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Vector in Chrome on Android
I can't replicate the problem in Vector on Chrome on a mobile phone (see right); I think the issue is going to be the skin. Given that something like 99+% of editors are now using Vector, I wouldn't be too concerned if it's affecting other skins provided it does what it's supposed to in Vector. ‑ Iridescent 14:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Monobook is the one true skin. Vector is for newbies like Iri. And I never got around to installing a different browser than Safari on my phone, because I don't usually try to do anything except read on my phone. While I have Rexx'S attention: any easy way to prevent my stupid phone from randomly defaulting back to mobile view? I never want to use mobile view. Other than that, Bish and I have found a work-around for not seeing the picture on my talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

So the trick to editing via phone is to switch off mobile view. Must try that some time. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: as you are using Safari by default, I'm going to assume you're using an iPhone. That's a pain because I don't know any easy tricks for iOS as I don't use it. However, I checked StackExchange and found a piece of JavaScript at the thread "How can I permanently disable the mobile version of Wikipedia on mobile devices?". I had to hack it a bit but you can paste the following into Special:MyPage/common.js: 

$(document).ready( function() {
	var desktopLink = document.getElementById("mw-mf-display-toggle");
	if (desktopLink === null) {
		return;
	}
	var href = desktopLink.getAttribute('href');
	if (href.indexOf('.m.') > -1) {
		return;
	}
	// You can use .assign() instead, if you want to
	// keep the URL of the mobile site in your history.
	window.location.replace(href);
} );

I had some issues with warnings over importScript, so you might try putting the above code at the top of your common.js. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much, RexxS, I'll give that a try when I have time to breathe IRL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Just remembered this, and tried it, and it works like a charm. Thank you, RexxS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

AE case

Hi; I'm guessing that you may not have noticed that, right above where you complimented Jehochman on his talk page for his closure of the AE case against me, I'd asked a clarifying question of him about it. As an admin who apparently took a look at the case, and someone whom I have seen make a bunch of good calls (and, after having read several essays you wrote linked to from your user page, I respect your judgment even more now)—I have to ask if you really found that to be an exemplary close?

Jehochman told me that, although in his closing comment he'd appeared to be addressing me directly, he was actually simply giving general advice which is good advice for all parties and observers to not use the word “racist” without clear evidence, and apparently simply did not think it important to give similar general advice about the claims made by the editor who brought the case against me, such as the statement that my vision is to bring Wikipedia under a totalitarian rule of fear. (Though Jehochman did not actually address the latter point in his response.)

What seems even more important to me is that Jehochman had mentioned several exculpatory reasons one editor might speak sharply to another: grouchiness, content disagreements, and being hauled to AE. But what stood out glaringly as something not listed as an acceptable reason to speak sharply to another editor is responding to racism, or even perceived racism. I would think that, for anyone who deals with casual racism throughout their lives on a daily basis, this is a clear-as-a-bell message that you are not allowed to express any emotion about casual racism here, much less criticism.

As I pointed out at AE after the editor who brought the case linked to it, the NONAZIS essay says, Editors making reports for extremist racism or edits with more subtle expressions of racism that can be substantiated with diffs should bring them forward to administrators without fear of sanctions or blocks. If this was not a “more subtle [expression] of racism that can be substantiated with diffs” I can't really imagine an example of that which would be dealt with, or would even actually be discussed. I've got more arguments for why the repeated comments I describe are a clear-cut expression of racism than I made at AE, but I'd kind of expected what I said to be enough to garner something other than silence.

So I am extremely disappointed, and honestly a bit heartbroken—just-world fallacy I guess—that this is the official response, apparently in unison from multiple admins, to discussion of racism on Wikipedia in 2020. It seems to be pretty much the response from officialdom the world over during the past half-century-plus: silence on specific questions of racism accompanied by plausibly-deniable pressure to just not talk about racism at all. Sorry for the five paragraphs but everyone's unresponsiveness is getting to me and I'm wordy anyways. Thanks, ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 20:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah.. Thank you for the compliments, Struthious, and I hope the list on my userpage didn't give the impression that I created all those essays. If you thought that, I'd better edit it a bit. Most of them are essays by other people that I want to remember and be able to refer to, that's all. I'm sorry, but I can't live up to the detailedness of your post, or do anything too ample on Wikipedia altogether right now. I'm having some family stuff and some health issues (nothing dire) using up my energy. I simply thought Jehochman's close was well-balanced and reasonable. Bishonen | tålk 23:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC).
I'm still quite disheartened that you think this was a well-balanced and reasonable response, with apparent implied admonishment only directed at me, non-explicitly, to what plainly seemed like a SLAPP-like proceeding attempting to suppress my voicing of criticism in a content discussion in the first place, even before the racism aspects.
And I have to say that my repeated experience in trying to push back against non-insult, non-vandalism expressions of racism on Wikipedia is that the editors making these expressions are extremely confident that they can get away with it, and that they can dependably and impunitively attempt to provoke a hyper-enforcement of etiquette rules from admins to divert from criticism of their behavior and attempts to counteract their edits to the same effect, even when I make such criticism without employing any version of the word “race”.
But thank you for taking note of my comment, anyways; I did check the edit histories of your linked essays to see which ones you'd written yourself, and I found both sorts enjoyable to read and insightful. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I hope you don't see this as "ganging-up", Struthious Bandersnatch, but I'm going to agree with 'Shonen's comments above, and I'll try to explain why.
Wikipedia isn't real life, and the way we react to issues in the outside world isn't always optimal on Wikipedia.
I also spent time evaluating the AE request, but Jehochman closed it before I had chance to comment. I also didn't see any good reason for the AE request; and I also was concerned about your responses at the page. For one thing, AE isn't ANI, and the regular AE admins tend to concentrate on arguments that address the behaviour laid out in the original request and ignore arguments that attempt to explore the behaviour of others. You have to do that, otherwise AE would degenerate into the walls of claim and counter-claim that plague ANI and make it near impossible to get good outcomes there. In other words, a defence at AE of "I wasn't at fault because the other guy was" is worth less than a defence of "I wasn't at fault because I didn't breach the DS".
I sympathise with your position of zero tolerance of racism online. Nevertheless, you will find (or have already found) that attempting to enforce that by confrontation doesn't produce the desired effect on Wikipedia. My experience in trying to create change with Wikipedia editors (most often on issues concerning accessibility) is that slow but consistent advice will educate far more effectively than challenge, which sometimes produces entrenchment.
For those reasons I also think that you overstepped what was needed in your AE commentary. Had I closed the AE request, I would also have posted a note on your talk asking you to tone it down. Not because I disagree with your position and aims, but that I don't think your comments at AE did either of those any favours. I'm sorry if you find this disheartening as well, but I hope you can at least accept that I'm making my criticism in the spirit of trying to help you, not to admonish you. --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much for replying comprehensively, RexxS, it's a complete breath of fresh air.
The thing is, I explicitly said at AE that I'm not proposing a zero tolerance response to casual racism: I don't personally think it should be a zero tolerance kind of thing most cases, like insults and vandalism should be. Jehochman exhibited the same apparent tendency to exaggerate my behavior while downplaying that of the other user to the point of unremarkability, on his talk page, by talking (albeit in the third person) about run[ing] around calling people "racists" or other epithets or cast other aspersions when I called that user's behavior and attitudes racist, exclusively at AE. (Note that this phrasing on Jehochman's part would also seem to imply that pretty much any discussion at all of non-insult, non-vandalism racism is going to fall into the category of “epithets” and “aspersions”.)
The behavior I have described as casual racism is not some sort of edge case or stretch. And it was repeated at AE—obviously not the same situation as the talk page of an article about a wave of black civil rights protests in a country where political parties had “White Supremacy” on their logos well within living memory (in case you weren't aware of that context)—but still repeated at AE itself. Yet while my behavior at AE—not the behavior laid out in the original request—can apparently be characterized in just any old way, from a vision for a totalitarian rule of fear at Wikipedia on down, this other user's behavior is evidently beyond reproach—precisely because criticizing them would involve talking about racism, I believe, if I'm being honest. And this is the response Bishonen has described as “well-balanced”
I take issue with your claim that “Wikipedia isn't real life”—Wikipedia is an integral part of the internet and the intellectual sphere of the entire world, along with the other WMF projects. You'll go to the Library of Congress or the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek and see an indicator that information came from Wikidata. AIs get trained with Wikipedia as a corpus. The government of the People's Republic of China is blocking the WMF's accession to a United Nations agency, ferchrissake. Our continuing failure to deal with the well-documented racial bias on Wikipedia has very real-world, very global effects.
I should think slow but consistent advice to educate is exactly the approach I took—I mean, nearly from the beginning I was explaining how Wiktionary policy would relate and linking to books about black liberation. But at the point when someone has hauled you into an administrative process in an attempt to pressure you into not criticizing them, isn't the time for meek advice past? More to the point—can you name an organization or group that successfully dealt with a casual racism problem by gently giving advice and educating about it, much less the people in charge sticking to a comfortable approach like that? I can't think of one. Someone has to do the dirty work of actually using the words “racist” and “racism” and asking people to not say and write things like that, and usually the dirtier work of sharper confrontation, and in offline cases people usually have to get injured and killed the way protesters in the U.S. are doing. (And that has happened all over the world as well, of course, it's just the U.S. which is at issue in this specific incident.)
So I again thank you profusely for listening and responding, but the basic question is—if the totality of what I said at the article talk page and at AE didn't do my position and aims any favors, and a “more subtle [expression] of racism that can be substantiated with diffs” is something which can in fact be dealt with in Wikipedia administrative processes, what exactly should I have done to obtain an official response to casual racism, a response other than silence and indifference and not even asking the editor in question, without mentioning racism, to not call “black liberation” meaningless on the talk page of an article essentially about a black civil rights movement? What was needed? Or to maybe start smaller—if the state of affairs at the moment simply is that someone introducing racism into a discussion at AE, and expressing emotion about racism, just must to be told to “tone it down”, what needs to change so that an interlocutor of the same person, accused of expressing racism at AE, and who is declaring that person to have a vision of totalitarian rule of fear for Wikipedia, would also at least be requested to “tone it down”? And can you point to anything like a noticeboard case, or another in-the-open admin action, where a subtle expression of racism was dealt with? To perhaps reassure me this isn't all just about pressuring editors to not talk about racism.
p.s. Accessibilty is very important too. Seeing members of ADAPT dragged from their wheelchairs by police while protesting in Washington D.C. in 2017 (on television) is one of the experiences which has galvanized me during the last few years to try to not stand by and watch while everyday injustices occur. Thanks again, ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 23:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I more or less agree with RexxS. I think your (Struthious's) underlying points are valid, but Wikipedia is a place where tone matters much more than substance, for better or worse. It's also a place where the understanding of things like implicit bias, racism, etc. is extraordinarily primitive. In some ways this community is an outgrowth of early-2000's tech culture, with its extreme lack of diversity and empathy, and its techno-libertarian utopianism (the "why-don't-homeless-people-just-learn-to-code" school of thought). Of course not every Wikipedian is like that, but it is the dominant cultural mode here.

You have to understand that Wikipedian culture is still at the point where a significant portion of the community would actively welcome an open neo-Nazi or KKK member as long as they made "useful edits" and were superficially polite. There is zero understanding of or empathy for the the fact that by welcoming such people, we are explicitly un-welcoming to others—that just doesn't compute. Nor is there any curiosity about the wider world, and about the reasons why open bigots are excluded from other reputable volunteer projects. You can see that in the recent discussion about WP:NONAZIS, or even going back years to when we did have an active KKK member as an editor (he helpfully uploaded his own personal pictures of cross-burnings), whose presence was actively defended and who was ultimately banned over the usual protests that we were simply stifling unpopular opinions.

That's where we are, so expecting people here to pick up on more subtle expressions of implicit bias is a lost cause. RexxS is right—the solution is probably a gradual, consistent coaxing and cajoling rather than active confrontation—but personally I don't have the time or wherewithal for an adopt-a-Wikipedian approach. Maybe you don't either. MastCell Talk 20:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict after what was probably way too much writing) Thank you for replying too, MastCell—this is finally the sort of viewpoint I was hoping to encounter somewhere. My real question is, where to start at the administrator level, without even getting into subtle expressions of implicit bias? I hope I can just plainly say at this point that if someone bringing up racism at AE and expressing disgust about it is going to get told to “tone it down”, their counterpart in the conversation talking about a totalitarian rule of fear (in response to, incidentally, me saying that we cannot set the expectation that editors have to be demur and non-confrontational in the face of racism for the sake of etiquette—cantcha just hear the jackboots marching?) needs to also be told to “tone it down”. (Edit: Because that seems like a prerequisite to other progress.) So how do we at least get to that point?
I was going to ask how to chart a way to a point where words like “racism” could be used in noticeboard discussion without reprisal too but I'm realizing that's probably “here there be dragons” ne plus ultra territory for the forseeable future. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 23:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Part of the problem lies with Wikipedia's narrow and juvenile definition of "civility", which looks something like this:
  • Editor A: <says something dishonest>
  • Editor B: "Hey, that was dishonest."
  • Wikipedians: "Editor B, please remember to be WP:CIVIL and avoid personal attacks!"
Obviously, an adult definition of civility would encompass the fact that being dishonest with your colleagues, or saying or doing racist things, is an act of incivility. But in Wikipedian culture, it is the identification of those words or actions that constitutes incivility. WP:CIVIL means that editor B will always be told to "tone it down".

A second part of the problem is what an academic would probably call essentialism. It's the view that people are fundamentally either Racists or Not-Racists. Racists are bad—but I know so-and-so isn't a bad person, so therefore they cannot be a Racist. If someone raises a concern about a statement or action, then the response is a swift and reflexive how-dare-you-I-am-no-racist! There's no room for thoughtful discussion, because any acknowledgement would condemn the person as essentially and irredeemably bad.

My view, and maybe yours as well, is that people are products of their culture and that everyone has implicit biases and prejudices. I certainly do. Having those doesn't make you a Racist, or a Bad Person, and it is possible to recognize one's implicit biases and to moderate them. There's an extensive literature about implicit bias in medicine. I know a lot of physicians, nurses, and health-care workers, and few or none of them are Racists(TM) or inherently bad people... yet the medical system exhibits demonstrable systemic biases. So that framework makes sense to me, and it provides a pathway to address racist statements or actions as modifiable products of implicit biases, rather than as evidence of a fixed, essential character flaw. But I don't think you'll find much support for that view here.

In terms of what to do, your guess is as good as mine. I am burnt out, probably for good, on this place, and I have way too much to do in the Real World. Covid-19 cases are skyrocketing, hospitals are full, the refrigerated morgue trucks are rolling out again, health-care workers are burning out or worse, the governmental response is somewhere between ignorant and actively malicious, right-wing lunatics are plotting to kidnap the governor and looking for excuses to throw out Black votes ("we can certify the areas other than Detroit"), and it's going to get worse before it gets better. Open to suggestions though. MastCell Talk 01:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@MastCell: Yeah, I often point people to Jay Smooth's classic video on YouTube which makes some of these distinctions, a dozen years old now, which is mentioned in our article about him.
One thing that has been bugging me (which is probably pretty obvious, because I keep bringing it up) is that the way Bishonen used the term “well-balanced” above almost seems like a term of art, like it's some abstract administrative-viewpoint gauge of merit on the AE case. Because nobody on the receiving end of having their own comments faulted exclusively, while their interlocutor throws darts about totalitarianism, would possibly believe that the real admin concern is tone or civility, or that the process was somehow fair or balanced. But none of the admins I've interacted with about this have even commented on what seems a glaring disparity, even though it's one that would also appear to invalidate most of the other explanations I've been offered.
It makes me wonder if there's a deeper issue beneath the level of conceptualization of racism that produces this sort of alienation from the viewpoint of the non-admin participant in a noticeboard discussion. Maybe an alienation produced somehow through doing the work of an admin, or another administration-related process? In any case I'd think the “shear force”, as it were, from admins being able to describe things so differently than a rank-and-file editor might drive more, more diverse people away, the ones who even make it through the door, create an account, and get past all of the red tape for simply editing articles. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
"Well-balanced" is not a term of art as far as I know, Struthious Bandersnatch. I made it up out of whole cloth for my own use. You know what, it's a little disagreeable to be repeatedly discussed in the third person on my own page. If you want to analyze my alienation further, maybe take it to your own page, or MastCell's. Bishonen | tålk 13:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC).
I apologize; I will stop. As I say below, I'd meant the “alienation” stuff as an AGF-type rationale why this wouldn't simply be official suppression of discussion of racism, but a difference in perspective; sorry I didn't find a way to phrase it less negatively than I'd intended. I hope that things with your family and health issues go well. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
You've now produced an incredible amount of concerned text through multiple venues over the purported "racism" of User:Crossroads because he thought the phrase "black liberation" was unclear. You seem to consider it totally impossible that anyone could disagree with you this on the merits and instead you've resorted to this psychologizing analysis of Crossroads, of admins, of Wikipedia, of society and of anything and everything except yourself. But, could you like, for one minute entertain the notion that there might be non-racist reasons to prefer another phrasing than "black liberation" in the articles in question? It sounds like a term that refers to more than the sum of its parts - some particular thing that one could read up on, like gay liberation or women's liberation. But when I search for "black liberation" online I get sent to information on black liberation theology which wasn't what the phrase was referring to in the original discussion. It's a description that could potentially cause confusion and there was nothing unreasonable about searching for other ways of putting it. But there was nothing unreasonable about your preference for it either! You made reasonable points too! This was a perfectly mundane content dispute that has now mutated into some sort of crusade. Please let it go. If you want to have some more general discussion about how best to handle racism on Wikipedia, then you would be so much better off with some other example than this. Haukur (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Haukurth, thank you so much for this. I am so tired of this editor WP:ADMINSHOPping and WP:GASLIGHTING about this phrase and still trying to get me in trouble. And this latest round was after SlimVirgin warned them not to continue with these attacks [83] and said to not dissect other peoples' work but to return to their own editing. [84] Crossroads -talk- 15:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Haukurth: See, these would be material arguments if anyone actually engaged with me in discussion of racism. But instead, all that has happened is blanket denial that these claims, in this context, could ever be racist under any circumstances, full stop; and official pressure to not talk about racism at all. Everyone just seems to take it as given that a fulsome, appropriate, reasonable discussion happened at some point and I just irrationally persisted over cogent objections or something. That did not happen.
I did not have a preference for “black liberation” as a term in the article; I introduced it once, sourced from another Wikipedia article, was reverted with a description from an in-article RS I hadn't noticed, and acceded to that change immediately (so, to be clear, I for one minute entertain[ed] the notion that there might be non-racist reasons to prefer another phrasing than "black liberation" in the articles in question well before I was ever hauled to AE). But Crossroads nevertheless persisted in a variety of contradictory dismissive claims about the term in that article's talk page and marked it as {{vague}} in the article I'd taken it from, which was reverted by another editor. I responded with links to relevant Wikipedia articles and four books at the Internet Archive with “black liberation” in the title—a comment I linked to in my reply to you at AE, Haukurth.
Admins directly involved with the AE case just keep making material misrepresentation of basic facts. But, like response on questions of racism or AE behavior other than my own, the official response here when I point out these repeated misrepresentations is silence. Call it a “crusade” if you want, but if you were in my shoes, and since we all deeply care about Wikipedia, would you really just let all of this drop, so that other editors—maybe editors without the privileges and 14-year history and I've-written-parts-of-behavioral-guidelines perspective I have—might need to go through the same thing in the future?
People keep saying there's a better way. But this is a really old pattern: organizations and communities the world over have reacted this way to any discussion of racism, again and again and again, for a century or more. Wikipedia is showing no sign of being more enlightened or special. I'd meant the “alienation” stuff as an AGF-type rationale why this wouldn't simply be official suppression of discussion of racism, but I guess there's no point now; sorry I didn't find a way to phrase it less negatively than I'd intended. Again, I invite anyone to link to a case where a more subtle expressions of racism that can be substantiated with diffs was actually dealt with, if the things I'm saying are so unnecessary at this point in Wikipedia's history or aren't worth writing at length about.
Bishonen has expressed displeasure at this discussion, so I'm going to stop responding here, but of course am available at my talk page.
Crossroads: If everything I've said here and the various responses have not made it clear that at this point in history, you cannot actually get in trouble for expressing racism on Wikipedia, but in fact it's the attempt to discuss it which is likely to get someone in trouble, I don't know what possibly could.
I renew my suggestion that you appeal the AE decision to ArbCom, or whatever the appropriate appeal process is, because I am not going to simply shut up about racism. Let ArbCom be my ADMINSHOP; you could have saved me the trouble of trying to get answers about the meaning of what happened at AE. (...by coming to the talk page of Bishonen, who called the closure making virtually no remark on your behavior at AE or elsewhere a good close.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Reconsidering the ban - Appeal

Hi, Bishonen. I was recently banned from editing and received an all out-ban.

In the appeal, you said I was propagating Islamophobic "love jihad" conspiracy theory into Wikipedia. I promise you that it was not my intention, the earlier edit in which the news source called it a "conspiracy theory" was edited into the article by me only. So, when I was adding another source to expand the incident, I accidently replaced it with a different source. It was completely unintentional. Which was later reverted by another mod Newslinger, I discussed it him and apologized and promised it wont happen again. Please see our conversation here.

I am not here to showcase a Pro-Hindutva POV or anything like that. I am here to build a neutral encyclopedia. I assure you that, the entire incident of ban was just an technical issue and nothing more. I would kindly request you to please consider the ban. Humble Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenos450 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Jenos450. I didn't topic ban you on my sole admin discretion, but per this discussion. There were a lot of complaints and evidence offered against you from uninvolved admins and also from other users, above and beyond the Love Jihad edit you made. See for instance the diffs provided by the filer (Tayi Arajakate) and by Vanamonde and Newslinger. I was merely one of the admins giving an opinion, plus I summarized and logged the discussion. This means that it's not for me to lift the ban, even if I wanted to. You need to go to back to WP:AE (or if you prefer, to WP:AN) and file an appeal. The timing of an appeal is up to you, but I'll give you my best advice: the ban is in practice unlikely to be lifted if you appeal it before six months have passed. The community is going to want you to show that you can edit constructively in other areas, or for that matter in other Wikimedia projects, where you are not banned. That would show that you are interested in improving the project/s, and not merely in putting a certain tendency into articles. (I notice you simply stopped editing when you were topic banned. Not the best tactic.) Good luck. Bishonen | tålk 18:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) @Jenos450: If you do decide to appeal your topic ban, you will need to explain honestly your behaviour at Love Jihad, specifically with regard to these three consecutive edits:
  1. You added content using a source that specifically mentioned "Islamophobic conspiracy theory", but failed to mention that in your text
  2. User:Newslinger added the phrase "conspiracy theory" to your text
  3. You re-wrote the text, removing the phrase "conspiracy theory" and replacing the source with a different one that didn't use the phrase
I don't believe your protestations about adding another source to expand the incident – you removed more than you added; and I accidently replaced it with a different source – "accidental" replacement is not credible. Your actions clearly show you carefully avoided the phrase "conspiracy theory", despite it being used in the source, and when it was added, you removed the phrase and the source that supported it. That's the clearest piece of whitewashing I've seen in a long time, and if you appeal without coming clean, I'll offer my strong opinion on your behaviour, and I'll call for you to be banned from Wikipedia entirely. --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
All of them were talking about Topic ban, yet, you still gave me an all out ban and now you're saying that it was not your decision. You should be able to explain that. You first gave me a topic ban and then you decided on your own to ban me all out. This is conflicting. I still don't understand why did you ban me over Love Jihad, according to Wiki, there must be 4 warnings to the user before being banned. I only received a single warning from Newslinger. I respected that and did not vandalize it.
RexxS, The three points that you mentioned happened over a single edit. Banning me from Wikipedia entirely just because one single edit was reverted and I received a warning. Damn, who hurt you bro? Jenos450 (talk)
@Jenos450: I'm not your bro, and never will be, so don't ever insult me like that again. You clearly tried to whitewash an article and have never apologised for that; you have merely attempted to deflect the complaint. I'm prepared to see you banned entirely for your deceptive behaviour, not just for your whitewashing. Grow up and start taking responsibility for your actions, and you might avoid further sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(I have no idea how best to indent at this point.) I'm sorry if your sanction is unclear, Jenos450. I thought I told you clearly here that you are indeed topic banned from subjects related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I don't know what an "outright ban" is. There has never been any question of banning you "from Wikipedia entirely"; if that were in question, you would be indefinitely blocked, not merely topic banned. Are you aware of the difference between bans and blocks? See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. I first gave you a topic ban from Indian subjects only, then, after I had been contacted by another admin, I realized that probably the other admins at WP:AE, whose opinions I summarized, had meant a topic ban from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both are topic bans: both my first, narrower, ban, and my second, wider, ban. The other uninvolved admins did not specify how large a field the topic ban should be from.[85] I realized only belatedly that I ought to have assumed they meant the whole topic under discretionary sanctions — India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I'm sorry I said first one thing and then another. But indeed it was first one topic ban, then another somewhat wider topic ban. I say "somewhat" because "India, Pakistan and Afghanistan" isn't that much wider than the vast subject of "India" by itself. If you think you were ever banned from Love jihad only, you are mistaken. There is no rule about "four warnings". Bishonen | tålk 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC).
(talk page watcher) Sorry but India, Pakistan and Afghanistan is a much wider subject than India by itself. Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bus stop: no it isn't. --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
RexxS cope Jenos450 (talk)

Trolling at Talk:Barack Obama

Hmm. You removed my alleged trolling (it doesn't troll) on the Talk:Barack Obama page but you also removed by *vote.* I am entitled to a *vote.* And again, it wasn't trolling because it was not directed at any editor. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You have only two entitlements on Wikipedia: the right to leave and the right to fork. All the rest are privileges and you're running the risk of losing those privileges if you continue your trolling (which of course is defined as "posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, either for the troll's amusement or a specific gain" and is not related to a specific editor). --RexxS (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, Rex. (Whomever you are.) I observed that photos of Democratic politicians with American flags are scarce, and they are. I also mentioned very WP:NOTABLE left-wing commentators (not WP editors) who criticized Obama for being insufficiently "woke." Please forgive me, but I don't understand how anyone could seriously consider that "trolling." Perhaps you can explain if Bishonen isn't home. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM applies at Wikipedia. It's fun to chat, especially with strangers on the internet, but that is not done at Wikipedia. If you have an actionable proposal to improve an article, explain the proposal with reliable sources at the article talk page. Otherwise, find another website. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • You're talking out of your.. hat, IP. You did not mention very notable left-wing commentators who criticized Obama for being insufficiently "woke." You mentioned nobody — just trolled, that's all. If you aren't aware of that, this website may not be for you. As for your "vote", it was obviously posted purely in the service of trolling, there was no removing one without the other. Note that Wikipedia doesn't go by "votes" anyway. Also notice that I left, and will continue to leave, your (marginally) reasonable comments on that page. Now please go away. Bishonen | tålk 09:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC).
    That's odd, Chère, I thought they were talking out of their arse (must be a SWE-UK thing). It's quite difficult to find a picture of Joe Biden without an American flag. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
As is only fitting for a true American patriot and the forty-sixth president of the United States of America. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bishonen: Well, at least you didn't say anything about elderberries. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
It's a recurring theme and a sign of the times: editor who normally marinates in a bubble of right-wing misinformation (e.g. "DEmOcrAt PoLiTiCiANs dON't wEAr FLaG PiNS!") looks at Wikipedia and is outraged to find misinformation being treated as such. MastCell Talk 22:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Whole host of disruptive IPs

Hey there! I wanted to touch base with you, as there's a minorly inconvenient situation arising across the Alien (franchise), Predator (franchise) and Alien vs. Predator pages. IP addresses that include 96.3.113.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2001:bb6:5241:c900:9135:e2f3:c24a:379e (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2001:bb6:5241:c900:94ef:9149:1113:b87d (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2001:bb6:5241:c900:fc1b:7b1e:f2cf:5de (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2001:48f8:3006:734:d597:d8ab:19f9:96a1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2001:48F8:3006:734:5563:3B6B:520A:A721 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2001:48f8:3006:734:7c84:2501:1e0a:d267 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been making identical edits, which have included unnecessarily clarifying what years the properties have been owned and incorrectly claiming that the upcoming Predator film is called "Skulls". These issues are more of a nuisance, though it's trending to enough of an extent that I'm entertaining the notion of identifying them as a disruptive user. As this editor doesn't have a Wikipedia account, (that we know of), is it in the cards to open a SPI page and if so, what could we call it? DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 20:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, DarthBotto. That's not a host, it's three people at the most: 2001:bb6:5241:c900::/64 (person 1), 2001:48F8:3006:734::/64 (person 2) and 96.3.113.164 (person 3). No, all IPs is not a good fit for SPI. I can't face checking all their contributions, I'm afraid, but since you say their edits are identical, I suspect persons 1, 2 and 3 are all one individual, or at least 1 and 2 are, with access to these ranges and IPs. It's been a while since 96.3.113.164 edited, I see. But if you can explain more in detail to me how persons 1 and 2 are editing disruptively, I would certainly be up for blocking them for a few weeks at least. There is no risk of catching anybody else in those types of rangeblocks. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC).

Appeal for reconsideration of current topic ban sanction

Hi Bishonen—I'm asking you to reconsider your decision in relation to the current topic ban sanction. As you know I have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning post-1932 American politics. I accept that I was too vociferous (WP:BLUDGEON) in my arguing on Talk:Parler. I can commit to not argue in such a way in similar situations in the future. I would like to provide constructive and measured input into this topic area. Opinions all over the political spectrum are held by the multitude of editors participating here, consequently I think that my input matters. I understand my input may have been too adversarial, provocative, or repetitive. I welcome your input and/or questions. Thank you for your consideration. Bus stop (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Bus stop: I think it is far too soon to think of such a thing. The time to amend your behavior was before the imposition of a TBAN. I think it would be best if you find areas of Wikipedia to edit that would be less likely to trigger behavior you have not yet had time to unlearn. You would just risk setting yourself up for failure and risk a worse sanction. Just my unbiased, unsolicited opinion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra—I'm not a social justice warrior. Yet I believe in social justice. No one would describe me as hailing from the woke left. Yet I am as awoke and aware of the need for social justice and racial justice as I think anyone can be. (Just my opinion of myself.) You refer to that which would be likely to trigger my behavior. Nothing "triggers" my behavior. I responded in a way called bludgeoning. All I can do is commit to not doing it again—that is all anyone can do. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Bus stop. It seems to me you rode right over a lot of both thoughtful and potentially helpful advice and warnings from many experienced editors on the specific subjects of bludgeoning, repetitiousness, and wearing everybody out. That's both on your own page and on article talkpages, where such advice/protests at your approach were posted. It just didn't seem to make any impression on you. The patience and energy of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource IMO, and you showed too little respect for its value. I'm sorry that it took an actual sanction to make you take the matter on board and consider it; as Deepfriedokra implies, it's a bit late. You say "Nothing 'triggers' my behavior." That's for you to say; I don't have any pretensions to knowing your psychological processes; but what I and many others observed, as recorded in the complete ANI thread, was conduct from you which was, from the outside, indistinguishable from someone being triggered. I too think it's too soon to ask for the sanction to be lifted. My advice to you would be to edit diligently in other areas for six months before appealing, by which time you should have amassed evidence that you no longer bludgeon, and that you would be a net positive at Am Pol. I did ban you on my own cognizance per arbcom discretionary sanctions for the Am Pol area, but still, in view of the wide input from the community, I think it would be better to appeal it to them (at WP:AN), or alternatively at WP:AE, rather than to me alone. Bishonen | tålk 01:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC).
FWIW, long ago I embarked on a journey of self exploration and increasing self awareness. I'm embarking on another such journey. Anyone who has not made such a journey might consider doing so if they experience disharmony in any aspect of their lives. Especially at a time when life stress has been increased by extraneous events out of our control. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of self-reflection, this cartoon came to mind when reading Bish’s response. I don’t in any way mean this as insulting to Bus Stop. It’s something that applies to many of us. [86] O3000 (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "Every so often, that someone is me." -- words every Internet user should keep in the back of their mind, especially this guy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Objective3000: Thanks. Too true. During my RfA, a user introduced me to this Wikiphilosophy. I think about it often. Ain't nothing on Wikipedia worth giving up my serenity/health/time with my dog for. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Ahh yes, if you find yourself too involved in an argument, take a look at the image at the top of this page, and take Gerda’s longer, Frostian path as it is allows more time for introspection. O3000 (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Bishonen. I think I am supposed to be notifying you of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Bus stop. Bus stop (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Does this look like a dragon to you?

Any response to explain your criticism?

Bishonen, yesterday you took a one-sided view of my disagreement with another user, including suggesting bad intention to a minor accidental change I had made, and have not responded to my complaint concerning the rude behaviour and language of user Sitush. Having taken time to address your points in a polite and respectful way, I consider it would be appropriate - and indeed a core responsibility of an experienced manager - to respond to my points to you. Will you be commenting? In summary, Sitush took a 'hit job' at my substantial contribution to a wiki page, heavily using opinionated reasoning, removing much cited and relevant text, and thus contradicting WP policy in doing so. When Sitush's reasoning and actions were questioned, he responded with rude, childish remarks, and then resorted to threats of "sanctions" for criticising administrators. Can you persuade me that wiki contributions are professionally managed by mature adults who have impartiality and integrity, and not, as it is starting to appear to me, by a group of unaccountable, childish 'mates' who can't take criticism and simply try to cover each others' backs to keep newcomers out? I await a considered and thoughtful response. RottenBoroughs (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) RottenBoroughs, you have an interesting concept of what constitutes polite and respectful. Accusations of cronyism and childishness don't qualify. —valereee (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Who are you and what is the relevance of your opinion in a conversation that does not involve you? Another admin who can't respond to criticism and is beyond reproach? RottenBoroughs (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I see user 'Coastside' above raised very similar critical points of user Bishonen before me. Is criticising an admin allowed? RottenBoroughs (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
RottenBoroughs, frankly, I did you a favour in tactfully ignoring your screed on your page. It was about as polite and respectful as your answer to Valereee above. This is by no means a private conversation, and Valeree is welcome on my page. Rudeness on this site is the business of any admin, and for that matter of any competent user (such as Sitush, who hasn't been anything like as rude to you as you have been to him). Please read the policies WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks and take them on board. If you want a wider audience for your criticisms, you can post a report at the noticeboard WP:ANI. Bishonen | tålk 16:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC).
Every editor and administrator who deals with confrontational editors accumulates a series of complaints from said confrontational editors, who take exception to being confronted themselves. One symptom that should provoke some self-examination on the part of these complainants is their repeated demand for explanations, implying a righteousness on the part of the complainant that might be misplaced. Acroterion (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, in this case, Acroterion, I don't think RottenBoroughs can have read my conversation with Coastside all the way through. Bishonen | tålk 16:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC).
I agree, Coastside's reply is worth reading. Acroterion (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Well said. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Sitush here. SMDH. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Yurivict. I've been having a bad day. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, IHateAccounts. I thought your post was helpful and well-balanced. Bishonen | tålk 22:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC).
I agree, it was a well-thought-out and worded report. Very nice, IHA. —valereee (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eyes please on Bhutan–India relations

The Government of India has threatened Wikipedia over the map on this page Bhutan–India relations. Vandalism is increasing. RFP is running late. thanks. Aghore (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I see you have written to Doug Weller also, Aghore. That's good. I'll ping a few more admins/users, who are more knowledgeable than me about this: @RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, and Sitush:. Bishonen | tålk 07:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC).
Thanks Aghore (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

See [87]

The Wikipedia page on India-Bhutan relationship had reportedly incorrectly depicted the map of Jammu Kashmir. The government has asked Wikipedia to remove a link from its platform that has shown an incorrect map of Jammu and Kashmir, according to sources.

The Ministry of Electronics and IT has issued an order under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 directing Wikipedia to remove the link, they added.

The matter had been flagged by a Twitter user, who highlighted that the Wikipedia page on India-Bhutan relationship had incorrectly depicted the map of Jammu Kashmir, and asked the government to take action.

Sources said taking cognizance of the matter, the ministry issued an order on November 27, 2020 directing Wikipedia to remove the map as it violated the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India. --Doug Weller talk 10:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I have already replied at User talk:JoJo Rabbit11, where another user pinged me. Bishonen | tålk 12:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC).

Self block

Hi, can you block me for 2 weeks (for editing, not for reading it, i.e. the block should still allow me to read Wikipedia), as I am having an important exam. I heard you will consider such requests. Thanks!Kajjul (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Kajjul. Yes, I do self-requested blocks sometimes. You can see my conditions at User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks. Please read it. From the way you word your request, I don't think the usual 24-hour waiting time will be necessary, but please note all the other conditions. I'll block you as soon as I see you confirm below that you have read them and agree to them. You will absolutely still be able to read Wikipedia; blocking does not affect that. Bishonen | tålk 15:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC).
Yes, I have read it and confirm that I know all the rules and agree to them. Please ensure that I am blocked only for 2 weeks and am able to read Wikipedia (as it is needed for my school projects). Thanks!Kajjul (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, you have been blocked for 2 weeks with e-mail and access to editing your talkpage also disabled. Good luck with your exam. You will still be able to read Wikipedia, don't worry! Bishonen | tålk 16:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC).

Another self-req

Sorry to bother you with this, I was wondering if you could block me for a month. I'm hoping to enjoy time with family and do some travelling over Christmas without being glued to Wikipedia. I've read your requirements page. Regards, Zindor (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Everybody wants blocked now, Zindor! I wonder if there's an admin tool for conveniently blocking the whole community including myself? Seriously, though, that'll be fine, but I think you should consider it for 24 hours first. A month is a longish time. Please think about it, then confirm below. And while you're about it: would you like me to put a note on your page saying you've been blocked at own request? Since you won't be able to reply to queries there, it might be a good thing, so people don't think you're just ignoring them. Unless you'd rather I was discreet. Bishonen | tålk 09:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC).
That's very kind of you, a note would be great. If I ever become an admin I'll return the favour and develop a script that constantly blocks you over Christmas. There is such an admin tool for your community-spirited idea, I believe you just have to dress up like the 'Grinch who stole Christmas' and it works like a charm.
Once 24hrs has passed I'll drop a note confirming, for sure. Thanks, Zindor (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Wow, you found a massblock tool! That's great. Now we wait for one of my admin stalkers to express their cabin fever by deploying it. Bishonen | tålk 10:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC).

Just confirming my wish for a Merry Blockmas. 🎵 Blockin' around the Christmas tree, having a happy wikiholiday 🎵 Thanks, Zindor (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked. Happy holidays! Bishonen | tålk 03:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC).

ArbCom and Bishzilla

It would be so much easier to decide who to vote for, if Bishzilla were a candidate for the ArbCom elections! Hope you, yours and all the TP stalkers here are safe and well. Happy holidays, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Flattered, thank you little Ms! Note Bishzilla plan large-scale help: put whole cute little new committee in pocket and only open catflap for egress if all comment as Bishzilla wisely instruct. bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 17:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC).

blocked person

hiii mam, Are you still angry with me ? 😩

You're not supposed to create new accounts when you've been blocked! You, the person, are blocked; not just a specific account. The thing to do if you're serious about editing Wikipedia is read the page Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and then go to the page Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System and post an unblock request from there. Sock blocked. Note to Deepfriedokra, or others who work the UTRS system: has there already been a UTRS appeal from User:Ravi mavi? Bishonen | tålk 10:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) The same user as User:Showbiz826, surely, who has a closed UTRS appeal on their talk page. ----bonadea contributions talk 10:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I dunno, Bonadea. I haven't shown any anger towards User:Samboy 01681, but plenty of disapproval towards Ravi mavi. YtiVya was created before User:Samboy 01681 was blocked, but after Ravi mavi (who also calls me "mam") was blocked. Ravi mavi and Samboy have disagreed with one another. Maybe for show? In any case, YtiVya is clearly somebody's sock. Maybe it's all one person having some fun. The sockeridoodah is so confusing I avoided putting a specific master in the block log for YtiVya. Bishonen | tålk 11:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC).

I've a chair in my living room with about a dozen unsortable, mateless socks, waiting for a match up. What happens to the other sock? Sometimes you just find a match. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes those blocked cannot understand that our emotional state is not the reason for the block. They don't understand that it's their editing. The feelings I feel are rarely if ever anger. Amusement at the dumbassery, urgency to protect the project, dismay that anyone could do like that, definitely Blocking is never personal. No anger involved. Just my obligation to protect the work of the content creators who build the largest free content encyclopedia in the world. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Bishzilla, on the other hand, is furious when she blocks. We all remember with trepidation the period when she had the admin tools. Bishonen | tålk 13:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC).
EEEwww! I'm not allowed to view Ravi mavi's appeal. I've tool user rights there. I feel so hurt.11:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC) --Deepfriedokra (talk)
Now do you see why I don't meddle with UTRS? I did try once, it was a horrible experience. Now I gather it's worse, as the system is in mid-upgrade. [Checking the page history] And has been ever since April, I see. Great. Pinging @AmandaNP: does your "new notice" still apply? It's still on the page. Bishonen | tålk 12:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC).
I thought the writing style and area of interest was similar to those of Samboy 01681 (and their little socks), but I don't think it's something that is worth spending time on investigating, tbh. Regarding unmatched socks, I hear that their mates turn into Tupperware container lids. I wonder if there's another language wiki out there somwhere with hundreds and hundreds of spare lids with no matching container? --bonadea contributions talk 13:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, UTRS works O.K. I have templated messages in user space that I apply via Twinkle. If anyone out there knows how to write code, I'm sure AmandaNP would appreciate the help. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Bishonen, I have removed the message as we took that down on the main tool many months back. I'm sorry to see that you are frustrated with UTRS.
@Deepfriedokra: Can you confirm the appeal you can't see is #35908 so I can properly investigate? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
No, I see35908 fine. (It was one of mine, as it turns out.) I could not see the one for Ravi mavi . No number. Just a denial. Talk page does not have one of my UTRS messages, so probably was not one of mine. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: If it's 38115, that's because it was never handled. The block wasn't found, so it was never considered as an appeal and automatically closed after two days. The subsequent appeal 38191 is still active in that two day hold but the block is not found, but it's only because of a capitalization issue. I will fix their appeal for them later tonight and it will be visible for you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Someone should make a video about how being an asshole on Wikipedia can get you banned. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
A video based on this webcomic, maybe. Bishonen | tålk 22:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC).

I should save that link. I need it a lot. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Bishzilla should keep puny disputants in pocket till more tractable. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
UTRS appeal #38296 is now open --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
And then closed. There's a reason why admins remove TPA. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

was waiting for this

That got ugly fast. It was obvious something was coming, but my. Only one other global edit, to commons. —valereee (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

TPA removed by our Canadian friend --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Good evening Bishonen. I am fairly confident that the recent edits by this IP are Boeing720 evading his indefinite block. My reasoning is: the focus on Landskrona, a lightly-edited article about a small town in Skåne of which Boeing is the principal author; the rambling style and distinctive grammar in this edit; and (less convincingly) the film-related OR here. Since I recall that you had some experience with Boeing in the past and the folks at SPI seem to be awfully busy at the moment I thought that I would ask you to take a look. I have to admit that I am motivated by avoiding a long talkpage argument over this rather silly revert, so if you feel this request is improper please feel free to tell me to buzz off. Best wishes, Wham2001 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Wham2001, nice to meet you. Sorry I needed some time to think. It seems likely that that's Boeing. But... well, firstly, I'm not 100% sure, and secondly, I hesitate to block the IP even if it is block evading. Boeing is a wikipediholic, obviously, and in these times, I just dislike removing what may be the only socially distanced hobby they have, from basically anybody. I've noticed people now tend to become desperate when blocked, or threatened with a block or ban. I sampled the IP's edits, and they don't look exactly disruptive to me. (Not exactly skilful either, but that's Boeing for you.) I don't see the IP editing in any of the contexts where Boeing came to grief. This is the kind of case where I count myself lucky to be a volunteer: I don't have to take any action that I don't want to take. Have you seen any disruption or vandalism? Because if you have, I'll think again. Bishonen | tålk 22:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC).
That's a good point, and I should have thought about the matter from that perspective myself. No, I wouldn't quite say that the IP's edits are disruptive; unskillful seems like a better description. I shall take the talkpage discussion, then, and see where it takes us; perhaps later in the week if I'm a bit less busy. Thank-you for taking the time to look into this for me, and glad Lucia! Wham2001 (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thewolfchild...

...is misbehaving again. Please see recent edits.

Thanks,

--104.15.130.191 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting approach. But please Bish, do have a look at our edits. But in the meantime "104", instead of shopping for an admin, how going to any one of the several talk pages, that I have repeatedly asked you to go to, to discuss your concerns? Thanks - wolf 00:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
It may be sensible to explain to 104.15.130.191 that "notable" in Wikipedia terms means "has a Wikipedia article, or would justify one". It's also worth realising that guidance created by WikiProjects, even prestigious ones, carries no weight with editors outside of the WikiProject. The solution to your disagreements is to engage in building a consensus on each article talk page. One of the issues you'll have to face at USS Permit (SSN-594) is that it would look inconsistent to exclude the name of CO at the time of commissioning, but to allow a mention of "Mrs. John A. McCone", a thoroughly non-notable individual, in the same sentence. --RexxS (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Well said, RexxS. IP and Thewolfchild, I have protected USS Dallas (SSN-700) because of the edit warring, and posted at the talkpage. Please discuss there. Bishonen | tålk 22:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC).

I realize this is an encyclopedia and not social media, but...

@Bishzilla, Bishapod, Darwinfish, and Darwinbish: I am interested in each of your opinions of the work of John Donne featured at the top of this talk page. I'm borrowing Bishonen's talk page so you can all answer in one place. I hope that's okay. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Glans av din fääägring!
  • It's for Sankta Lucia, 13 December, which is today. (Prolly St Lucy's day was some other date in the 17th century, so much as they've messed with the calendar since, but it was in any case a dark, dark, dark time.) Here at the North Pole, besides the sun being spent, there's the thickest cloud cover you've ever seen, with a light drizzle, so I suppose Bishonen got depressed. Fine poem, but very sad! (Don't open Darwinbish's Christmas present, it's most likely a bomb!) darwinfish 18:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC).
Hydroptic Darwinfish after his sister has tricked him into sampling her stogie
Sankta Lucia
Ljusklara hägring
Sprid i vår vinternatt
Glans av din fägring!
  • ahem* Drömmar med vingesuuuus under oss siiiia! Tänd dina vita ljuuuus, Sankta Lucia! *exit hurriedly carrying a candle*
Happy Lucia to Bish and her procession! --bonadea contributions talk 18:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Hehe. All together now: Natten går tunga fjääät... Bishonen | tålk 20:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC).
Vitklädd med ljus i hååår... Jip Orlando (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Jip Orlando. How's this:
'Zilla går tunga fjät
Runt gård och stuva...
Don't use Google translate, little stalkers, it'll only explode! I'll translate: "Zilla walks heavy tread / round yard and hovel". Yes, that is a festive, celebratory song in Sweden, anybody got a problem with that? It's not all ABBA! Bishonen | tålk 19:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC).
Thanks, Bishonen. That scans better than the figurative 'natten!' It's a fun image of 'Zilla stomping around her yard with heavy feet. Jag bodde i Sverige när var jag studenten- years ago now- and have fond memories of singing Sankta Lucia and my other favorite: "Staffan var en stalledräng." And drunkenly folk-dancing. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Vi tackom nu så gärna! bishapod (finally fully awake), talk to your inner fish
And what a wonderful little word "wikt:hydroptic" is! (But please none of this for us poor little fishies!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh no! Just as I feared! It's too late: Darwinfish, apparently a pufferfish, puffed the magic drag in. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Lucia's day illumination

December songs
3 of them

... even a bit late --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Your cakes would be great for the the birthday display! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Have a good new year 2021! snow right now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

My Humble Apologies

Firstly, Thank you great Bishonen for your good works.

My profound greetings to the staffs of Wikipedia. I also offer my humble gratitude for the attention and the reply I have received so far. I also want to offer my apology to the staffs for my misfortune. I am very sorry.

I have gone through the inquiries provided and I am pretty much pleased. I am assuring the whole staffs of Wikipedia that if am giving the second chance by liberating my website from the blacklist I shall never involve in spamming and creating of multiple accounts again. I also assure you that my website will provide quality services to the music lovers around the whole globe for we share accurate articles concerned with musical stories and Gist which would thrill and satisfy viewers urge for entertainment.

i am student i love Wikipedia I have tried to contact all admins with my main account but i could not because it has been blocked and the second one too.

I plead with my whole heart, consider giving me a second chance by liberating my web domain from the blacklist, I shall give out my best so to entertain viewers. I will be so glad if my request and apology are granted.

please help me and save my domain against bad reputation.

xclusivepop.com xclusivesongs.com Desmond XP (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Jbinsan

I'm getting a strong tingling that they're a sock of Rana of Bharat. I know the master isn't Showbiz826, the capitalization is actually correct. A couple of Jbinsan's posts specifically call out Rana, which is odd. There's some similar comments from both - determining what is a reliable source, use of the word hatred. What do you think? Ravensfire (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Wait, that doesn't make sense. Rana isn't blocked anymore, your topic ban block has expired. Beats me - this topic area is just a freaking mess. I think I'll gargle glass and dance on nails for a while, should hurt less! Ravensfire (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ravensfire, it may sort of make sense that they preferred a new "clean" account once Rana had a black mark against them. In any case Jbinsan is hopelessly WP:NOTHERE, and I've just indeffed as such. Cynically speaking, I suppose it's kind of convenient that the caste warriors are so beyond disruptive as they are; we don't have to waste much time before blocking. Bishonen | tålk 18:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC).
Speaking of which, dealing with this didn't take up a lot of my time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
That's the ticket, Boing. And I know somebody, perhaps Sitush, suggested that we ec protect all caste pages. Perhaps it's time to at least start with the Rajput and Kshatriya-related articles. Bishonen | tålk 18:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC).
Yes, that's a very good idea. I've started with Kshatriya, and I'll do the same with other problematic ones as they appear. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee and Bishonen, one good idea is to check my talk page regularly as I m being abused by the new editors on a regular basis . Ever since I joined, I have been expanding numerous caste articles which were stub for a long time, something not liked by the caste warriors (since they believe in sacred scriptures of Hinduism I.e Veda and not the modern scholarly sources which contain something they find "unpleasant").Heba Aisha (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Heba Aisha: I have your talk page on my watchlist now - and thanks for your hard work in such a tricky area. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

And on a lighter note...

... to distract you from all the blocking duties...

Is that giant snow pocket at the top of your page flame-resistant? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

[Bishonen gets a crazed, evil gleam in her eye. Suddenly and uncomfortably, you can see the family likeness to Darwinbish.] Oh, I like the blocking! [Witchlike cackle.] Bishonen | tålk 20:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC).
Be careful, someone may nominate you for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for blocking me for 2 weeks. As it goes, my exam went fantastic (as I could concentrate on studies instead of editing Wikipedia). And also happy Christmas and New Year in advance! Kajjul (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, great. Thanks, Kajjul. Merry Christmas to you! Bishonen | tålk 12:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC).
And I may also ask you to block me again during later exams. Hope that's okay for you.Kajjul (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Sure, bring it. Bishonen | tålk 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC).

Beer in Denmark

Hi Bish, I just wanted to tell you that since your block of that disruptive user from Beer in Denmark (see also: Talk:Beer in Denmark) who kept adding WP:DIRECTORY listings and WP:TRIVIA, they have come back. See my revert of their edits here. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Blocked from the page for a year. --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh, Lord. Thanks, P,TO 19104 and RexxS. Unfortunately, I reckon they have access to more IPs, and, worse, have wider interests. I remember them adding kinds of Dajm.[88] :-( (Yes, Bonadea, I know any mention of dajm drives you wild. Don't look at the list! Don't... arghh, too late.) Also, speaking of beer and the like, everybody remember: julmust is a must! Bishonen | tålk 21:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC).
*poing* *poing* *poing* *poing* (Also, you are right about the must.) --bonadea contributions talk 21:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

God Jul och Gott Nytt År!

Gråbergs Gråa Sång is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

Buon Natale!


Merry Christmas from London, Bish ...

and may the New Year be a safe one, filled with peace and plenty.


Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the best way to deal with such edits?

[89], unsourced and though a glimpse of historical events can be drawn from it but just check the writing style of the author(second and third paragraph). Heba Aisha (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Heba. I notice the section had been in place since forever, totally unsourced, in its present form added here, in 2014, by a user who has since left. That's pretty embarrassing for Wikipedia, not that it's the only such article. I celebrate this IP edit! Which was, naturally, reverted as "vandalism" by a sock. As for the best way to deal with the section, I say axe it. (I just did.) If the legend exists in a reasonable source, it can of course be restored in some form. But what was there can't possibly come from a usable source. Bishonen | tålk 09:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC).
Thanks for suggestion...the topic itself is about a minor chieftain and the legend seems to be derived from local Rajasthani folklores. It was difficult to find sources for it.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
In a case like this it's always hard, at least for me, to tell if it's also a copyvio. People have had so many years to copy it from Wikipedia by now — to get it into printed books, even. But I'm pretty sure our version was originally copied from somewhere. I'd be surprised if it was added by somebody who only heard it per oral tradition at their grandma's knee. (The very thought reminds me of the time I listened with great credulousness to the stories of Gustav Vasa's adventures in Dalarna at my grandma's knee. Maybe I should add those stirring tales to our article. Oh, look: The Dalarna adventures of Gustav that could be described as a part of the national heritage of Sweden, can ... not be verified in a satisfying way. A bit like the Rajastani folklore.) Bishonen | tålk 12:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC).

Put him in the long-boat and make him bail her// Put him in the long-boat and make him bail her //Put him in the long-boat and make him bail her // Earlie in the morning. Thank you Michael Dunn --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

After glancing through many India related articles which were not touched for months, I strongly believe that most of them need POV related cleanup.Ex:[90] Actually, not only wikipedia editors but common people in India are also increasingly becoming aware of the fact that most of these are promotional in nature.see, now Indian newspapers are also acknowledging the fact.

One of Wikipedia’s editors, Sitush, who is based in the UK and is tracking pages on Indian politicians, said many articles are promotional in nature. “Generally speaking, the quality of India-related articles is poor and there is certainly a major problem with what are called POV (point-of-view) edits, that is, non-neutral contributions designed to promote a point of view.”

Heba Aisha (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Er, Heba, your "extended content" is so short I don't quite understand why you hatted it; it barely takes less space like that. I've removed the hat as pointless concealment. Anyway, did you notice the Times of India article you cited is from 2014? Bishonen | tålk 16:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC).
Hmm, I could find only this one but observed such things in many other recent articles in newspapers.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Correct me if of I'm wrong, but my view from across the ocean is that there are a lot of POV articles, and a lot of them are India related. And I believe that some of the news media in India and the Indian government have interests in using Wikipedia to promote one point of view or another. There's just not enough editors interested in actual encyclopedia building to deal with it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree. What is special about India is that there a lot of Indians, all with mobile phones and a lot of them able to edit in English. So we get hit. On the other hand, there aren't enough sensible editors coming through. Those that do burn out and leave. Some have been threatened out by the powers. It is scalled democratic backsliding, a new term that I learnt last week. Meanwhile I got a kick out of removing the Times of India here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I see that Deepfriedokra piped "ocean" to United States and it's alarming to see that global warming has progressed so far. On the other hand, I can't wait to dive on the White House. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I keep saying global warming ain't that bad. I always did want waterfront property. Not sure what to do with all those folks in Bangladesh, though. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Just advise the kids to become swimming instructors; they'll never be out of a job. --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra Kautilya3 80% of Indian news channels and newspapers are on the government side right now. I am little worried, that whether I should say it here or not, because unlike Kautilya I m not residing outside India. But, those who really want to contribute, can find good content from the biased sources too. In fact historical materials like books written during Medieval India also reflect biases of court historians But, we have modern historians who have presented the info in a neutral manner (though derived from those sources only.)Heba Aisha (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Deepfriedokra:, It's not just editors within India, it's also editors of Indian origin who live outside India that cause a lot of problems, especially with the more sauve and savvy promotional editing within this space. It's always easier to catch badly constructed POV than it is to find the subtle POV pushes. One of the worst POV pushing sockmasters I've had to deal with in south Indian articles was in Austria and I'm guessing he's still active but hiding in plain sight. —SpacemanSpiff 03:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Scottish Gnome Service

Hope you enjoy safe and pleasurable festivities, may the mysterious Inverkipper bring you nice prezzies!
(credit to Gråbergs Gråa Sång for the box, hope you don't mind me cribbing it)
(Title refers to the BBC Home Service region.)
dave souza, talk 19:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas Bishonen

Hi Bishonen, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and healthy New Year,
Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,
   –Davey2010Talk 19:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

... with best wishes for a much better year in 2021.
X
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year
X Just for being you. Simon. x Simon Adler (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Bishonen, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Bishonen, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
Kajjul (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Kajjul (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for protecting articles on Vaidyabrahmin, Vaid, Baidya

Hi Bishonen, wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in advance. Would request you to please look into the edits by User:Dr.SunBD. He has been warned earlier as well. He is back with his unsourced POV edits; most of his recent reverts are unexplained. This editor is even vandalising other pages. Requesting you to kindly take suitable action in order to protect these articles. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Ekdalian! I've warned the user. If there's more similar editing from them, I will block. I don't much believe in topic bans for caste editors that are as disruptive as that. Thanks for caring for those articles; it's obviously an uphill slog. Happy holidays! Bishonen | tålk 13:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC).
Thank you.. Ekdalian (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bishonen,Merry Christmas! Caste based Dr.SunBD (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear user:Bishonen, Vaidyabrahmin(Physician Brahmin) have been given the highest status in the two main scriptures of Hinduism, the Vedas and the Mahabharata, respectively. But the priestly Brahmin community wrote some books against it. The complainant user:Ekdalian has unilaterally followed those books and carried out destructive articles. I urge you to look at the matter from a neutral point of view. Dr.SunBD (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Dr.SunBD, you need to provide reliable sources for any changes you make to Wikipedia articles. You have not done so. What do you mean by "caste based", please? Bishonen | tålk 11:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC).

Merry Christmas

Hello Bishonen: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, Quviasukvik, the Winter or Summer solstice, Christmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}

Greetings of the season

I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott
 Happy holidays
Dear Bish,

For you and all your loved ones,

"Let there be mercy".


Wishing you health,
peace and happiness
this holiday season and
in the coming year.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Sikhism

covered under IPA DS? I miss Sitush. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Surely it must be, in general. I mean, we have articles such as Sikhism in Denmark, I shouldn't think those would be covered. But "normal" Sikhism articles, yes. We all miss Sitush. Bishonen | tålk 12:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC).
+1 to that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Errm, until I just read this I wasn't missing Sitush, because I didn't know he was missing. What's happened to Sitush? JBW (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Sockpuppets of the caste warriors
Cast with a sock on it
He's not entirely missing, JBW, but fed up with the caste warriors (and the Hindutva warriors, I'm sure). They are the worst kinds of promotional editors, and — I suppose this is just an impression — they create more socks than any other group here. I wish we didn't have to even have stupid articles like List of Brahmins — a sentiment I've heard Sitush express too — but if something like that gets taken to AfD, armies of meatpuppets inexplicably turn up. I can't blame Sitush, but we all do miss him. (There, now I've pinged him, to make him feel guilty! Happy new year, Sitush!) Bishonen | tålk 22:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC).
One of the things for which I have always admired Sitush is his amazing persistence in trying to maintain a neutral point of view in an area where he has been fighting against such great armies of people whose sole purpose here is to do everything they can to prevent a neutral point of view from being expressed. I honestly couldn't keep it up for one percent of the time that Sitush has done so. If he has finally burnt out after nearly a quarter of a million edits, and has to get away from it, well, I can only say that it's amazing that it took this long for it to happen. Oh dear. I seem to be writing about Sitush in such glowing terms that you will probably block me for violating the neutral point of view policy if I go on much longer, so I'd better stop now. As for List of Brahmins, I defy you to show me six "List of..." articles in the whole of Wikipedia that aren't pretty stupid. JBW (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
JBW Six..? Hmm. I once created one, ehrm, pretty smart list article <cough>, but I guess it was deleted. So I got zero. :-( Thank you very much for the illustration of the caste socks, EEng. Bishonen | tålk 22:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC).
It's a gift. And a curse. EEng 22:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Namely: Shaapit! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes. If you read the deletion discussion for that list you will find that I was one of the 12 noble and valiant editors who said keep, against the dastardly 11 who dared to say delete, so that must have been a good one. However, are there five more good ones out there? That is the question. (What a pity that the discussion was closed by a competent administrator who knows Wikipedia policy, rather than one who thinks that AfD is just a vote.) JBW (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
So you were, JBW, and I appreciate it. Yes, it's a pity about the competent admin, who is now being suitably punished for his competence, having just been elected to ArbCom. Mind you, I'm not altogether happy about him calling the article "tomfoolery". It wasn't exactly tomfoolery, it was disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point. And what was the point? That lists are stupid. So you see the logic of my position: no, of course I can't find five not-stupid lists. Bishonen | tålk 10:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC).

Natalis soli invicto!

Natalis soli invicto!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


Happy New Year, Bishonen!

Happy New Year!

Bishonen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, Berserk, same to you. Bishonen | tålk 11:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC).
You are welcome ma'am. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bishonen!

Happy New Year!

Bishonen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Kajjul (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, Kajjul. Here's hoping your studies go swimmingly in the new year. Bishonen | tålk 11:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC).

Follow Up

Excuse me, cease and desist your attacks immediately. So I made an edit you ideologically disagree with? It is based on factual information with a legitimate link from Real Clear Politics. I will be reporting you for abusive behavior. Applying fascist censorship techniques is not how you have a civil discussion. Do not hide behind a veneer of good faith if you are aggressively restricting others’ editing access. Your ideological bias is clear in the Talk pages on your own page here. Check yourself. Haerdt (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello B. FYI Haerdt is now blocked. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
(Checking.) Quite a flameout at WP:ANEW. But I'm glad they noticed the "veneer of good faith"; it's what I aim for. Thanks, MarnetteD. Bishonen | tålk 11:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC).

HNY!

Happy new year Bishonen! PS just an off-topic question it seems as if your name is Japanese from your user page. I have been trying to use Duolingo to learn a bit of it, but I just am curious to know how your name would be written out as I am still terrible probably because I have not made that much progress on Duolingo. Anyway, enjoy the long run-on English sentence. さようなら。Aasim (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too, Aasim! I'm not Japanese, and don't know any Japanese; I'm afraid kanji just look like IKEA furniture to me. But I know how to write my name, because I've had help with that: 美少年. See the rocking chair in there, and the coffee tables with magazine shelves? One of 'em, with only one leg, might be a bird feeder. 美少年 | 自分の会話, 11:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) That's odd, when I look at an IKEA furniture ad, it looks like some furniture designer was doing the research for his Ph.D. thesis titled The Art of Functional Furniture That Looks Like Characters in a Written Language, and the Science of Selling the Same. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 16:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Hehe. The designers start from the kanji? I never thought of that. And do you see the chest of drawers in my talkpage link — it's so classical it hardly even needs any "design". (Peers closely.) Is that a little vase on top of it? 美少年 | 自分の会話, 17:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC).

Morons on the loose

Glorious New Year Greetings to all! While the world is in turmoil, I have returned to supervise the pages I have written. However, as is always the way here, one turns ones back for two minutes and the things one needs are misappropriated by hyperactive children! In this case File:Southcote.gif|animage! Would one of your talk page stalkers kindly undelete it so I can improve a page. Thank you. Giano (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I see it was deleted in 2008.[91] The deleting admin User:Nv8200pa (not an admin now) referred to WP:IFD, meaning there was a discussion at that board, in April 2008. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have been the fashion at the time to provide permanent links — the admin simply mentions the board it was discussed at. No link to the discussion. Heigh ho. @RexxS: ??? Help! Bishonen | tålk 21:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC).
(talk page watcher) Here? Wham2001 (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Wham2001. Giano, the image was merely converted from gif to jpg. Here it is. As you were, RexxS, and I hope you were very well. Bishonen | tålk 21:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC).
Thank you all. Why on earth can’t people just stop fiddling with things? Giano (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Excellency: as your noble ancestors would say "est puerorum talia facere". Thank you, 'Shonen, I was as well as can be expected. Happy New Year to all. --RexxS (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
You are behind the times Rex: my ignoble ancestors were racist bigots who probably made money from human trafficking and misery. Unlike Lady Catherine’s ancestors, who she assures me helped the less fortunate to a life of hope, promise and Christianity in the Land of the Free. Whatever! Glad you are recovering, it’s a slow process. I only have 17 million people in front of me in the queue for the inoculation. I wish I was in the Land of the Free, I bet I could buy one sooner. Giano (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for helping new editors and fighting vandals. Because of you one of the most disputed topic area is secure. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey!

Stop wheel warring. There's a page to go voice your opinion. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

ITN Revert

See discussion at WP:ITNC, Bish is going to bed. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:31, 6 January 2021 (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.

Hey, don't want to edit war on the main page with you, so wanted to clarify if you also oppose my flee-> evacuation change? If so, could you explain a bit more (or point to a discussion where someone complained, there's a lot of threads and I probably haven't seen them all)? "Flee" seems to be more emotionally loaded than "evacuate" so it felt like a more objective description of the members' departure from the building, but I'm open to hearing other views on it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Masem and Black Kite: can we pause for a second with the reverts and have a quick chat first? — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The complaints are happening on the WP:ITNC page. --Masem (t) 23:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wugapodes Please note that Masem is the only single admin who has edit warred. That is unbecoming, in my opinion. As for "flee" vs "evacuate", I prefer "flee", since I understand some lawmakers fled into their offices, which can hardly be described as "evacuating", but I don't feel as strongly about that part of it. The "pro-Trump" should definitely stand. But don't have your chat on my page, please; I'm just about to go to bed. (Bad timezone.) I'll just ping MastCell first. Bishonen | tålk 23:24, 6 January 2021 (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.

Let 'zilla know to check talk page

Something about a relative on the Wikipedia Main Page or something like that.... davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Block setting

Could you consider tagging this user with his parent account. User is continuing abuse in other wikiprojects such as ml.wiki and commons, and deny sockpuppetry saying that he's not tagged. Sockpuppetry was found only later after he was already blocked, that's why no tagging. Substantiating evidences can be seen at the SPI page, where check-user says technically "likely" too. Additional evidence not in SPI is [92], the reference is a self-published manual written by "Adhithya Kiran", who is the master account. It will be useful in comparing future accounts if you can tag it. 117.230.170.206 (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I can, sorry. The SPI archive that you link to doesn't say "likely" that I can see. I suggest you either open another SPI or tell User:Oshwah, the checkuser who checked this recent SPI, the same thing that you told me. Bishonen | tålk 14:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC).

Have a nice day

I've eaten some cake to show my appreciation! Bishonen | tålk.

I genuinely do mean it, but how can I express that, when just saying it isn't enough? Benjamin (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Here's a hint: "a picture is worth a thousand words". Checkout c:Category:Cakes for starters. --RexxS (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Benjamin (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Benjamin. I appreciate it, and have eaten some cake to show it. Bishonen | tålk 14:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC).
I'll take your word for it. Benjamin (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Pongal (festival)

Happy Pongal!

Needs attention and a watch. The festival is about now, in January. The old stable article cites and is a decent summary of peer-reviewed scholarly sources, quite a few with embedded quotes to ease verification. In recent days, we are seeing much unsourced "gita/holy book/Hindu/not Hindu" and Tamil nationalistic etc-style vandalism by many new accounts, IPs and the likes. I left a note on RFPP for a short semi-P, but there seems to be quite a backlog there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm out of my depth with the question of which groups celebrate the festival, sorry, Ms Sarah. Pinging @RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, Vanamonde93, and Abecedare: Bishonen | tålk 14:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC).
I too am swimming in deep waters here. Sorry!--RegentsPark (comment) 17:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Just looking at the history of the article shows it is currently very unstable, so I've semi-protected it for a month. According to the talk page, it's been protected more than once in the past. For now, non-confirmed editors can discuss changes on talk as they managed to previously. I assume that the regular editors are sufficiently expert to filter any edit-requests. --RexxS (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

ygm

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.

CUPIDICAE💕 17:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Who

who are you ? your are nobody to ask me anything ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugrajsingh77 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Boing Boing!, hope you're feeling better. Bishonen | tålk 20:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC).
I am starting to feel better, thanks, but it's taken a lot out of me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this guy

His response to Heba Aisha's welcome message: Thank you sister. aapko dekh kar acha laga. aap kahan se hain? aapke walid sahab ka pura naam kya hai? touch me rahiyega aur duaon me yaad rakhiyega. koi problem ho to banda hazir hai. [Rough translation: Thank you sister. I felt good looking (?) at you. Where are you from? What is your father's full name? Please be in touch and remember me if you have any trouble. I am always ready.]

And then it gets a lot worse in the rest of the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh FGS. I've warned them, but a quick indef might have been better. Well, quick or slow, it's surely coming up. Thanks, Kautilya. Bishonen | tålk 20:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC).
I blocked them. Obviously here only to troll. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, only here for the lulz, I guess. Or as he calls it, the "pranks". Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC).
Even I didn't remember that he was the same guy who posted welcome message long ago and reported him.Feeling bad too! Buy, I am less active nowadays and few new accounts have flooded my talk page with accusations. That's y I reported him without checking.(Kautilya3's translation was absolutely correct. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey

Do you think it would be worthwhile to revdel the vandalism by Illuminati_Exposed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per RD2? Those are some serious BLP violations (in my opinion) that were better when revdeled. JavaHurricane 15:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, maybe, if you think so. I've revdel'd the vandalism at Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I think the stuff at Government of the United Kingdom is just too ridiculous to matter, and revdel'ing it would simply please the troll by giving them attention. But feel free to ask another admin if you don't agree. Bishonen | tålk 18:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC).
OK, we've got rid of the donald, have you got any ideas as to how to deal with Boris? -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 20:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Even from the point of view of a life-long socialist, a member of the Labour Party for nearly 50 years, and a dyed-in-the-wool Bennite, I still think we got let off lightly in comparison to our poor American cousins. I guess we suck it up for another four years, and keep watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHI9BTpGkp8 to cheers ourselves up. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, RexxS. I love Leonard Cohen. Bishonen | tålk 12:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC).

Birch agenda

Hi there, I'd love to know more about the person pushing their birch agenda. I mean, to read POV-driven screeds on sap and thin bark would entertain me for hours! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

To my dear stalkers

I've asked for your opinion in a post way up above. Please respond there, if you wish. Bishonen | tålk 09:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC).

Can we add some part of this intro as quote in article I am editing?

Hi, greetings and sorry that I m asking this at the time you are busy in tackling the vandals. I want to know that can I add this intro as quote (some part of it) using this book as source in the article Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav as it describes the relationship between two politicians perfectly. [93].....lalu Yadav and Nitish Kumar chalk and cheese.......? Is it a policy violation regarding citing ?Heba Aisha (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You mean add part of the publisher's blurb for the book, as seen in Google Books, Heba? No, I really don't think so. It's anonymous, for a start, and just doesn't have any standing. Perhaps you can find something similarly useful in the book? While Sankarshan Thakur doesn't seem to be an academic, he's AFAICS a respectable journalist. (Our article about him is very incomplete.) Bishonen | tålk 04:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC).
Thanks,this article is based on politics and journalist seems to be okay.Heba Aisha (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi You are aware with the policies of wiki in depth. Recently, a 5 hr old account nominated my article Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav for delition. I don't think it violates any criteria, it must be any vandal account I faced earlier.plz check.Heba Aisha (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
[Bishonen peers into the depth of her awareness of the wiki policies. It's pretty murky down there.] Sorry, Heba, the newbie may well be a sock of somebody with a grudge against you, but that is not something I can explore. Only a Checkuser can, theoretically, and if that is all the information you have, without any suspicion of a particular vandal you have disobliged, the CUs can't either. There's nothing to stop a new, or 'new', user from listing an article at AfD, as far as I know. I advise you to take it easy and not worry. It seems highly unlikely that the article will in fact be deleted. If they should list another article you have created, then there will be a pattern indicating a grudge against you, and in such a case I will act. Do my wise talkpage stalkers have any other advice? PS, Heba, when you come here with a different errand than the one above, as you do now, it's better to create a new section at the bottom of the page. Easier to find. Bishonen | tålk 20:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC).
Thanks, I will handle.Heba Aisha (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
It's quite possible that a reader didn't like the thrust of the argument in the article and created an account to nominate it for deletion. It is, however, very unlikely that a brand-new editor would complete all of the AfD steps without the assistance of Twinkle. Not impossible, of course, but enough to raise suspicion. I've welcomed them to Wikipedia and politely asked who their previous account was. --RexxS (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Very good idea, thank you, Dino. Bishonen | tålk 23:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC).

Rajput trolling

(re this diff) no worries about that - I was just handing out WP:ROPE. Good work catching them early.--Paul ❬talk❭ 22:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I seem to be getting more impatient with those people, or else they're getting worse. Both they and I have cabin fever, no doubt. Select a piece of cake from the edit notice, Paul. Bishonen | tålk 22:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC).

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for The Country Wife

I have nominated The Country Wife for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for blocking the IP and revdeleting their edits. --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was pleased at catching that quickly, Ashleyyoursmile. Your report turned up right at the top of my watchlist. Bishonen | tålk 18:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC).
Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at Adam Davis 83's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
See how handsome!

Hi Bishonen! I'm Vermont, one of the volunteer coordinators working on the Merchandise Giveaway program. In creating an sample nomination (so people could see what to do), myself and another coordinator decided it would be more fun if we had an sample nomination more creative than just "User:Example". Would it be okay if we made a sample nomination for Bishzilla? Best, Vermont (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

[Bishzilla obscurely flattered] Good idea! Also feel free put Bishzilla likeness on giveaway T-shirt! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 09:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC).
Say, Vermont, any chance of getting a new WP coffee mug? I broke mine years ago. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If you need a new ceramic coffee mug, it will need to be fired. Typically this is done in a kiln, if a certain 'zilla's flame is hot enough.... davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Ritchie333, unfortunately the merch giveaways are limited to shirts, but the store does have this dinosaur mug. Vermont (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Davidwr: flame heat not problem; radioactivity is.
@Vermont: [Indignantly] That mug wrong. Not all us dinos extinct yet. -- T-RexxS (rawr) 02:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The example nomination is live! (if a member of the Bish continuum would like to comment, please feel free to, but I am hoping to keep the number of supports under 4 so it's at least a semi-realistic example nom) Vermont (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hehe, nice. I like the "contributions to our continued survival"! Yes, great contributions. But Darwinbish had to go and ruin it, obviously. Bishonen | tålk 09:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC).

Revdel

I saw your question on why I did not block after revdeling the edit summary. I didnt remember that edit specifically from all the other election related ones on WP at the time. However, looking at the revdel and my own timeline, I'm going to assume my main reason was WP:PUNITIVE: I revdeled 10 days after the actual edit, and the BLP issues seemed to have been one-time offense. I might have also erred against making an ideological block, though I have less tolerance in areas like race and gender. As for the current block for NOTHERE, I dont think I saw it at the time, probably a result of out my own limited knowledge of the areas they were editing, which seem to be other conspiracy areas (???) not related to the election. I can sympathize with your frustration. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I know your revdel was 10 days after the edit; OTOH, they hadn't edited at all in the meantime, nor indeed again until yesterday (also a completely unsuitable edit for Wikipedia). They edit very sparsely but very badly. So I don't really think my block was punitive; I thought them only too likely to do it again. Anyway. One can read these situations in different ways. I hope we're all good, Bagumba. Bishonen | tålk 09:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC).
So I don't really think my block was punitive: PUNITIVE only applied to my (likely) thinking when I revdeled, and given what I knew (or didn't know) back then. I hope you didn't think I was commenting on your block. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, I did hesitate; I know it may be considered extreme to block a month after the fact, and I thought of first taking it to ANI to ask for input. But in the end... no, I'm good with my block. I'm glad you are too. Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC).

Grumpy, but oh so cute

per [1] ... here's a slower one ---Sluzzelin talk 20:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, Sluzzelin, you are so cute and golden! I had no idea! I always pictured you as the White Rabbit on your page. Bishonen | tålk 20:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC).

"Don't let him know she liked them best,
For this must ever be
A secret, kept from all the rest,
Between yourself and me!" ---Sluzzelin talk 21:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Relationship between both

Heybata and Pintu the Dude both joined one after another and did nothing but commented on article for delition. I have opened SPI but it has been kept with other people whom I believed as socks. But I m sure, there is a relation between these two, if not with others.[94]. This happened after @Miniapolis: and @RexxS: commented in favour of keep as the nominator felt him losing out. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, at least no closer is going to take Pinto the dude's comment into account, it's ridiculous. I've blocked them as an obvious sock (possibly in the sense of a meatpuppet). But I'm not sure the two you name are the same, Heba. Pinto seems more incompetent. Say, Heba, do you remember the template you can put on a vote that says "X has made few or no edits outside of this discussion"? Because I don't. If you find it, or if one of my stalkers knows it, it could be put at Heybata and Pinto. The page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav. BTW, Heba, I suppose it can't be helped that you post those mobile diffs? I do hate them. They need massaging before I can use them. But if you have no other way to refer to diffs, never mind, I'll massage. Bishonen | tålk 19:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC).
No, I actually don't know about the template, thanks btw.But, it sounds funny to me that you being an administrator, also don't know.(:-Heba Aisha (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
You thought admins knew all the templates? Haha. The more we administrate, the less we know. Bishonen | tålk 21:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC).
I'm a (talk page watcher) who knows that it's Template:spa (but I'm going to leave it to others to put the template at the appointed location). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC) — Darwinbish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Thank you Tryp. I see Heba has already made good use of it. Bishonen | tålk 21:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC).

Reblock

Could you block again Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:600:0:0:0:0:0/45 from editing my talk page? Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I think Malcolmxl5 fixed it with a /64. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I see he blocked a number of /64s for up to one month. But I don't see any harm in a specific partial block for six months for the /45. Nobody in that range has any legitimate need to edit Tgeorgescu's talkpage. Done. Bishonen | tålk 10:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC).
Bish, you should feed that cat. He looks pissed. Maybe the cheesecake. --Deepfriedokra (talk)
Pissed is the normal demeanor of manuls. And administrators. Bishonen | tålk 10:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC).

New laundry

If you liked this guy, then you're gonna love There is no article about myself in en.wp but there could possibly be an one one day. All best, ——Serial 11:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"SUSHI POLICE"! augh.

Thank you for having the wherewithal to know deletion was warranted for that .jp link! It looked completely inappropriate, but I have ZERO .jp language competency, and for all I knew, it was a .jp article about, augh, I dunno, some insightful documentary-type TV show about sushi-restaurant proprietors getting busted for the types of poor cleanliness described in the article? Augh, please tell me that show is a thing! WHAT AN AWESOME TV SHOW! Dang! If that .jp article ends up actually being about some punk band or horse-hockey reality show, I am BEREFT.

I got yelled at last week for criticizing a misguided "copy editor" from an admittedly extremely underserved part of the world for making "copy edits" that introduced grammar errors to prose written by facile writers of a language w/r/t which that person wasn't facile. So, this week, when in doubt, I'm going beyond WP:AGF and assuming my own idiocy and walking away.

Terveisiä Las Vegasista! Hoping you and the 'zilla are warm, healthy, and finding amusement where you can! Thank you again for all you do. Take care! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Juliet, there was no superior Japanese knowledge involved — I can read the word "bishonen" — 美少年 — [mouths laboriously from right to left: "birdfeeder, rocking chair, coffee table"] — and that's pretty much it. I just removed it because, well, this ain't the Japanese wikipedia. Same to you, my Las Vegas sister! Bishonen | tålk 22:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC).

Ban 2

Hello, Bishonen, I am messaging you to appeal a topic ban that was placed on me a couple years ago. The ban notice is found in archive 2 of my user talk page. Please reconsider your original decision. Thank-you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, You the man(converse) 20:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Sotuman, I will not reconsider my original decision. I know you found my ban difficult to accept. But, though I'm not reconsidering it — i. e., I don't think it was wrongly placed, nor do I agree with your earlier arguments against it — I may be willing to lift it. Two years is a long time. Please tell me more specifically why you want the ban lifted. For instance: is it because you think it's a black mark against you as an editor? Or because you fear accidentally violating it? Or because you are extremely keen to edit the subject of flood geology? (If so, how do you wish to edit it?) Or for some other reason? Bishonen | tålk 22:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC).
That's fine, but then perhaps the process described here which you referred me to should be updated, but which apparently only a select few people can update...check the talk page for that if you're bored. I want the ban lifted mainly because it has been two years, which is a long time. Whether it's a black mark or badge of honour to be sanctioned by you indefinitely, isn't why I'm asking. I initially compared your sanction to being like a pebble in my shoe, but it's also rather like being forced to have a babysitter. Maybe you have experienced that kind of annoyance. We're not babies, we're part of the same team. I'm all for people being accountable to one another, when it is permitted to go both ways. You the man(converse) 20:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I thought I'd tactfully not mention your original wikilawyering about the ban here (I forgot to log the ban so it was improper! My math, in saying you could still edit 99.9999% of Wikipedia, was way off! Etc) and assume you were now in a better place, but it doesn't look like it, not from the above, and not from this. I decline to lift the ban, as I don't find your request persuasive. Feel free to move to step 2 or 3 of these instructions. Bishonen | tålk 21:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC).
Bishonen, it is not okay to slap a ban template on someone's page without logging it properly. I wasn't the only one who pointed that out, either. No one is above the rules. And if you feel like making a point that isn't intended to be evaluated mathematically, may I suggest that you refrain from using actual numbers? I am a little disappointed with the rest of your response, but I also realize that you and I are different people who perceive things very differently. I accept that, and I can contentedly move along...Thanks anyway... You the man(converse) 02:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, making an error, fixing it as soon as you are aware of it, and apologising is the same as thinking oneself above the rules. No Daim for Bish. --bonadea contributions talk 08:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think appellant makes a clear case for keeping the TBAN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Even though it's a little rude to talk in the third person about the person who started the conversation you interject yourself into, it is also somewhat flattering, if ironic that you rely only on the substance I've provided, rather than providing anything of your own. You the man(converse) 09:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Doodoofart3000

Hi Bishonen. Regarding this warning, when I opened the edit window, the block notice was not on the talk page, and I never got an edit conflict notice. I didn't realize there was a block until I got your ping. Sorry for any inconvenience. Best! Sundayclose (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I shudder to think that there were 2,999 of those before this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that's Twinkle for you, Sundayclose. If I'd seen the name sooner, I'd gladly have blocked without any edits at all. And they created a sock, too.[95] I didn't bother with a block notice for that one. Bishonen | tålk 22:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC).

The days of manually adding protection tags are done!

Hey, Bish. [By way of RfPP/Alfred Nobel] Just letting you know that MusikBot II now automatically adds protection tags automatically upon protection. Best, El_C 12:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, cool. Can't we get the bot to also do the protection on its own? And blocks... deletions... leaving us with nothing to do but use the "thanks" function? Then you'd see some polite admins. Bishonen | tålk 12:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC).
I dunno about that. If it's a good bot like MusikBot II — sure. But what if it's an evil one like SineBot...? //Shudders. El_C 13:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
You're right. But I was expecting the MusikBot to play me a little tune or jingle as it added the tag? Bishonen | tålk 14:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC).

Blocked user abusing talk page

Hello, User Makeourmoments who has been blocked for advertising and promotion is using their talk page for the same purpose. Is it possible to revoke their talk page access? --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure is. Thank you, smiling Ashley. Bishonen | tålk 14:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC).
Thank you very much. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 14:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Direct link). :bloodofox: (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Just curious...

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I couldn't help wondering whether "I'm just fixing a typo ("Autisim") in the origingal block" was a joke or a truly ironic accidental slip? If the latter, you are in good company: I once managed to post an edit summary saying that I was correcting someone's Englsih. JBW (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Ha, that one was a true accidnet. Bishonen | tålk 09:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC).
That's Wikipedia: The Acid Net. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

sehgm

There's a template for putting on an editor's talk page to say "You've got mail", but I can't find one to say that someone else has got mail. Well, anyway, someone else has got mail. Just so you know. (Just in case you may not see notifications that are not addressed to this account.) JBW (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, young James. An {{ygm}} or other message on Bishzilla's page will catch her attention without fail, and similarly with the rest of the socks family. Bishonen | tålk 22:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC).

RexxS

You're not the only one that misses Doug! More to the point, I sincerely hope he is well. I've lost his phone number so I have no way of finding out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung. He says he's all right. Bishonen | tålk 09:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC).
Thanks. I'm relieved to hear that. Do give him my regards if you are in touch. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Königsberger Klopse user

Hey, thanks for protecting Königsberger Klopse! I am being harassed on twitter by the IP user who keeps making these edits and I was wondering if any action could be taken. (https://twitter.com/LukasVolsung) Eilidhmax (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for defending our articles, Eilidhmax. The Klopse sound interesting. Where I am, in Sweden, we have a dish called sillbullar, which is klopse made with ground meat and ground salted herring, also with a caper currant sauce. I know people will think I'm making it up, so here's the link. Not often eaten nowadays, but I've tried it, and it's not bad. The idea is the play between the salty bullar and the sweet/sour sauce. Back me up here, Bonadea. You can have some Daim after the sillbullar. BTW, kind talkpage stalkers, I wanted to rangeblock the IP, and want it even more since they're harassing Eilidhmax, but it's right out of my comfort zone, with the IPs used being 2001:16b8:139d:4800:8dd1:755f:bb0e:d3c6 and 2001:16b8:1303:6100:a869:3045:4631:9906. Not a simple matter of one or two /64s, as you can see. Anybody? Johnuniq? Bishonen | tålk 16:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC).
PS, I see Königsberger Klopse also mentions the possibility of herring, more in passing. Bishonen | tålk 16:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC).
Yes, sillbullar and korintsås is a thing. I think I had it as a child and didn't like it much, but I have eaten it once or twice since, and did like it. It's not really something I'd cook for myself though. --bonadea contributions talk 17:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
This whole saga has made me want to make klopse more and more with every time the guy vandalises the page, to be honest. I may as well give it a go soon... Eilidhmax (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Since maybe July 2020, all edits from Special:Contributions/2001:16b8:1300::/40 seem to be junk except for one on 5 January 2021. Certainly that range could be partially blocked from Königsberger Klopse and any others of interest. The whole thing could be blocked for a week or more with that history. As always, apart from reverting and blocking, it's best to ignore trolls and particularly ignore what happens on Twitter. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, John, I'll attempt both. I'm looking at the "technical considerations" for partial blocks: Multiple blocks with different durations cannot be placed at the same time; it is only possible to adjust settings of the current block or to set a new partial block. Does that mean I can't set say a week's siteblock and a six-month block from Königsberger Klopse together, but have to set first the one-week block, wait for it to expire, and then set the longer partial block? It sounds like it to me, but seems a little awkward, because I'd have to remember to implement the second block a week later. Surely it can't be particularly unusual that an admin wants to set something double-barrelled like that? Anyway, if that's it, I can do it. Maybe the developers thought we ought to be glad to get partial blocks at all. (And I am, for my part.) Bishonen | tålk 13:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC).
I haven't tried it and don't know, but I believe you are correct. You would have to do a site-wide block for a week, then remember to do a longer partial block when that expired. Now is the time to remind yourself how to put a reminder in your phone! Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Arghh. I don't have that kind of phone, but I have some post-it notes, I'll be fine. Bishonen | tålk 23:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC).

Nobody is safe

I thought you might be mildly amused that I just dragged Jimbo to the dramaboards. Very nice cake, by the way, yum. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

MMM.. yes. Though the IP did the dragging. Have you been here long enough to see me drag Jimbo to arbitration in 2009? (Checks. Yes, you have, but of course I don't know if you were looking.) That was good fun. So, did you get the Prinsesstårta? It's delicious. Bishonen | tålk 13:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC).
Sounds great. I'm terminally useless at cooking desserts though, unlike savoury dishes and simple stuff like ice cream or fresh fruit, the ratio of ingredients is vitally important (get the ratio of flour / eggs / sugar / butter wrong in a cake mix and you end up with a big dollop of goo) and I've never been able to get the hang of it. Actually, my cooking style could be reasonably described as Ignore all recipes - "If a recipe or preparation guide prevents you from cooking and enjoying dinner, ignore it." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Salting of Anjum Lucknowi

Hi Bishonen and sorry for the intrusion. You salted the above article months ago but it seems socks of the orignal creator are re-creating it under various other names (the latest titled in Urdu script today!) Is it possible to Salt variations and drafts - see Draft:Anjum Lucknowi and Anjum Lucknowi (writer)?, I've added to the SPI case against Khan tabrez which is already a mile long in the archive. Thanks for any help you can provide in this obsession with getting the article up on wiki (they have already suceeded on Simple English Wiki not sure what to do about that, cross wiki is mentioned in the oringinal SPI) JW 1961 Talk 19:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the draft isn't eligible for speedy deletion yet, Josey. And no, we don't have the kind of software that can salt variations in general. Please see also the discussion on Barkeep49's page. Bishonen | tålk 22:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC).
Bishonen, Thanks, SPI seems to have dealt with most of it now - no doubut some other variation will appear on NPP in the future. Have a good evening JW 1961 Talk 22:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Good day

I have a question, what is the scope of the actions you are about to impose, as stated here? I think that it would be of great benefit for the project if I am able to continue to create and work on articles about Arts, Culture, Geography and the like (related to the Balkans and others). Very few, if any, editors are working on these topics. Most of the diffs posted (90% and more) in the mentioned report are about History of the region. Another question is - can I fix drafts by other editors related to the topic? For example this one And finally, can I edit my TP or archive pages? Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sadko. Your ban applies to all pages, including drafts, archives, and user talkpages, for instance your own talkpage. I think the description at WP:TBAN is quite illuminating, and it implies you can't edit or discuss anything to do with Eastern Europe, broadly construed. That said, I myself would be happy for you to edit Balkan arts and culture, as long as you made sure there is no political of historical aspect to the page in question. (Not geography, because I think that's a complete minefield.) But that's me; I have little experience of placing or enforcing bans in the EE area, so I urge you not to go by what I say. Comparing these sanctions to those in the WP:ARBIP area, with which I am familiar, ARBIP is always very strictly enforced, so most likely EE is, too, meaning arts and culture are out as well. Please enquire of Guerillero. I'll also point out that your topic ban applies to the English Wikipedia only; not to the Wikimedia sister projects. You can edit those freely, on all topics. Indeed, I'd advise you to edit them, so that you'll have constructive editing to point to when/if you appeal this topic ban. Bishonen | tålk 13:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC).
@Sadko: Show me you can edit without issue in an area that is not related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans for 6 months, and then we can chat about carve outs -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@Guerillero: There were no issues with those topics to begin with, none. I am not that interested in Eastern Europe. The Balkans is not a part of Eastern Europe. Is Cyprus considered to be a part of Eastern Europe? How about Slovakia? Is Milla Jovovich, for example, a part of this tban? I need specific info. so that I could act accordingly, considering that links/descriptions which have been sent to me are somewhat vague. Please see my question posted above (archive, TP, drafts). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
A consensus of Admins at AE disagreed, and I have no desire to relitigate the 20k word discussion. In 2019 they were unified for AE purposes and your topic ban covers both. I suggest you avoid the topic area entirely and edit about other things. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
G'day to all. As far as Balkan's art and culture are concerned, Sadko's edits regarding these topic areas have been included into Peacemaker's report (whether as PM's diff's, or mine, or anyone else's): Dara of Jasenovac, List of Serbian painters, List of Serbian films.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Dully noted Guerillero. Do ignore the lurker(s) who were clearly warned for their editing by another admin. in the very same report. In the meantime, please keep an eye on such editors i.e. their actions. I'll edit other sister projects, where a lot of work needs to be done, with high motivation on my part. :) Cheers. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Query

t's all a matter of perspective, though. For a Mayfly, a year would be for all eternity. Best, DFO

G'day Bishonen, now that the Sadko report at AE is closed, are you happy for me to indefinitely semi the rest of the articles on the list? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Indefinitely, no, Peacemaker67. I proposed a year, and that's also what Guerillero's close says. I'd be happy for you to semi them for a year — ecstatically happy, since it saves me the work — but I suppose you have been more or less involved in at least some of them? Because of that, as well as to give the action extra weight and make it stick better, I think you'd be wise to refer to the AE discussion in the protection log. Bishonen | tålk 13:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC).
I protected the list -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

spreading the joy

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.

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen/Archive_23&oldid=1189041667"