User talk:Bishonen

SPA crossing the line

Hi Bishonen, hope you are fine. Wish you a very happy & prosperous new year! Deep singh kumawat has been involved in slow edit warring, trying to promote the communities (Kumhar & Kumawat) using unacceptable sources and mostly trying to remove sourced content from the article on Kumhar, see 1, 2, 3 & similar ones (in spite of warnings and discretionary sanctions alert on their talk page)! Now, after the recent revert, Deep singh kumawat is trying to threaten me saying they have admin friends in Hindi Wikipedia and some higher authority will 'prevent' me 'from getting promotion' (God knows what they mean)! But this is not the problem; the problem is when I reverted this edit along with a proper edit summary here, they have reverted my talk page edit (here)! I guess Deep singh believes that they would decide what I should allow on my talk page! Please intervene. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too, Ekdalian. I've posted some advice for the user. Bishonen | tålk 09:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC).

Thank you so much, Bishonen! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ekdalian,You are misinterpreting my statements.If you find my article threatening, I am willing to make corrections, that is, I will rarely write like this again.I was asking you to be a compassionate person like my admin friends.From which you have taken inappropriate meaning, perhaps,I am obliged to say sorry to you.

@Bishonen Ji

I had given a government reference in place of the removed reference to increase information/knowledge.

@Ekdalian has not given a proper reason for undoing this.1 I am not promoting any caste or community, I have just tried to publish the reliable information I get about them. Despite this, if you feel that I am wrong somewhere, please write with discretion. दीपसिंह 10:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Westall

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Need input.

In the List of converts to Hinduism from Islam article, I removed 4 as they did not had the WP:RS and WP:OR sources. First one: Nargis, in her article I cant see any info regarding her conversion to hinduism in fact opposite "she expressed her wish to be buried following the Islamic rites, Sunil and Sanjay eventually offering the Islamic funeral prayer" in the Personal section.

Another is Khusro Khan, his Religion section explicity states that "Barani's narrative is unreliable, and contradicted by more reliable sources. Khusrau Khan wished to be seen as a normal Muslim monarch, and had the khutba in the mosques read in his name." Hence including him on the list severely violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS and WP:Fringe.

Another case is of two brothers, Harihara I and Bukka Raya I, both articles explicity state that their early life is "unknown and most accounts are based on various speculative theories" the same paragraph that conjecture their religion. So we need stronger and more WP:Reliable sources to make them in the list.

Can you please see if the revert did not violated Wikipedia's policies. 182.183.11.100 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Guidance

Dearly platinate, please accept wishes for a cool and fruitful year. I wonder if you could take a look at Neri Oxman and recent edit streams there, where it seems hard to maintain proportionality. I don't want to spar with the ornery, as it feels like care is warranted, and would welcome your perspective. – SJ + 17:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

About the plagiarism allegations? Man, what a lot of editing. I suppose people basically agree that the plagiarism issue should be in the article, and that Business Insider is an OK source for it? The question is if it should be in the lead. I'll keep my opinion on that to myself, since I intend to protect the article. Daniel Case has semiprotected; that I don't understand, since there's an edit war on, not IP disruption. I've upped it to full protection. A good year to you too, little user! (Oops, that was Bishzilla getting into my head.) Bishonen | tålk 18:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC).

<laugh> Yea, it seems a combination of PIA-fringe and politics is spreading to a range of academic articles this season. It's mainly a question of how quickly and prominently media cyclones propagate allegations into biographies. A wordy section with five separate BI cites is generous to news tails that may wish to wag article dogs. And here (as with the Rufo articles on Claudine Gay) the news outlet was making the news, not reporting on it. That feels like a different role than the one we usually evaluate in considering reliability. – SJ + 19:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You're a sensible person, so I'm sure you agree with me on the lead-thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Need your expertise

Hey Bish! I've been looking into some Indian weirdness (lots of spam and UPE) but I'm coming across lots of weirdness that isn't what I'm looking for. Any chance you could have a look at this hyper-focused editor and decide if their contributions are good, bad, or indifferent? They're not what I'm looking for and I don't deal with Indian subcontinent topics. Thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Very focussed - either the subject or an acolyte. I am not bothered enough to start checking the sources, but if they do check out I suggest it should be left alone. It might not get the traffic of a minor anime character, but it might be a more worthwhile subject in the future. (yes, I do nose around India sub-continent issues - mostly ensuring that caste or religious affiliations to not overburden an article). LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Thanks, little LessHeard. I would figure an acolyte, for myself. Some of it isn't sourced at all, other than to Pattanaik's own words. You need my what, Harry? Honestly, it's true I've found myself somewhat pulled into Indian subjects, but it's not exactly because I understand them. Little talkpage stalkers? RegentsPark, Abecedare, Vanamonde93, SpacemanSpiff? Bishonen | tålk 17:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC).

  Why would one of your (very many) acolytes be editing this article..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Aha, it's probably Bishzilla! Bishonen | tålk 17:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC).

  My guess would also be that this is an acolyte, possibly with a COI, but the low rate of edits and long time frame suggests to me this isn't UPE. I suspect this individual is notable, but substantive coverage is sparse, and someone will have to dig for reviews of his books to write a neutral article. I'd suggest a p-block from the page until they answer questions about their COI, and taking it from there. The page is full of puffery but I'm not immediately seeing a clean version to revert to, it may have to sit under a tag until someone else musters the energy to fix it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Pattanaik is definitely notable but the article is weird. Having ruffled a lot of feathers, he gets a lot of criticism from both sides of the ideological spectrum and all that is clearly missing. That said, I'm not sure this would be UPE, more like a fan's edits (we get that a lot). Compare this article with Pema Khandu and this would even look like a candidate for a Pulitzer! —SpacemanSpiff 01:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Zabriskie

Hello, Bishonen. Do you think you could revision delete the latest contribution on the talk page of User:Peterzabriskie, labeled "redact"? It was me erasing my real name from several of his comments after he ignored my request to keep my identity anonymous after we go into a debate some months ago. Thanks in advance. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not ignore any of the comments. 174.240.160.251 (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Peterzabriskie, Well, you clearly did to my request not to use my real name. Also, why are you using an IP? Don't you have an account? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I am just responding to your pursuit 174.240.160.251 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

ps your timing is coincidentally curious: I no sooner hit submit to The US Copyright Office to register past works of mine. Making me possibly less "not noteworthy " but your resurrection of this ancient dispute surfaces again. Lol. 174.240.160.251 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Reworded response: That is a coincidence indeed. I'm not sure how you think I would know that you did that. And I did not resurrect it and am not making an attempt to continue it; I simply transcribed it to my Wikipedia page because I believe conversations pertinent to Wikipedia contributions should stay here. And there is no "pursuit"; I didn't even intend for you to get involved. Maybe we could carry this conversation to my talk page? Though I would prefer that it just gets discontinued, especially if we are both content with the way things turned out. Also, you didn't answer my first question. Just curious why you aren't logged in? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The name appears already in this edit, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, and in every revision from then onwards, so I'd have to revision delete pretty much the entire page history. I'm not sure that's reasonable, and there's also the risk of a Streisand effect. As for you, User:174.240.160.251 / User:Peterzabriskie, you can either log in to your account or get lost from this page. If you act again to make your doxxing more prominent or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 22:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC).

Didn't notice that. Good point. Could you make time to read that transcript of mine? Of course you don't have to but I find it rather amusing. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm lost. Where is it? Bishonen | tålk 22:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC).

In any case, it'll have to be tomorrow. Bedtime here. Bishonen | tålk 22:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC).

Here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The email mentioned below wasn't Zabriskie, was it? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Not at all, no. Something completely different. I hope you have now received my reply, Ritchie333? Bishonen | tålk 02:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC).

I did, and your advice was acted upon. I have dropped a penny in the Bishzilla charity box. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Haha! [Bishzilla eats the penny. Politely:] Fine flavour! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 10:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC).

You've got mail (unless the courier has lost it)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Page blocked user

Hi Bishonen.. you had page blocked the user Vishwabrahman52 from the article on Rathakara! How can they still edit the article? Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, my bad! They were page blocked for six months; hence they are back now doing exactly what we expect from them! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Right. I've warned. Bishonen | tålk 11:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC).

Thanks a lot! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sarthakhereluck

Is there a reason you hardblocked Sarthakhereluck? The main account is probably affected by the autoblock. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Someone who's wrong on the internet. I wanted to stop them from creating further accounts, but thinking about it, you're probably right that autoblocking wasn't the best idea (even though the main account isn't exactly behaving like god's gift to Wikipedia). I've changed it. Thanks for your vigilance! Bishonen | tålk 18:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

No prob! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That works

Thanks for cutting the Gordian knot of my own design, Bish. I was about to routinely block them, but then got myself caught up with wanting to avoid the appearance of INVOLVED, and then that developed into paralysis about whether it was worth making an AE report...this is a much simpler solution. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I enjoyed it, Writ. Bishonen | tålk 19:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

Temporary protection request

Can you temporarily protect the article Nilathingal Thundam Perumal temple? User:Sudarshanazhwan has the habit of deleting paragraphs in that article.

Yours sincerely, 31.200.16.100 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, IP. Sudarshanazhwan has been indefinitely blocked, so there shouldn't be any need for protection. Feel free to come back here if there should be more disruption at the article. Bishonen | tålk 09:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC).

Thank you. 31.200.16.100 (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Caste warrior

Hi Bishonen.. can you please take appropriate action against the user Elizabethhistoric77. Please check the revision history of the article on Das (surname) to get an idea of the kind of persistent vandalism by the user in spite of all forms of warnings! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ekdalian Sorry, it's too late for Bish to do anything. Done and dusted. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Doug Weller. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Testing

This section is for testing. Bishonen | tålk 21:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC).

Can I test too? Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you will fare better, Floq. I was trying to test a script. No luck. Bishonen | tålk 22:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC).

..○○oo00OO(testing 📣📣📣📣📣📣📣📣📣)---Sluzzelin talk 23:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary Edit War

Bishonen . . . In November, I made an attempt to update the Herod the Great page. I made factual changes. I supported the changes with credible sources. And the changes were summarily reverted, and so quickly that it is difficult to believe that the changes were considered for credibility. As it happens, all the changes that were undone were either changes to remove biased and derogatory disparagement of the Bible, or to remove incorrect statements that attempted to champion an uncorroborated hypothesis supported by an academic minority. A hypothesis that is not in agreement with scholars of renown, like Theodore Mommsen, Emil Schürer, or Alfred Edersheim.

The person who reverted the changes was condescending, rude, and belligerent. I stood up for myself. I was considered "rude," and he was not. I was blocked from the page. He wasn't. And I got the distinct overall impression that some favoritism was taking place.

While I absolutely appreciate that a lot of hacks come onto this site and make ridiculous changes, and the content certainly has to be protected from people who would pollute it with disinformation, I have been researching the topic of Herod the Great and related New Testament history for almost thirty years. I'm not a hack. I do know the information of this topic, and probably better than most. The article in its present condition is rife with biased points of view, blatantly incorrect statements relative to the known facts, and minority conclusions generally dismissed by the academic majority, while the opinions of the majority are virtually non-existent.

I would like to edit the article with credible changes, based on credible sources. I would like to do so without having to fight with the self-appointed watchdog over the site. I can be a quality contributor on several articles surrounding this and related topics. I have a lot of years and a lot of knowledge to share. But there's no point if the changes are going to be summarily undone. I spent a great deal of time carefully wording things and looking up sources the last time, and the first change was undone before I finished the third. It was ridiculous. I won't spend time trying to provide the internet community with valuable information if that time is going to be wasted.

Furthermore, I would like to appeal once more to have the Matthew comment amended. The only relevance Matthew has to the topic of Herod is that Matthew is the source by which Herod is both famous and infamous. The integrity of Matthew's account is not germane to the topic of Herod the Great, only the existence of it. I was not the first person to try and amend it. I won't be the last. The content as it exists serves no purpose other than to disparage the Bible. That, "Herod is most famously known from the Bible's Gospel of Matthew," is as much as is relevant. The addendum that, "most Herod biographers do not believe that this event occurred," only exists to discredit the Bible. It adds nothing to the Herod article, and the credibility of Matthew in this case is an opinion besides. I was told I couldn't add opinionated content (which I didn't actually do; I provided direct primary sources). And it's still an opinion, even if it's an opinion from a published book. Additionally, it is offensive content. And Wikipedia states that it is inclusive. If the content is offensive, not germane, and not established by any facts whatsoever, then it shouldn't be there.

Some guidance on these things would be appreciated. I would like to contribute without harassment, and since concise statements with quality source citations are apparently not adequate, I could use some help in understanding what I need to do to make changes that won't waste my valuable time.

I wanted to message you privately, but I couldn't find an option for that, so my apologies for airing this in public. AlexFrazier (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, AlexFrazier. In public is fine. I'm a little taken aback to see that being blocked from Herod the Great and its talkpage in November 2023 has meant that you have edited nothing since. Is Herod your only interest on Wikipedia, really? It seems unfortunate to me that you haven't used the time of your block to edit in other areas and make yourself more familiar with the culture and the policies here. I'm afraid your opinion, shown above, that the text "most Herod biographers do not believe that this event occurred" only exists to discredit the Bible, and is offensive, suggests to me quite strongly that Wikipedia may not be the place for you. The Bible is not considered a reliable source here. Yes, as you say, you provided primary sources (such as the Bible) and drew conclusions from them. That's not how it's supposed to work per our policies: articles are supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources. Drawing your own conclusions from primary sources is not allowed; please, if you read nothing else that I link to, look up Wikipedia:No original research. That Wikipedia is "inclusive" does not mean that you're free to ignore our rules and policies.

To summarize: if you expect me to rein in tgeorgescu and let you edit the article without anybody objecting or reverting, that's not going to happen. (Indeed, I couldn't do it if I wanted to.) Since you seem quite resistant to our rules, I do fear that you would in fact be wasting your time by going back to editing Herod the Great, and/or arguing about it on the talkpage. I don't like to tell anybody they're not a good fit for Wikipedia, but, well, since you appear to actively dislike our principles... I'm sure there are websites out there better suited to your work. You probably know more about them than I do. Bishonen | tålk 19:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC).

Are you suggesting that because I find unnecessary anti-Christian comments offensive that Wikipedia isn't the place for me? Am I understanding you correctly?

I haven't edited anything else because it seems to me that I'll run into the same problem.

Also, I didn't use the Bible as a primary source. I used reliable secondary sources, and they were ignored. I don't expect anyone to protect a page on my behalf. I just want some fairness.

But truth be told, you answered in such a biased and unrelated manner to my post that it's obvious the favoritism I suspected appears to be accurate.

If you folks care more about playing favorites and protecting garbage scholarship because heaven forbid someone should cite an actual primary source (which is what your secondary sources are using to form their "original research" conclusions), then you're probably right. This may not be the place for me. I sincerely thought this was a place where those who had the knowledge could contribute to make a great online encyclopedia. But with the way this is, you might as well just plagiarize a few books and be done with it. AlexFrazier (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Theodore Mommsen, Emil Schürer, or Alfred Edersheim—they lived and died how many years ago? Stick to mainstream Bible scholarship published in the past 20 or at most 30 years. And we have a low opinion of those who try to give the lie to relatively recent works of Bible scholarship published by WP:CHOPSY. We're not Sunday school. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I came to him, not you, to resolve a problem because I feel I was treated unfairly. Your rude and condescending input wasn't needed. Nor did you say anything of worth. Secondly, Theodore Mommsen is a renowned scholar, responsible for numerous volumes of the CIL, the IG, and other volumes of epigraphy and Roman and Greek History, in addition to writing The History of Rome. He was educated at an Ivy League school. Emil Schürer was likewise educated at an Ivy League school, and has numerous publications. I read the rules. They don't say they have to be in the last twenty years or so. The topic concerns history from two thousand years ago. Their educated works have weight. Thirdly, I'm not treating this as Sunday School. There's no reason for you to insult me. I even kept your name out of my communication to keep it neutral. So do me a favor and just leave me be. AlexFrazier (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Bishonen is a she. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• shrug* k AlexFrazier (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If you mean that Wikipedia as a whole favors relatively recent WP:SCHOLARSHIP from WP:CHOPSY: you're right, this is not a level playing field. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I asked you to leave me alone. I have no continued interest in what you have to say. AlexFrazier (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Then why are you pleading here, if you're not interested in your opponents comments and responses? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That person is consistently condescending and rude to me. I don't want anything to do with them. And I didn't plead to that person. I came here to contact the admin for advice on how to be able to participate when following the rules resulted in being blocked.

The answer I received said enough. This site is a joke. AlexFrazier (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Firstly, no, I'm not suggesting Wikipedia isn't the place for you because you find unnecessary anti-Christian comments offensive — not at all. I'm suggesting Wikipedia isn't the place for you because you find the text "most Herod biographers do not believe that this event occurred" to be anti-Christian. Secondly, it's not for you to try to shoo tgeorgescu off this page — my user talkpage. They're welcome here. Bishonen | tålk 21:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC).

Indeed, we seek to refrain from offending Christians needlessly. But we still have to call a spade a spade. Actually, liberal Christianity made peace with that since long ago.

Anyway, that the WP:RS/AC from 150 years ago trumps the WP:RS/AC from this year is a ridiculous argument. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

CU blociked. Doug Weller talk 08:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Caste crap

Sorry to bother you, Bish, but this looks beyond the pale. Perhaps, a final warning is in order. Also, see their t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Nah, 3 months partial block from talk page and article. I didn't check, do they need an alert? Doug Weller talk 11:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Also see [1]. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug! TrangaBellam (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bish.. Sourin666 and Aceofalljackofnone are caste warriors; I have warned both of them multiple times on their respective talk pages. You may please check i) this, Sourin666 initiating a new section along with legal threat, ii) Sourin666 recently saying that three editors (including me) are "nothing more than goons" in this edit, iii) Aceofalljackofnone supporting such a personal attack here! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action, Doug Weller! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Doug. I guess you changed your mind about a 3-month block, as you actually blocked for one month? Bishonen | tålk 13:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC).

Ouch. My bad. Still, we'll see what happens after that unless you want to change it. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Nah, let's leave it. They're bound to be indeffed soon in any case. Bishonen | tålk 13:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC).

They're doing a little venting, and their new userpage is ... interesting. I'm interested in what they do next. Acroterion (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Ha. The userpage is amusing. I find it hard to believe that they wrote it themselves, actually. AI? Bishonen | tålk 13:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC).

Slightly tangentially, I just blocked the morning crop of spammers that showed up in edit filter 499, and a lot of them have an AI feel to them. I foresee an avalanche of one-off camelcased names spouting five paragraphs of prosy AI-speak about rubber band importers. With a thoughtful spammer and the right software it could become a real problem. Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It's really tough to believe they wrote it themselves! Ekdalian (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Self-requested block

Hello, per your page on this, could you please block me until 0:00 1 March 2024? I would like to enforce a wikibreak, and I don't trust myself to not break my account if I use the user script. Thank you! Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 16:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, please do wait 24 hours before blocking (as your page says); I don't want to autoblock my entire school. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 16:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thriftycat, hehe, always fun blocking whole schools! Kidding. I will block you as requested, starting in 24 hours (or a bit more in case I'm AFK). But I'll make it simply "one month" — fitting it to a particular time of day is bothersome. Not sure, either, whether the software counts February as a proper month. Please let me know if you care about those details. Bishonen | tålk 17:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC).

Great, that sounds good. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 19:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Enjoy! Bishonen | tålk 17:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC).

User talk:Healthandfitz

The user was blocked by a retired admin - you may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, Cahk. Bishonen | tålk 09:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC).

Hello!

I just started using Twinkle, so sorry about the unnecessary 4th warning. I seemed to have issued the warning right after you banished the user. Is there any way I could have did better? AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You did fine, AlphaBetaGammsh. Your warning and my block have the same timestamps, so, even though I was probably a smidgeon earlier, you couldn't very well have seen the block before you warned. I didn't mean to blame you by removing your fourth warning — I just thought it didn't look right on the page, just below the block notice. Thank you for warning vandals! Bishonen | tålk 14:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC).

Deletion request

Dear Bishonen, can you please DELETE this account Melrorross (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Melrorross. I'm afraid accounts can't be deleted, as such. But it looks from the conversation on your talkpage as if what you want is to get rid of the account — to immobilize it, so to speak — and henceforth to use only the older account User:Melroross (note the different spelling). That would be a good thing, since one person isn't supposed to have more than one account. I can take care of it by blocking Melrorross and blanking its userpages, or redirecting them to the Melroross pages. Would that suit you? Please respond below. Bishonen | tålk 21:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, yes absolutely. Many thanks for that. Melroross (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, done. (I redirected the pages to your active pages.) Happy editing! Bishonen | tålk 00:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC).

Minor but annoying mystery

I'd appreciate the help of a wise and crafty Wikipedian at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#19:09,_12_February_2024_review_of_submission_by_Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

And it still doesn't show up on Google, Mr Fröding. (I wouldn't have known, as I use DuckDuckGo. Use DuckDuckGo, don't get tracked!) But you're after a wise and crafty Wikipedian. I'm pretty sure I've got some of those watching this page. Also, might not Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) be the best place to ask? Whatever the problem is, it's surely of a technical nature. Bishonen | tålk 09:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC).

Usedtobecool tried something (turn off and turn on again), we'll give it awhile and see what happens. The mission is to get the WP-article to appear above her entry on wikifeet.com in a search like this:[2]. I'm now considering adding that site as an EL, just to see how long it lasts. Maybe in early April. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"How to" question

You have been recommended by a friend as a fount of all wisdom on Wikipedia - or at least someone who might know the answer to the question "how do I turn off a peer review request?" I have tried to remove it twice, and it has been replaced both times by an editor who says I can't do that. Do you know the secret handshake? If so, please tell me! The article is History of Christianity. They hated the middle section and I am having to redo it, so it doesn't need more reviewing at this time. Or am I missing something? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jenhawk777, everything to do with peer review is terra incognita to me. Maybe ask on the page itself? (Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Christianity/archive1.) I see the talkpage for that hasn't been created yet, so that would probably be a dead end. Bishonen | tålk 20:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC).

Thank you for answering. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing block on User talk:2600:8807:4C83:3E00:A038:E81D:8056:B389 added

I assume it was an oversight as you announced, but did not block the user. Fixed. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for me, Alexf. Actually, using Twinkle, I ticked the "Block the /64 instead" box, which I generally like to do, and in this case there was also similar vandalism from other IPs in the /64 range, which had been blocked before very recently. (Hence my 72 hours.) See the block log for the /64. Bishonen | tålk 22:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC).

Capo Geezy

Hello Bishonen, me again. Do you think you could take a look at what's going on over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capo Geezy? And also the edit histories of User:Iamcapobroquard and User:Iamcapogeezy? You should be able to understand what's going on but if you need explanation then I can give one. Sorry if it's a lot of reading but I really do think it needs attention ASAP. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Partially handled by Isabelle Belato; User:Iamcapobroquard has been blocked but now there are two new accounts, User:Capogeezy90 and User:Dantecolombo4. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Aha, two obvious sleepers, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse; created some time ago, but only began editing today. I'll block them, but I think we need an SPI and a CheckUser to look for more sleepers. I'll try to take care of that. Bishonen | tålk 18:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC).

Wasn't as hard as I thought! Done, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamcapogeezy. Bishonen | tålk 18:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC).

Already dealt with by Spicy, quite a sock drawer found. Bishonen | tålk 19:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC).

Lovely, though I definitely wouldn't put it past them to keep this up. I suppose I should sock strike all of Capo's comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capo Geezy? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Also this IP raises suspicion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, strike them if you like. I see OwenX has tagged a few with {{sockvote}}. There are more that Spicy caught, so feel free to tag those as well. Iamcapobroquard, for example, and Capogeezy90, and the IP 130.18.104.156 (partially blocked from the AfD by Isabelle Belato). And since you mentioned the possibility of an SPI, why not add a note + link for that?

So, an IPv6 removing the AfD template? Yes, that's interesting. Maybe give them a little more rope, since the SPI is closed anyway. Bishonen | tålk 21:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC).

Regarding a particular username

Hi Bishonen, hope you are fine. Can you please have a look at this username, TheLazyBot! Does it violate our username policy? Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Ekdalian. Well, according to WP:MISLEADNAME it's not a good idea, but the user has been getting away with it for some time, and I find it hard to get worked up about. Perhaps we can go with WP:BADNAME: "If the name is not unambiguously problematic, it may be sensible to ignore it." Bishonen | tålk 21:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC).

Thank you! Ekdalian (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Manny Cid

Hello Bishonen, sorry to bother you again so soon, but maybe you could look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Cid, especially the talk page? I don't know if I sound overzealous and I don't think it's really a big deal yet but something doesn't settle right with me. May be a lot of reading again, though you don't have to read the whole AfD, but MEAUSA's and LadyBugFlorida's bits may be worth reading. Any input would be greatly appreciated. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Well, looks like Schrodinger's jellyfish may have it under control. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi again, AllTheUsernames. Yes, the warning from Schrodinger's jellyfish seems about right. LadyBugFlorida is obviously someone who has read the somewhat paranoid blog about how Cid's page was "suddenly" put up for deletion, and who is unfamiliar with the culture here. So they express themselves poorly and say the wrong things — no surprise there. I'm actually more surprised at the experienced editor who accused you of "bludgeoning". And I notice even the OP, who is on that person's "side", disapproves. If you read WP:BLUDGEON, it's downright ridiculous. But it's not something that requires me to say something adminny, I don't think. It makes a poor impression, which is surely worse for them than you. (Mind you, if people don't want to engage, it's better not to ping them repeatedly.) Bishonen | tålk 14:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC).

And now I notice LadyBugFlorida has been indeffed. Oh well, I reckon it makes little difference either way. Bishonen | tålk 14:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC).

New days, new problems

We have a not-much-of-a-newbie deleting impeccably sourced content from atop a moral high horse (or perhaps, T-Rex). There's some highly charged rhetoric about "pro-pedophilia apologists in online circles", etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, TrangaBellam, may I please be excused from involving myself in the Aisha nexus? It makes me so tired. WP:ANI? Bishonen | tålk 19:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC).

Ah, that is understandable - no worries! With 20/20 hindsight, it was mighty stupid of me to wade in though the section stayed almost unperturbed for a year. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Bishonen :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather not, thanks. Bishonen | tålk 09:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC).

That's completely fine. I hope you have a good day, regardless. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Re [3]

That was indeed a mislick. I should probably install a confirm-rollback script since I tend to misclick a lot. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a confirm rollback script? Not that I need one, I don't rollback much, nor use a touch screen (the horror). But it does show that we have scripts for everything. Bishonen | tålk 17:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC).

A pie for you!

Hi, Bishonen, I just mentioned your name somewhere. So I thought to drop some wiki love here to acknowledge your efforts in dealing with sock puppets. Happy editing! Regards. Maliner (talk) 08:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks delicious! Bishonen | tålk 09:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC).

February music

Music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday - for sweets, scroll a bit in the places -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Aahh. Lovely, Gerda. I love this one. Bishonen | tålk 21:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC).

story · music · places

good choice - a few more, and the memory of the birthday of a friend who showed me art such as this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Vacation pics uploaded, at least the first day (fish soup), - and Aribert Reimann remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Some days later, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The COI and AI

[4] I had the same hunch, but not strong enough to comment on it. The amount of text, the surprisingly quick reply, etc. How does one "know"? Do we some EARWIG-like AI-detector around, and if we don't, can we get one? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

See [5] Doug Weller talk 11:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Bish, @Doug Weller, I tested the above AI-checker by pasting [6] into it. "We are highly confident this text is entirely

human". That's good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång LOL. I should hope so. I'd hate to think you were just an AI. Doug Weller talk 08:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Bish, @Doug Weller and @AndyTheGrump for all the helpful and uplifting input. I'm keeping the AI-tools. To quote Doug's tool, "This result should not be used to directly punish students."

Andy, you're now on my wall:[7]. Best I've heard since "I'd also add from an intellectual standpoint that I'm not really sure how we should deal with people who's claim to notability comes from us not considering them notable." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

And the response to your complaint about AI-text was more AI-text. Oh well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There are many AI detectors, though I've also read somewhere a rather depressing test of how reliable they are (not very). Anyway, I didn't use one, I just thought it was completely obvious. Now, I've tried this one at random from Google's various suggestions, and it says Pedro's first post at WP:COIN has "100% AI content". Doug is using another one. And note that Pedro says to me, or his chatbot says, that he uses it because it makes his text better, so his use of it improves Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 11:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

• Doug has indeffed, good thinking. And Pedro, just before that, got in a complaint about AndyTheGrump telling him to fuck off. I've responded with the obvious. Anybody else? Bishonen | tålk 11:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

This made me spit my Earl Grey all over the keyboard. Thank you for the guffaw. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

A philosophical question arises. Is it even possible to make a personal attack on a chatbot? I've have to say no, since a bot isn't a person... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Good point, Andy. Also, when I complained about Pedro's use of AI, he told me "I want to clarify that my use of AI tools is solely to enhance my text, leveraging it as the valuable resource it is". A similar argument applies to your use of bad language (and mine): it's solely to enhance our text with a valuable resource. I mean, we could have said "go away", but we chose to enhance it. Bishonen | tålk 11:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

Aargh! 'Leveraging'! Management-speak flinflam at its most odious. Give me a lever and I'll gladly beat the binary bits out of the server node or whatever that generates such gloop... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you will use best practices to realize the strategic leveraging of synergistic assets? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I am reminded of http://wisdomofchopra.com/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Now there's a bullshit-bot, if ever I saw one. Though per stopped clocks it must get things right occasionally. After many attempts, it cam out with this gem: "Making tea imparts reality to personal molecules". Indeed. I rarely feel more real in my personal molecules than when I've got a steaming mug of tea in front of me. And then, the tea and I become one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Careful, enhance is a word to watch these days. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Update: A fitting end. We finally get to hear Pedro's own voice, because I don't think ChatGPT wrote that. Bishonen | tålk 19:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC).
• Ah, quite a fascinating read. How many policies can one account violate in just two weeks? I count COI, PAID, copyvios, use of AI, CIR, and possibly a few more. I've spent a lot of time lately trying to remove corporate-speak from what is now a 10-page document (it started out at 19), and I loved the way you leveraged the language of heightened concern. Risker (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hello, Risker, long time! And thank you. Bishonen | tålk 22:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

Now I understand. I always suspected you were a bit more than just an administrator - you are actually a "self-called" administrator! Going forward can I refer to you as Self? Pretty please? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, provided you condone with me, JoJo. (Condole?) The user had some reason to be uncertain of their English, which was presumably why AI seemed like such a boon to them. You too can sound like a corporate drone! Bishonen | tålk 10:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC).

Indef required

Sourin666 waited out the block and has returned to being a IDHT-SPA. I think we need an indef. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe you, TrangaBellam, but it's all so complicated! @Sitush:, are you there? @Vanamonde93:? Bishonen | tålk 16:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

Well, they're insisting that text needs to be changed without recognizing that they need to support that with RS. But they're not engaging in PAs any more that I can see. I'd suggest a little more rope, but an indef could be justified on the basis that competence is required, and they don't have it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'd say they have half of a legitimate grievance buried in there; the cited source clearly supports what's in the article at present, but it also says that they (like many other Dalit groups) attempted to claim a caste identity for themselves. I don't really want to do a caste warrior's work for them, but the movement at least seems worthy of coverage, even if it's hasn't had the results they'd want. And it doesn't obviate the untouchability claim, of course. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Vanamonde, I love you. Bishonen | tålk 16:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

I live for the mighty 'zilla's love. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Ofcourse, their movement is worthy of coverage but Sourin666 seeks that our article (1) stop using the term 'Pod', (2) mention the caste as a Kshatriya, and (3) remove the fact of the Pods/Poundras being historically subject to untouchability. I can perhaps see where they are coming from — though with some skepticism in light of increasing attempts by certain political factions to downplay aspects of a deeply unegalitarian past — but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Also, I am also reminded of Janaki Nair's incisive essay (p. 243 - 246); esp. the third challenge. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, am I? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

But you are (kind of) opposing an immediate indef, meaning that the time-sink goes on ... TrangaBellam (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam Not for much longer, it won't. I have weighed in there. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely! Just another caste warrior, not here to build an encyclopedia, but only agenda is to promote this particular caste! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Sitush, I love you also! Caste-warriors just waste too much time. I've indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 19:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

وزارة العدل العراقية

Just what I need An official government agency trying to use Wikipedia for its propaganda social media outlet.. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

And for their achievements achieved throughout the year. A real pleasure to block that one, Fritter. Well, a pleasure tinged with anxiety: I'm not used to having to trust Google Translate quite so blindly. Suppose the Arabic merely meant something like "yo, motherfucker". Bishonen | tålk 03:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC).

Capo Geezy once more

I hope you don't mind me bothering you with this again, but I think I may have found another Iamcapogeezy sockpuppet, Bobbyjean97, who has a similar username to many of the blocked sockpuppets and recently created Draft:Gianni Broquard, which is an essential copy of the deleted article. I would open an investigation if I were remotely familiar with the process. What do you think? Also, some recent activity by User:130.18.104.156 at Capo, one of the IPs that spammed the AfD–not sure that this matters though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Aha, that guy. Thank you, AllTheUsernames. Blocked, and draft deleted and salted against recreation. Do you use scripts at all? This is by no means something you need to feel you have to do, but if you install User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js, you'll be amazed at how simple it becomes to create SPI reports. Bishonen | tålk 09:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC).

Thank you, I'll look into that. On an additional note, I found this casepage from December 2023. Apparently some of the accounts go back to early 2020. There's also the account Capogeezyinc, which is probably a sleeper as Netherzone said, and Jreidray, which is less suspicious but recreated Draft:Capo Geezy a little while ago, which has been deleted 7 times. Do you think that's worthy of salting? Not sure if there would be sufficient evidence to block or not. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

There's surely evidence, but they haven't really been active. As for salting Draft:Capo Geezy, Oshwah creation protected it in August 2023, though only limiting creation to autoconfirmed users, which seems a little weak to me. But it hasn't in fact been recreated since, so I guess I'll leave it at that. Bishonen | tålk 22:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC).

Not affiliated with Capo Geezy, but I will say he is the type to create multiple accounts. Willing to verify however possible. Jreidray (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Also will say, 130.18.0.0/16 is Mississippi State University's network. Both he and I are students there. Jreidray (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Jreidray, if you have nothing to do with Capo Geezy, I'd be interested to know how it came about that you created Draft:Capo Geezy (now deleted) in August 2023. Bishonen | tålk 18:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC).

I am a student at his university and he stands around promoting his self and his fame and I thought it a shame he wasn't on Wikipedia. The printouts he handed out said he had tons of listens and followers so I trusted that and other sources. I wouldn't say I have nothing to do with him, we've spoken, but he also has to the thousands of passerby who will stop for a second to let him spill about himself. 130.18.119.125 (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That 130.18.119.125 reply was me. Sorry, totally new to this. Thanks. Jreidray (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

TheNotoriousSildeSoiler

Hi,
On 17 March you indef blocked TheNotoriousSildeSoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a vandalism-only account. It appears that this editor is evading the block with a new account YouCantDefeatSlideSolier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Besides the name similarity, the new account has vandalized the same article that the previous account edited. CodeTalker (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, not really trying to hide, are they? Note the change from Silde to Slide, though. Thanks, CodeTalker. Bishonen | tålk 20:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC).

Yeah, I noticed that. They also changed "Soiler" to "Solier". I don't know if these are deliberate changes or if they just have poor spelling skills. Thanks for handling it! CodeTalker (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, they are now CU-confirmed (you can tag em if you like) and also otherwise impeded. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies, but I don't think I'm supposed to tag using any of the "CU confirmed" tags, such as {{blockedsockpuppet|username}}. A CU should do that, is what I've been told. (I already tagged with the "suspected and blocked" tag.) Bishonen | tålk 23:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC).

Done. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access???

Hi, Bish. Do you think TPA should be revoked for User:Nkienzle after this comment they added to your block statement? Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, the statement is located at the very bottom of the page. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hard to miss. I was just thinking the response was predictable and TP access is on borrowed time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I marked the page on my watchlist to see what would happen. Hope Bish replies ASAP. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

No huge hurry. This is a hit and run user. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Welp, the personal attack was removed. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh... well, thanks for the thought, NoobThreePointOh, but I can't say I care. Venting against the blocking admin is something I tend to allow, at least when the blocking admin is me. And I see somebody has reverted it, too. I'm going to bed now; if the venting is too persistent, I expect I'll wake up to see some other admin has revoked TPA. Good night, guys! Bishonen | tålk 01:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC).

@Bishonen Alright then, goodnight. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Krish!

I didn't know that he left Wikipedia after your block. He created so many featured and good articles. After the DBigXray episode, there is a bias in favor of editors such as Tranga Bellam Tayi Arajakate, and Venkat. All these CIVIL POV pushers are more problematic. Tranga Bellam has less experience in how film articles are edited. Tranga Bellam's behavior is borderline harassment. they bite newbies, and wiki hounds other's edits. 2409:40E1:10C5:5906:6D9E:F6F2:440D:CACE (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The user left Wikipedia because of a two-month page block? A pretty mild sanction for severe disruption, IMO (compare this ANI thread). And you have found it necessary to log out from your account to come here and complain about it? OK. I'm afraid I would take that more seriously if you weren't hiding. Bishonen | tålk 17:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC).

Some words

Hi, hope this comment finds you well. To be honest, I think the reaction shown to my report may make the attackers bolder. Making numerous instances of personal attacks, which is usually taken seriously, and going with no cautions or warnings. Thanks anyway. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

They can simply edit war and make personal attack without responding to policy based arguments raised by me. Is the discussion considered ongoing now? I know there should be more DR steps over the content dispute but the incivility is not a content issue. --Mhhossein ^talk 23:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I'm sorry, but the offenses were too old for admin action when you reported them at ANI, and they're even older now. There's nothing I can do. When I told you that at ANI, you said the (old) diffs you had given were merely examples, but you still to this day have not offered anything recent. Do you have anything from the last 10 days? If not, I suggest you'll feel better if you let it go. Bishonen | tålk 23:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC).

Thanks for the response. AT ANI, I raised [8] personal attacks which were only 7 days old [9] and 3 days ago he accused me of having COI [10]. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Having a COI? I've asked them what they mean by that. Bishonen | tålk 10:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC).

New legal article

I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development will be appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It reads well, Valjean, and I'm delighted to encounter my old friend A. C. Bradley in such an unexpected context, but IANAL. Bishonen | tålk 18:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC).

Antioch International Movement of Churches

Hi there, I see you contributed a minor edit at the page for Antioch International Movement of Churches. Would you consider helping out on that page? Totally ok if not, but you have a lot more experience than I or the other involved editor Austin613 and we're having a hard time agreeing on how the article should be developed. Your feedback might be helpful since you have more experience. But totally ok if you don't have time; since you made a minor edit I thought it was worth asking you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Shinealittlelight. I no longer remember how I came to make the small correction, but I'm sorry - the subject lies pretty far from my interests and knowledge. Maybe you'd like to use the Wikipedia:Third opinion form of dispute resolution? It's lightweight and easy to use, and perfect for a disagreement where only two people are involved. Bishonen | tålk 21:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC).

Sure, thanks, I'll check that out. Have a good day. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please correct this

Please correct this allegation it's not accurate. [11] Tonymetz 💬 23:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I checked it carefully. How is it not accurate? Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC).

restored some removed posts 🔜 “restored a single post and then apologized for it” Tonymetz 💬 16:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not a single post. It's three posts — a little conversation — which you restored. I've already asked on ANI where you apologized, purely because the diff you originally provided for it does not contain an apology. I see you have replied there with another diff, where you say "Let’s take it down a knotch. I’m sorry how that was received." That is actually what's known as a Non-apology apology (please click on my link there), a statement which expresses "I didn't do anything wrong, but you took it the wrong way". The mere words "I'm sorry" can't turn that into an actual apology. Please see also WP:NOTSORRY. But that is by the way, purely because you now mention it. My "allegation", as you call it, wasn't about objecting to your non-apology — hardly worth it, IMO — but purely about restoring some posts. Bishonen | tålk 18:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC).

Ok I hear your opinion and thank you. What’s next. Is there anything more to do on the admin side? Tonymetz 💬 20:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing I'm aware of. Bishonen | tålk 21:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC).

Ok great. I wanted to say thanks for the help in managing the community. I know it is a volunteer effort and we appreciate that. I know you mean well despite any differences we may have had in the discussion. I hope we get to work together sometime soon. Tonymetz 💬 22:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Happy editing, Tony. Bishonen | tålk 02:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC).

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Just in case, since you were mentioned and I mentioned you further: #User Tonymetz posted again to my talk a month after [..] – 2804:F14:8090:C501:8CF5:7412:F217:B3C2 (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 08:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC).

Your goggles are requested please

Hello Bishonen, I know you are busy and I hate to trouble you, but – User:DrKC MD – has been slinging insults/attacks at me and edit warring. I noticed you issued a warning a few days ago, but now the behavior is directed at me. When you find a moment, could you please have a look and at the situation? Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) looks like he's talking on the talk page... hasn't make an edit or revert yet today. can take to AN3 if he continues. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

[Bishzilla is very pleased.] It's the little Aunva6! Not to run away again! [Stuffs little Aunva in her pocket. Sternly:] Stay! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 17:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC).

@Aunva6, you are mistaken, not sure you are looking in the right places which is the article Women in punk rock and associated talk page Talk: Women in punk rock and also their user page. I am more concerned about the insults/attacks than the edit warring, which is simply annoying. In actuality they did make their last edit today by yet again restoring their disputed content on the article, this is the 4th time (along with insults in a couple different venues.) This started a week ago. Netherzone (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I do have an opinion about the disagreement, Netherzone, but I won't share it (in order to remain able to "admin" the article in case it's needed). It's a problem that there are only the two of you arguing. You obviously need more eyes on the article. Try Wikipedia:Third opinion, perhaps? As for the personal attacks, DrKC MD is being fairly rude, yes, but I don't think it rises to where I warn them about personal attacks. Better focus on getting the conflict resolved. As for being the fourth revert, as you tell Aunva... no. What counts is how many reverts they've made after you warned them about edit warring. By my count that's only one. All their edits are not reverts, some are merely additions of new sources. Bishonen | tålk 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC).

I guess the other two warnings I put in edit summaries don't count Netherzone (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, warnings should be on the person's page, to make sure they see them. Bishonen | tålk 18:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC).

Thanks for letting me know. Just want you to know, tho, they are now editing logged out Talk:Women in punk rock#Any objection to creation of an entry for 2020s to support their own "consensus". I'm going to step away from this, however. Netherzone (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

just an update, personal attacks and edit warring have resumed. i've created an AN3 case regarding his edit warring, etc. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Also accusing others of personal attacks and vandalism, both of which are untrue. Netherzone (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right on both counts, Netherzone. Noting that I'd previously warned the user for personal attacks, I've blocked them for 36 hours. Bishonen | tålk 12:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC).

Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

For our hard-working hard-hat ...

	... who is busily shoring up the enwiki infrastructure.
	Thanks for making sure that New York's architecture stays up to code. Havradim leaf a message 20:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Havradim. Hard hats should be compulsory for admins; all we get is a crappy T-shirt.

(Help, little talkpage stalkers; how do I get the yellow award to stop extending itself to everything downstream?) Bishonen | tålk 10:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC).

I think I fixed it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have the best stalkers. Thanks, John. Bishonen | tålk 11:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC).

Contentious edits of a user.

Hello @Bishonen, hope your doing well. An editor is adding questionable pov-pushing edits here [12], [13], as well as using religious sources with[14],[15] and additions that are looking like those of a troll account[16].

I reverted a few edits and asked him to gain consensus. However, as is typical with such accounts, he left me a message[17] attributing vandalism to me. Currently, he is engaged in an edit war, reverting my changes instead of first seeking consensus on the talk pages, as I advised. Could you please look into this? StarkReport (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The editor in question is now using Talk:Aisha#Use of Sahih Bukhari for age during marriage consummation to seek consensus.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Two problem editors there. The one being discussed, and also see their edit to this new problem editor [18] "As for you adding contents, please use contents supported by peer reviewed sources. Kawrno Baba (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)". Kawrno Baba thinks Hadith's are reliable sources for fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen

Thank you for the message you left on my talkpage. You could have a taken stronger action and it would have been in your right to do so, but you acted in good faith and gave me the benefit of the doubt, thinking that as it has been years since I left, I must have forgotten, and you were right. I totally forgot. Thank you for that, and my sincere apologies. I used to work on many African related articles and not just Serer, but agree that I spent a huge time on Serer related articles. No disagreement there! There was a reason for that. And please don't assume I'm looking for a pity party, because that's not my character and that's not the point of writing the following. Apologies in advance for the long essay. I'm long winded (lol). I just want you to understand so you see where I was coming from. My tribe are a minority group throughout the Senegambia region. Even worse, my people have been persecuted for centuries because of our religious beliefs and ethnicity. Even today, my tribe is disenfranchised, and viewed as the scorn of society and suffer prejudice. Due to our turbulent history, a huge chunk of our history has been lost because of what our ancestors went through for centuries. Despite what our ancestors went through, including being driven from their lands because of their religious beliefs and ethnicity, genocide, rape, slavery, confescation of their properties, jihads, appropriation of their culture, etc., our ancestors still survived and preserved what they could of their identity to pass it down to their descendants so that their descendants never forget where they came from. Whilst the other tribes of Senegambia are more numerous, my tribe is not. Hence why you are more likely to find articles about the Wolof, Fula, Mandinka, etc, than about the Serer. I have been fortunate enough to spend decades studying the history of the Serer, as well as the history of the Senegambia region and its people, and West Africa. And through the years, I have acquired a large number of books on the subject, many of which are now out of print. The history of the Serer people of Senegambia is practically been wiped out of the general history of the Senegambia by some of the dominant groups, and what was historically regarded as part of Serer culture and history is now being taken for themselves. For that very reason, over a year ago, the president of Senegal appointed one of Senegal's historians to write the general history of Senegal, with strong ties to one of the dominant group. When that was published, it was as if the Serer never had a stake in Senegal or the Senegambia region to be exact. The Serer associations of Senegal took a strong stance against it. Historical figures, terms, etc., that you can only decipher by referring to Serer (the original source), and not any other language, etc., made historians to question the credibility of the book. The author had to concede and agreed to re-work the book. This is what my people have been going through for years. Now, our persecution and disenfranchisement is more sublte than direct like what our ancestors faced. Our ancestors used to assign Serer names and meanings to things they created so that, only those who know the language and the symbolisms can decispher them. That was to help their descendants never forget who they are and where they came from. Due to the materials I've accumulated over the years, which is a priviledge, as many from my tribe do not have access to those materials, I thought it useful to document my people's history on Wikipedia which is free and the most used for finding out things. Maybe someone else might have later created or edited a particular article about the Serer, maybe they might not. I don't know. However, I felt it would be very selfish of me, to sit on a huge collection of materials without sharing it with the world, especially knowing that some of my people will not have access to those materials. In my passion and attempt to put the history of my people on Wiki's pages of history, I offended many people and Wiki policy, and for that, I sincerely apologise, because that was never ever my intent. Respectfully, I was not even planning of coming back to Wiki due to work and family life, but had another grandson earlier this year. When I looked at his little face, I remember how lucky he is and what his ancestors went through to make sure he is here. I could have simply passed on my collection to his father to make sure he gets it and know where he came from, but what about the other Serer babies who might not have access to it? What about the other generation? What about others who might not even be Serer but simply wants to learn? These are the reasons I decided to come back, in order to help the project in the area I know more about, and do whatever I can to the best of my ability to advance this great project for the next generation of Wiki editors. I do not doubt that I might make mistakes. We are all humans and we all make mistakes. The best thing we can do is to learn from those mistakes, and improve, because life is about learning, and learning never stops. After serving this project for over a decade, I think I have learnt a lot, moreso, in the last 5 years which has given me opportunity to reflect and be the best I could possibly be. Thank you for taking the time to read this long essay, but just to thank you and to give you some perspective. Have a great weekend.Tamsier (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Tamsier, I feel I'm not getting through, but I'll try one more time. This will be your last chance of not being blocked. You are topic banned from all edits related to the Serer people. That applies on all Wikipedia pages. This page, my talkpage, is a Wikipedia page. Writing a long text here about the importance of Serer history is a violation of your topic ban. Will you do something for me? Please read WP:TBAN to see the official definition of what a topic ban is and what it means. It's only short. Bishonen | tålk 19:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC).

Daniel Coronell

Hello Bishonen, if you're not too busy, do you think I could trouble you to look at this weird vandalism ring I found? The edits primarily concern the IP 170.55.41.66 and are mostly targeted at the articles Daniel Coronell, schools and institutions in the South Florida area and various sportspeople. Basically this IP has been adding hoaxes and changing random information. They have added non-existent awards to Daniel Coronell in this edit and the several edits following it, as well as this edit, and several edits in the past few weeks, which you could check the page history if you want to see those. They added information about a non-existent town to Chazz Woodson in this edit and linked a Google Sites about the made-up town. They've also added the names of people who appear to be students of Ransom Everglades School to various articles, such as here, here, here, here, and here. They've also committed random vandalism like this, this, this, this, this, this, whatever this is, this, this, this fiasco, this, and this. This account, Koolio Kat, also seems to have partaken. There's probably more but this is the obvious stuff. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it appears that their most recent three edits violated the final warning given by Muboshgu on their talk page. Sorry if it's a lot but I've had my eye on them for about a couple months now. If I had to guess I'd say it's probably a bored Miami-area teenager who thinks that Wikipedia is their playground. Not sure though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow — well, I am in fact pretty busy right now, AllTheUsernames, sorry. And I see a lot of your diffs, while certainly bad, are pretty old. Do you think you could appeal to Materialscientist, who blocked for a month in 2021, or, perhaps better, Muboshgu, who warned recently? Or, of course, to WP:ANI. Bishonen | tålk 08:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC).

No problem. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, it does appear stale to me, the oldest edit was about two weeks ago. If they return, we should respond promptly. I'll notice if they're back on those baseball articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: They just made an unexplained content removal at Zhanna Pintusevich-Block. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse. Yes, it's formally an unexplained content removal, but I'm not sure the text they removed should have been there in the first place. People ought to use edit summaries, yes, but I wouldn't call that vandalism. Bishonen | tålk 12:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

Fair. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Ratnahastin

admin sir. This user @Ratnahastin removed reliable/sourced information from Graharipu and he reverted blocked user version. please block him. Hcsrctu (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hcsrctu: There was a lot of caste-cruft in your edits which I am sure anyone would find wrong. Anyway, I would simply suggest you to read WP:HISTRS. Outdated sources from colonial period and new age publications are not reliable for this subject. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: Scholars and historians have mentioned Graharipu as Yadava and Abhira but you people have problem only with Abhira word. It is clearly visible from your editing that you promote casteism. I don't know why you people feel that the present Ahirs are the ancient Abhiras. Hcsrctu (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The version you were trying to restore had been rejected by @Utcursch: [19] in past, inspite of this you participated in a slow edit war to restore your preferred version multiple times [20][21]. You have been notified about active sanctions in this topic area,I would suggest you to be more careful on how you conduct yourself.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• That won't happen, Hcsrctu. Would my talkpage stalkers care to take a look at those sources? They sound dodgy to me. Bishonen | tålk 08:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: You look at the Graharipu article where it is showing that The Chudasamas began to rule in Sourashtra from the second half of the 10th century A.D but the sources mention Abhiras not Chudasamas. And there it is also showing that Hemachandra in the Dvyashraya-Kavya describe Graharipu as a Yadava. But the Source mentions Graharipu as an Abhira and a Yadava. Hcsrctu (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Unacceptable language in article talk by SPA

Hi Bishonen, hope everything is fine! Please have a look at this POV-pusher Rahul pal jadoun's edit here! Since they couldn't remove sourced content, they are abusing and using unacceptable language; 'chutiye' in Hindi means 'fu**er'! Would request you to warn/take necessary action. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Thank you, Ekdalian. Bishonen | tålk 21:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

Thank you so much for your prompt action. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

User_talk:Sudsahab#April_2024

Would you mind having a look...? Drmies (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

But it's so complicated..! OK, I'll try. Bishonen | tålk 16:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC).

Many thanks and much love. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bishonen test categories

Good day. I came upon Category:Bishonen test categories because it was erroneously placed in Category:Category-Class Wikipedia articles. It looks like this category and its subcategories were created out of the discussion at User talk:Bishonen/Archive 24#Red link categories, but that the result of that discussion, including this edit, is that the categories are no longer needed and can be deleted. Is that correct? Bsherr (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Bsherr, insofar as they were ever needed, they certainly aren't now. I find the discussion in my archive that you link to rather heavy going; I can only hope that deleting those cats won't lead to them appearing in red on my pages, making me again a mark for complaints. Johnuniq, you took care of it, right? Do you think deleting them will have any deleterious (ha!) effects? Bishonen | tålk 21:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC).

I believe Category:Bishonen test categories and its four subcategories can be deleted with no bad side effects. The category should also be removed from User:Bishonen/Useful warnings which I can do if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do, John. I guess you rightly surmise that I'm not sure which one (ones?) might be trouble. Bishonen | tålk 08:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC).

Done, it was just a simple removal. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Very good. I have tagged them for speedy deletion with an edit summary linking to this section. (I have also removed the empty category templates, since I think it is actually inapplicable to these categories.) Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done I live for the opportunity to delete something Bishonen created. MWAHAHAHA. Floquenbeam the Destroyer (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You're so deleterious. (Is nobody impressed by my fine learned pun?) Bishonen | tålk 20:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC).

April music

story · music · places

today you can look at the last three stories or "music" on my talk: the same topics, Youth Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine, Samuel Kummer and (pictured) one row of 8 double basses and another of 5 bassists ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

And spring has come to my page! Thank you, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC).

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

Nyttend

• JohnOwens
• Killiondude
• MelanieN
• Nihonjoe

Bureaucrat changes

Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe

Oversight changes

GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news

• Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring & persistent disruptive editing by SPA

Hi Bishonen.. would request you to check the revision history of Varna (Hinduism). An apparently new user Parsikan is edit warring in spite of all possible warnings on their talk page! Moreover, you may have a look at this edit summary, where the user has also engaged in personal attack labelling me as a 'caste propagator'! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you both, most kind! Bishonen | tålk 20:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC).

Indeed, it is a most felicitous and happy day. What a jubilee for you to celebrate, so many long years of service to this esteemed project, I think a Wikipedian Damehood is called for, then you’ll be almost (but not quite) as elevated as me. I doubt I was old enough, or even born, at the time of your elevation to vote, but you continue to amaze those of us not even half your age. Now do take care and don’t overtax yourself (although, I doubt anyone is more over taxed than me, it’s blatant robbery, I blame that Mrs Truss and that dreadful Trump man). I’ll post you a nice blanket and some vitamin pills to ensure your continued dedication to this fine project. Avec beaucoup d'amour comme toujours as we say on Monte Carlo were I’m exiled to live in near penury. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)