User talk:Bishonen

Hello, well-coiffed reader. There's no need to post "Talkback" or "You've got mail" templates here. I watch my e-mail, and also your talkpage if I've posted on it.

Thank you Penyulap for the unique hamster-powered fairybread barnstar!

Yet another request from ignorant admin

Oh dear. Kind talkpage stalkers, please, how can I get rid of the categories (hidden and visible) on this page? I understand where they come from, but not how to exterminate them. :-( Bishonen | talk 12:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

AWB might have something. i'll look into it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 12:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

nope. the categories are due to the transclusions, I think. they aren't technically on the page. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 12:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• If you look at a test page I created you'll find both the full series of spam warnings and {{uw-sblock}}, with no hidden categories. If you want me to I can test it on your page too, just to make sure it works there too. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What? Not this page, Thomas — this page! You're very welcome to fix it for me. If you give Bishonen a fish, she'll be happy; if you teach her to fish, she'll mess it up and starve to death. Bishonen | talk 13:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC).
    • Yes, I know. My solution is for your "useful warnings" page, removing the hidden spam warning categories there. Look at the test page to see what it displays, and then click on "edit source". No hidden categories. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Maybe I should be a bit more specific. If you go to your "useful warnings" page and click "edit source", and then go to the very bottom of the page, you'll find a list of hidden categories for that page. Which on your "useful warnings" page are users with spam warnings 1, 2, 3 and 4 and users with a temporary block for spamming. Which I'm sure you don't want to be listed as. But if you look at my test page you'll see all of those warnings, and the block message, displayed in full on the page, but with no hidden categories. Which is what I assume you're looking for. The hidden categories are added by the templates, through code embedded in them, code that my solution disables. Meaning that the templates display the messages but don't add the hidden categories. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes. Won't you please be kind and do the same thing on my useful warnings page? Actually edit it? Bishonen | talk 13:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

 Done. All the hidden spam categories are now gone and your good reputation has been restored, yet all the messages are still there. The only hidden category that is left on the page is "Noindexed pages" which is standard for all user talk pages and simply tells "the system" not to look there when a user makes a search. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC) (I'll leave my test page as it is in case someone else want's to use the text/code there...)

[Checks out the edits.] Wow, complicated! Good job I didn't try to do that. Thank you! But… the hidden categories are gone, but how about the visible (=sock/puppeteer) categories? It was when those appeared at the foot of the page today that I realized the problem, belatedly you may say. They're still there. I'm a sock and a puppeteer. :-( (Well, I am, but I don't want to admit it on that page.) Bishonen | talk 16:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

I think I can fix that too, if you want me to. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I sure do. It's embarrassing! What do you think users Bishzilla and Darwinbish will say? Bishonen | talk 16:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

It might be a bit more complicated than the other templates since the sockpuppeteer/sockpuppet templates aren't substed, meaning that there's no "raw text" to manipulate. But I'll see what I can do. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do subst 'em if that makes it simpler. I only left them unsubsted because I had a kind of feeling they may change from time to time, possibly more radically than ordinary block messages. But that's no big deal, as I always check the result when I leave a message anyway (said the AfD'er of WP:ANI virtuously). Bishonen | talk 16:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

It seems like you can't subst them, but I found a workaround, so take a look at this. It's a simple fix for both the sockpuppet template and the sockpuppeteer template, and doesn't add your page to either of those categories, and I think I can do that for the other SP templates on your page too. Would that be useful? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

\o/ You went and dug out the actual text? Cool. Useful, absolutely. Bishonen | talk 17:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

The only template that is problematic is the {{sockpuppeteer|blocked}}, because you can't get that text without actually using the template, which adds the category (which means that even the template documentation page has been added to the sockpuppeteer category...). Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I did this edit to remove the categories. I went to the sock template page and saw how they put the examples on the documentation page. They used |category= which is available if you use the template where the redirects end up. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

((edit conflict), because I was just about to say) *Ha. Thank you, Johnuniq! Bishonen | talk 02:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC).

Hi

Using the subject/headline of "hi" ... pretty unoriginal, and rather pathetic, I know.

In any event, I was just replying to your question, of which I'm unduly late as I seemed to have overlooked it on my talkpage. For reference before reading futher, see here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:87.232.1.48

That user is not me (block that fucker) but I wouldnt trust the "geolocate to the same country" rhetoric as these days you can never be too sure. As even users who seems to edit with the same IP as me ARE NOT ME. Comprendè? I'm responsible for say 70% of the edits and so will be singing off in future with....

BFD (big fucking deal)

87.232.1.48 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Yes, that was a while ago… (looking). Right, as I said at the time, I thought it highly unlikely that 94.234.170.86 was telling the truth about being you, and I did block the fucker. See block log here. Being indistinguishable from others is one of the occupational hazards of editing from an IP. Why don't you create an account? The name BFD seems to be taken (though with no contributions nor userpages), but I'm sure you can think of something. Bishonen | talk 19:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/George134

Hi, Just started this and wanted you let you know. LGA _talk^edits 08:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder what he'll make of the SPI report, or your template for that matter. Did you see he thought you — or rather somebody unknown, or perhaps me — anyway, someone who ought to apologize — were accusing him of being you? (That would have been a real stroke of genius from a more experienced editor pretending to be new, and I AGF that he's not a genius.) When I explained that was not the case and introduced him to the use of signatures, in my jumped-up bullying way, he blanked the page. Bishonen | talk 09:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

Yep I did see it; I just find the whole jumping in with two feet into an area (which until yesterday I did not know existed) with existing arbcom sanctions a little suspect; I might be wrong but it has the whiff of topic ban evasion. LGA _talk^edits 09:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

For example he manages to sign his fourth edit but then seems to forget to sign others; I can understand not signing; but he did sign and then forgot all about it and had to have it pointed out by you that I was signing my post. LGA _talk^edits 09:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting that he signed that, I missed it. And he knew how to make an edit request, good heavens! Looks like I've been taken for a ride, doesn't it? Btw, have you seen his credentials "as an English historian myself" according to Google? Check it out, it's interesting. I got the search terms from here. A vanity publisher. (Have you considered "writing" your family history?). And here's the other distinguished historian (and philosopher), PDM! Bishonen | talk 09:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

I still may be wrong; and he may be, as your first instinct, just a new editor but think a CU having a look around cant hurt in this case. LGA _talk^edits 11:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I've pinged Tom Reedy, a longtime editor of the Shakespeare Authorship Question, about the SPI. Bishonen | talk 10:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

the more eyes the better. LGA _talk^edits 11:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I really must unwatch Bishonen's talk page because it offers far too many distractions. Anyway, I noticed this discussion and popped over to the SPI. As I have stated there, checkuser evidence suggests it is very  Likely the two accounts are related. Hope this helps! AGK [•] 16:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this page is full of the unlikely and the weird, I like it. :-) Thanks for taking care of it, Anthony. Did you happen to notice also if George134 is himself a sock used to evade a block or topic ban at Shakespeare Authorship Question, per LGA's argument above? I was hoping Tom Reedy would have a suggestion as to likely sockmaster/s, but he's being lapidary.[1] I don't know whether the log of SAQ blocks and bans here would be of any help? Quite a number of those blocks/bans have expired, and I presume the live ones are of the most interest. Yay, more Checkuser distractions for you! Bishonen | talk 19:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

Sorry

I'm sorry I lashed out at you. You can put your comment back if you want.

I am very stressed and embarrassed because I'm not allowed to appeal the ban I've been given, which is essentially a gag rule so I can be blocked for mentioning the rules Admins have broken to give it. So basically I'm technically blocked for at least six months and there's nothing I can do about it and Floq is refusing to do anything himself about it. Bbb23 is abusing his powers as owner of my ban to make it so I can be blocked for anything.

If you're not my enemy, will you help me where he won't? Will you be the new owner of my ban? TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't and won't. ArbCom owns your ban, insofar as anybody does. I suggest you appeal to them by e-mail. I notice (on your page) that Floquenbeam has adviced you against such an appeal, though. He knows much more about it than me — I haven't followed your case — so I'm pretty sure you'd be wise to listen to him. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

Pls watchlist

From the recent exchange at this page I'm getting the scent of evasion. Hope I'm wrong. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you're wrong. (I don't really know everything; I asked a checkuser on IRC.) Thanks for keeping an eye out. Note also that the edit warring block of the user you have in mind expired a few minutes ago. Hope it was a learning experience. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC).

Oh goody! Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent message

Many thanks for your recent message, the point of which I've noted. However, you didn't address the edit summaries used by the IP where he consistently described User:The Vintage Feminist as a known spammer - thus giving rise to the reversion of his edits. Regards Denisarona (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Denisarona. I noticed, yes; I should probably have mentioned it in my comment. Rude edit summaries. A little oddly, though, you complained on the IP's page that they had "removed some content from Seann Walsh without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary." But there was an edit summary. It would have been more informative for the user if you'd specified that the edit summary was not acceptable because it assumed bad faith, which we're not supposed to do here. The IP is presumably not a practised Wikipedia user (such as you and Vintage Feminist); we should assume they need stuff explained nicely. And "giving rise to"... well, I can understand the edit summaries rubbed you the wrong way and made your finger itch for the rollback button, but it doesn't seem to me that they were a real good reason to re-insert the content that the IP had quite reasonably removed. While we're on edit summaries, also, please don't use the bald rollback summary for reverting non-vandalism. Something explanatory is more likely to be helpful, and more polite. Bishonen | talk 13:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC).

Accusations re policy on inline comments vs. top- or bottom- posting.

Bishonen, I find your accusations (diff) rather hostile, and lack foundation, and seem to do the opposite of assume good faith. Specifically, you said a) I "made it sound"…? and b) I "alter this page to give"? Really? Re. a): You make it sound like I did something deceptive or improper. Can you back up your accusation that I should have made the revert some other way, by showing me what guidance tells me I should have done it differently? Re. b):It sounds like you are telling me what I think, and I assure you, you are mistaken. You don't know what I think, so don't presume to. And the accusation isn't even plausible, because (if I'm not mistaken) policy changes aren't retroactive. Carol merely said the text was unclear in her discussion page section title*, but instead of clarifying it, radically changed it. Her edit summary was, "Others' comments: since no one replied in talk I put in what is usually done regarding interruptions, in my experience". I didn't "make it sound like this was just added" any more than you made it sound like the change was proposed and discussed on talk before it was made. The pros and cons of inline comments vs. top- or bottom-posting have been debated for decades. Are you ignorant of such debates? Did you mean to attack me for a revert of one person's changing of policy on such an (in my view) obviously contentious issue with no feedback or discussion in a major forum? It's not like it was brought to the Village Pump. Just to make indisputable that I don't seek an advantage in a dispute with my edit, I'll wait till said dispute is over. In the meantime, if you have a basis for your revert that isn't related to editors, but rather relates to the merits of the change to policy, please provide it. If you don't, then consider that it might be appropriate for you to undo your revert. --Elvey (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

For reference:

• The lone talk page comment, which was by Carol: diff.*
• Carol's guideline edit: diff.

I follow WP:TPG and noticed Elvey's edit to the guideline (diff) and Bishonen's revert (diff). It is best to focus on what might help the encyclopedia, and working out whether there was some flaw in Bishonen's edit summary of a week ago is unlikely to provide any benefit. Instead, if a proposal to change the TPG guideline was reverted, the proposal should be discussed at WT:Talk page guidelines in a section created by whoever wants to justify the change. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted you, right, Elvey. That's how the word "revert" is used in this place. It's absurd, on the other hand, to talk of you "reverting" Carolmooredc's edit from nine months ago: an edit which clarified "what is usually done regarding interruptions", apparently very uncontroversially, since nobody objected to it at the time, and nobody has objected to it since. Not until you removed Carol's sentence last week, at a time when you were being criticized for interrupting other people's comments on talkpages. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. And no, I'm not aware that the "pros and cons" of interrupting others' posts "have been debated for decades". Have they really? Now I'm depressed. It doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable matter for "debate" whether or not we should avoid needlessly annoying other editors. Even though it can sometimes, under circumstances which are outlined in the guideline, be convenient to post inside another's comment, it's the merest, barest courtesy to refrain from breaking up other people's posts when they object to it — and that's what Carol's sentence addressed. But feel free to take this important "debate" to WT:Talk page guidelines. Start an RfC about it. Take it to the Village Pump. Bishonen | talk 12:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC).

I see my comment, without response, at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_9 plus an editor's earlier discussion which I evidently missed here. If people didn't like what I wrote they should have worked on better language on the talk page. I'm not thinking about the topic much currently so don't have any real input right now. You might move the substantive part of the general discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines and get input there. User:Carolmooredc 15:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"Interleaving was the predominant reply style in the Usenet discussion lists, years before the existence of the WWW and the spread of e-mail and the Internet outside the academic community." -Wikipedia It is also the predominant style on IETF mailing lists. So what you term "interrupting others' posts" has been and remains not just acceptable behavior, but best practice in many important arenas. "Interleaving continues to be used on technical mailing lists where clarity within complex threads is important" - ibid. On Wikipedia, clarity within complex threads is important, and interleaving, properly done, is an effective means to that end and is best practice. As noted here, within many years of discussion history,

Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>> Top-posting.
>>> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

I wrote, "You make it sound like I did something deceptive or improper. Can you back up your accusation that I should have made the revert some other way, by showing me what guidance tells me I should have done it differently?" You did not do so - were unable to, I conclude, as instead, you simply insist that you're right because, well, no reason, but assert that to think otherwise is 'absurd'. All the folks who don't think bottom posting is best are absurd to think so? Johnuniq was right - if a proposal to change the TPG guideline was reverted, the proposal should be discussed at WT:Talk page guidelines in a section created by whoever wants to justify the change. --Elvey (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not explain, but why my name is mentioned is a complete mystery. Talk pages are pretty simple, and why there is this much fuss is beyond me. If an editor wants a change, make a proposal on the relevant talk page (not here)! How hard is that? Lots of people, including me, notice edits at WP:TPG. If edits are not reverted for an extended period, it is very likely that the edits are supported by consensus—changes from that consensus require discussion if reverted. I suppose Bishonen has to tolerate silliness on her talk, but "back up your accusation" is absurd and any discussion following that degree of misthinking is sure to be unproductive, so my recommendation would be to delete and/or archive this whole section. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Accusations. That is the topic of this section. (Not talk pages. Not you.) There was no need for 'em, true or false. Bishonen could have simply been civil and asserted something like what you said - "Lots of people, including me, notice edits at WP:TPG. If edits are not reverted for an extended period, it is very likely that the edits are supported by consensus—changes from that consensus require discussion if reverted." and reverted my revert. Had she been civil, this section wouldn't exist. --Elvey (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist!

'Doh! Yeah, I posted my note for an evaluation in the wrong place. Thanks for the assist in moving it to the right area. In my defense I blame the lack of sleep and way too much coffee.

I see that the OP that has been ignoring the RFC decision has been notified, which means that even editors that utilize IP addresses rather than user names must be notified, something I had expected was not needed since, well, dynamically-assigned IP addresses don't point too well to specific editors. Guess I'll be sure to notify IP accounts from now on. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Roger Kibbe

Could you take a look at the Roger Kibbe article, a user is re-adding a image which is not of the subject again and again even after being warned. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think my warning of notifying you helped him realise his mistake. Hopefully.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hope so. The publication of a picture of somebody random in a serial killer's article is obviously a BLP vio against the actual person in the picture. "I think it's Roger"... hmm. A little difficult to assume good faith there. If it really is "own work" (and the quality suggests it is), then the user presumably knows who they snapped. Someone they don't like, or want to joke with? I'll keep an eye out, but feel free to remove the image on BLP grounds (put that in the edit summary) if it should turn up again. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC).

P.S. I've nominated the image for deletion on Commons, something I've never done before; hope I did it right... Anyway, here's the deletion discussion. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC).

Thank you for taking care of this Bish. Could you also take a look at user Something20130828 who has made edits on Simona Williams, the user seems to admit sockpuppeting or similar at his talk page. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I just want to ask you to have a eye on user Something20130828 the user is definitly POV pushing and I have seen that kind of behaviour before and when challenged they always go on personal attacks. I hope the user will not go out of control. I just find it kind of weird that he invest so much time on Simona Willims he seem to almost have a personal relationship of some kind with her.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Spalagdama

Hej, Bish. You might find this SPI (which is related to this discussion on my talk page) interesting. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, that is interesting. I don't think I need to weigh in, as far as I've seen. It's good that I'm mentioned (by both you and Spalagdama, LOL), and it was also a good idea to link to the convo on your talk. Please don't let yourself get baited into any more back-and-forth on the SPI page, unless you think something S says is actually likely to mislead clerks/checkusers. They're not dumb, and attacking you isn't going to make S look any better. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC).

I know, that's why I disengaged, pointed S to WP:ANI (plus a link to WP:Boomerang) and then just added a few more diffs. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to add an update; a decision was reached (in the above) after Thomas.W's report was unearthed as having been erroneous. So I agree the moderators/clerks/checkusers certainly aren't dumb.Spalagdama (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a blatant lie. No decision has been made (which can be clearly seen on the SPI), and my report is not erroneous. Do you really think people around here are stupid enough to be fooled by your lies? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think there must be some misunderstanding, Spalagdama. There hasn't been any decision on this SPI report. It's still open and no CheckUser has looked at it yet. (Adding on the hoof: Thomas, please look and learn, seriously. Spalagdama was mistaken. Clearly, they're not stupid enough to lie about it and think I wouldn't check.) Bishonen | talk 19:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC).

Judging by what I've seen so far, yes, they are. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC) (<sigh> Ibland undrar jag varför jag lägger/ödslar tid på WP när det finns så mycket annat jag kan göra, som försöka lära mig använda min nya alldeles för avancerade mobiltelefon...)

Thomas. W, I suppose according to you, everyone (including moderators) is either spewing "lies", and/or 'stupid enough to be fooled by lies', only you with your erroneous reporting, obsessive compulsive stalking, and infantile vendettas are the only 'truth-sayer', yes? Seriously with 'logic' like this, who can even argue.Spalagdama (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spalagdama#Dispute_between_you_and_Thomas_W. <--link with Daniel Case's reference to Thomas.W's erroneous report

(Could everybody stop edit conflicting me, please?) Spalagdama, I've no idea what that convo on your page, where you're also atrociously rude by the way, has to do with this thread, which concerns the SPI report; a report which has been repeatedly linked above for your convenience. You made a mistake and said something that wasn't so; and you think that's the appropriate comment for you to make about it? I've had about enough of your bile and lousy manners on my page. Don't post here again. And if you talk to Thomas.W (or anybody else) like that again on any page, I'll block you for personal attacks. [Crossposted to your page to make sure you see it..] Bishonen | talk 20:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC).

@Bishonen I think everybody can see that your chum Thomas. W is being atrociously rude in the comments above, referring to others as liars. I don't see you chastising him for his behavior, but if someone retaliates (i.e. refers to his erroneous reports as lies, they're "atrociously rude"). Come on. There is absolutely nothing "atrociously rude" in telling someone to stop stalking you, to stop filing erroneous reports against you and to stop sending you 1001 comment alerts every single day. I've about had enough of it. Now he's getting you to do his work, but the discerning amongst readers will be able to see exactly who was/is making "personal attacks", stalking and misrepresenting others. Like I said above, before disengaging, that with logic such as this, who can even argue. If you don't want me posting on your page, kindly do not post on mine either. And if that didn't register let me put it this way, you and your buddy especially, need to leave me alone. [Crossposted to my page to make sure I am not misrepresented..]Spalagdama (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That's history, a small incident on the way to the SPI, and does not in any way clear you or prove anything. It's also a very temporary reprieve. What matters is the SPI, that's what decides your fate, and the SPI hasn't even been looked at yet. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Help needed!!

Hi Bishonen!! - being a an Admin and short of idea where to refer to my problem - I am asking you for advice and help as previously I had interaction with you on other matters.

I just went to my User page User:Jethwarp and found it has a CSD notice going to its history page [2] I am not able to find who has done this mischief as there are no edit records. Also I am not able to remove tag as while editing I do not find any CSD tag in page. Very strange and puzzled. Please, can you help me in this matter to remove tag !! and how it has appeared ? Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I just removed all content of my page to remove CSD notice (which was invisble to me) ?? Jethwarp (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

How very strange. Checking through the history, I could pinpoint that this edit was where it happened. As you can see, it was just you adding the bouncing wikiball. Doesn't make any sense, but I removed the wikiball, and that fixed it. A bug? Or did somebody screw with the wikiball template? If that was it, it must have happened on many pages. I don't have time to check out the template — gotta run — you might ask at WP:Village Pump/Technical. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 08:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC).

Ohhh!!! That is very strange!! Thanks a lot for your help and immediate response. You are a life (userpage) saver. - Jethwarp (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• You're very welcome, Jethwarp. Kind talkpage stalkers, could somebody check out the template [[User:EWikist/Templates/BouncingWiki]] and see if some malicious code has been added? Bishonen | talk 08:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC).

• It's just that the CSD template was not no-transcluded. Should be easy to fix. Don't see any malicious code. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Bishonen. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Me? No, I'm not. I think the bot must be contacting every admin who ever protected a page. Bishonen | talk 22:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC).

nah, I think that it's every registered user that used the feedback tool... I got it too. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to make the point that I never did use the feedback tool. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC).

Yes you did, otherwise you would not have received this note. If you continue to deny obvious truths in the face of undeniable evidence, you will be blocked from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please, Sir! I apologize, admit my mistake, will learn to avoid previous pitfalls and work to address all of the issues, pave the road, seek redemption, and face the music! I understand exactly why I was warned and how right it was that I should be, and feel deep remorse! Bishonen | talk 02:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC).

Not bad, although it could do with another "Sir" or two. Blocking postponed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, Your Adminship! May I touch the hem of your garment? Bishonen | talk 16:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC).

• (talk page stalker comment) I believe that's what's called sucking up. I think I'll copy Bish's post and save it somewhere in case I need it one day...  :) Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thomas, or you could go straight to my source here (which is sourced in turn). Feel free to edit the Optimist's Guide! Bishonen | talk 16:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC).

Chelsea/Bradley Manning RPP

Bishonen,

Could you look at the article history again please? I counted 4 reverts by NorthBySouthBaranof within the last 24-hours, [3], [4], [5], and [6]. He was warned twice ([7] & [8]). I don't see that my warning him again would accomplish anything and it is past 3RR. I did miscount on the other individual. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Sorry, I didn't look back beyond where the category quarrel started, but you're quite right, there was another revert before then. I don't want to protect, though, since it's basically one user being disruptive. I've blocked them for 24 hours. (StAnselm made two reverts, if that's who else you were thinking of. These two edits are at most one revert, if you look at what they contain.) Thanks for alerting me about this. Bishonen | talk 06:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC).

Jimbo desysop discussion.

Somehow, I managed to miss the discussion at Jimbo's page while in progress, but I'm reading it with fascination.

However, I think you might have missed a crucial word. When you accused Jimbo of hairsplitting here, it looks like you thought Jimbo said "If he does not, then I propose that we[sic] be desysopped", but he actually said "If he does not, then I do not propose that we[sic] be desysopped". (emphasis added)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah I think I've got it.

Jimbo said "If he doesn't apologize and indicate an understanding of policy at the end of a cool down period, I'm going to recommend that he either resign the admin bit or have it removed"

I think you read this as Jimbo saying:

1. Bbb23 should resign voluntarily. If not
2. I recommend that the community remove his bit.

However, I read it as Jimbo saying "I recommend that Bbb123 submit a resignation or BBB123 should ask someone to remove the bit.

Then Jimbo clarified, but I think you missed the "not"

I definitely understand your use of the word hairsplitting, given what (I think) you thought he meant. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh..? It looks like that? I must have been very unclear, or possibly you must have read rather fast. I did see that Jimbo said he did not propose desysopping Bbb23. I was addressing the contradiction between that statement and what he had said in the post I green-quoted, that you also quote above: "If he doesn't apologize" etc. (Link to that post here for the fascinated talkpage stalker.) In any case, I don't think your either-or reading cuts any mustard, because resigning the bit and asking someone to remove it are one and the same. To resign the bit = asking a 'crat to remove the bit. Happens on the bureaucrat's noticeboard all the time. It's the only way to resign the bit.

Then Jimbo clarified? Where was that? I admit it was more as a rhetorical device that I suggested he should take something back, because as far as I know he never does. I'm quite resigned to Jimbo not taking back what he said but instead "clarifying" that he really meant something completely different. I don't want to bore everybody by returning to the heady days of 2009, when he and I had a lengthy argument about his style of "clarification" — water under the bridge, though, my god, is he still making with the clarifications? — but I'll provide diffs on request. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC).

I see a major difference between suggesting that someone should consider resigning versus support a desysopping process. I'm surprised you see that as hairsplitting, so surprised, I thought perhaps there was another explanation. I guess I was wrong.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

All of which just makes me wonder about the Aarne–Thompson classification system, and whether it contains more cautionary tales about imperfect god-emperors or more exemplary tales of perfect kings, and which levels/flavours of civilization each type appears in most. I'd guess that an equal mix of the two types, would denote a self-aware culture, but that's probably just my inner Wikipedian's delusional OR rambling... –Quiddity (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

? I see a major difference between those two things too, Sphilbrick. I posted on Jimbo's page because I saw that difference, and have tried to express my sense of it there, as well as here. I don't understand you. But there's little point in continuing this exercise in mutual incomprehension. I expect we have both tried to be as clear as we know how, and there's little left to say. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC).

Seeing this section heading on my watchlist, I thought for a moment that someone had started a discussion about desysopping Jimbo; something I would support (preparatory to the de-foundering). We really don't need an unempathic, unreflective, "infallible, all-perfect" pontiff claiming to speak for this movement, and exercising special powers over it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I proposed desysopping Jimbo in 2009. That's a hard sell, but he did agree to renounce use of the block button, see Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales#Arbitration Committee. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC).

Actually I would support too. If he actually participated in a meaningful way then I would say no. But he doesn't use the tools anyway, so really he's just another inactive admin. We ask him for help and he doesn't do anything but then when some celebrity bumps into him at Shakira's house and asks about their unfair BLP he's all over it. Its the worst sort of POV. He either needs to take a role or not, but not do it when the mood strikes him. As far as I'm concerned at this point he can leave a message at ANI like any other editor. Kumioko (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"We ask him for help..." = "We want him to support our view of policy over others..."? Just saying if he disagrees with what you want, he's obviously not going to do anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't that he disagrees, he has agreed on multiple occassions and has said in several that he was going to do things and never did. We're all still waiting for his ideas on RFA reform that was supposed to be mentioned back in February. He was going to mention about a role change for him, that never materialized. I am ok with him disagreeing, but when he does agree and states he's going to take action, then he should follow through. Kumioko (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree on the RFA thing. I would have bet money that wasn't going to happen in the timeframe he put forth as reform is a complex topic as shown by the number of failed proposals. But he also gets smacked around when he doesn't "do anything" to further a pet policy or cause. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to be honest I generally favor the WMF staying out of our policy issues, especially given their past habits of dropping bombs on us like Visual Editor and forcing us to clean up the mess. There are many cases where we have been incapable of forming a consensus though and their help could be useful. So if the WMF isn't willing to help out when we want/need them too, then they need to stay out and go through us before making major changes. RFA reform is one example of inaction, the Visual Editor mess is another example of unwanted action. IMO, I would prefer this fall on the Arbcom or something like it where the community cannot make up our minds (but I don't have much faith in them either unfortunately). So, if the WMF wants to be involved then they need to take an active role, otherwise they need to vet things through the community not just show up whenever they feel like it. We are volunteers and donate our time to participate, they are paid so I have less sympathy about them having to do some of the dirty work they don't want to do. Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I got your hopes up :)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes. I had it in my mind that he'd further clarified his renunciation of the block button. But I must have been thinking of his right to ban editors. Ugh. What a situation. Sorry. I'm obviously in a very dark mood regarding our founder at the moment. He is a volunteer, and as best as I can tell gets nothing in return for his involvement here but a great deal of abuse from disgruntled people like me, for which I occasionally feel pangs of regret, but as an admin, he's not performing. At all. And as a figurehead and moral compass, he's MIA. Perhaps he's just tired of the whole thing and would willingly hand over the responsibilities if he could see a way of doing so that didn't put the project at risk.

There is a massive gap in governance here that could be filled by a presidential figure of some kind. Is there anything stopping us from elevating someone, by popular acclaim, to figurehead of ENWP? They could take over Jimbo's reserve powers at least in relation to this project, as the proposed president of Australia would simply take over Queen Elizabeth's reserve powers?

Is there a move afoot somewhere to create a "thematic organisation" or similar to cover EN:WP? If so, the ED or chair of that might fill the role of the founder here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We have the Arbcom. They are like a governing body and pretty nonfunctional like the US Congress. Maybe a Prime Arbitrator who can make "arbitrary" governing decisions? :-)Kumioko (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Aren't they more like the judiciary? The more I think about a non-profit with a bank account and a staff to support ENWP, the more I warm to the idea. I'm not sure they should hold the reserve powers, though. We could probably still use a president. Sorry. Just daydreaming out loud here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous....Bbb23 screwed up and had he done to me what he did to Jimbo I would have been asking him to resign too.--MONGO 14:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Asking someone to resign for one misjudgement is absurd; particularly when it involves being over-cautious around a BLP. Do you realize what you are saying at all? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

  Was it only one? I've seen other discussions involving Bbb23....so you think a fast revert in one case after a few minutes and in the other case after ONE minute is an indication of being over-cautious....interesting.--MONGO 14:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• If you actually bother to look at going on, yes, it was being over-cautious in terms of leaving potential BLP violations. And there are plenty of discussions surrounding most admins... most are baseless. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Jimbo doesn't deserve any more consideration than any other editor...but he isn't some troll either and he is sort of well known around these parts so any admin worth his mustard might have taken a moment to pause and check to see what Jimbo was posting...I highly doubt considering the time frames that Bbb23 did this. That's not overly cautious...that's ownership and excessive zeal.--MONGO 15:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Jimbo referenced a blog, which, related to a newspaper or not, is enough of an alarm bell for Bbb23's actions to be understandable and not fall under the ownership bag you're trying to throw. All Jimbo has shown is that he's out of touch with what most of the community thinks, and that he overreacts big style - far more than Bbb23 did. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• So Jimbo who helped develop and has long defended the BLP policy is to be assumed to be trolling? It's a matter or interpretation and a blog is not a RS but for the sake of a discussion on a talkpage it isn't a no go zone. One minute revert....that is bullshit.--MONGO 15:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Where the fuck did I, or anyone else, claim Jimbo was trolling? That's right, no one has, you've just pulled it out of your arse. I will repeat myself: it is perfectly logical for Bbb23 to have seen the word "blog", and, as they were already actively defending against unsourced or poorly-sourced comments left, right and centre, to have reverted it having spotted that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• One minute revert on a talkpage no less is reserved for the removal of a trolling comment....no admin should be doing it for anything less than pure vandalism or disruption. It's not logical at all. The fuss here is about Jimbo and his suggestion/demand/whatever that Bbb23 hand in his tools and in my opinion I do not think that would have been a bad idea. You say Bbb23 saw the word blog....I disagree...I don't think he bothered to look at all and for the sake of discussion on a talkpage, that blog is not an issue....you're simply trying to justify the unjustifiable.--MONGO 18:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• On the contrary, you're either blinded by "Jimbo is perfect"-type thoughts, or by a dislike of Bbb23. It takes 5 seconds to look at something, see the word blog, and revert it as a result. I think it's a fucking stupid idea that anyone should have to hand in their tools for one mistake, and Jimbo's call was based around this one situation, not over any other historical actions. It was a petulant and poorly thought-out reaction, that he's made a half-arsed attempt to backtrack on. If you're this blind to a perfectly logical and feasible explanation for Bbb23's actions, then you should probably disengage from the debate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Dead wrong on both counts in your first sentence. I thought Jimbo was wrong regarding Bishonen years ago. The only thing that saved Bbb23 on this matter is that he didn't use rollback on his edits. The reverts were still done with an arrogant and flippant petulance. What was he thinking? It's Jimbo...it must be a BLP violation? How stupid is that....pretty stupid! In fact I would label it idiotic.--MONGO 19:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar!

"Huzzah" -floq

If I worked full time for a year I couldn't compete with the magnificent barnstar at the top of your page, so I'll not even try, and go the other direction instead). I give you this Minor Barnstar for your brisk removal of a not-ready-for-prime-time essay to user space. "Humor" should be at least a little funny, "criticism" should be at least a little coherent, and neologisms should be at least a little difficult to interpret the wrong way when first read. Userfication is so much better than an MFD. Well done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(watching) cute, but I like mine - even if it "destroys" the TOC, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and satire should be at least slightly cutting. Thank you for the cute baby barnstar. Appropriately, or ironically, whichever you prefer, the posting of it finally got the hamster-driven fairybread carousel to sit right, the way it's supposed to, i. e. comfortably in the whitespace next to the TOC, which with your heading grew just long enough. (YMMV, but that's the way it went on my screen.) When there are say five or six more headings, I'm thinking of embiggening the carousel to full size again. More fairybread, yum! Bishonen | talk 19:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC).

Is it just my damaged brain, or do the poor hamsters look like they are forced to race all the faster in your miniature? I hope it can be attritbuted to some optical illusion, but I hope even more, for the sake of the guinea pigs, they'll be restored to full size. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

God, I hope not. What have I done?? At the same time, I don't feel like embiggening them to natural (..?) size until the TOC leaves enough space. Suggest you help by posting a few more headers! If more people weigh in, I'll ultimately be able to turn them into slow-moving, dignified capybaras! Bishonen | talk 21:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC).

Alright then, subsubsub, should also extend the TOC

You think Bishzilla could lick Joe? ---Sluzzelin talk 21:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hehe. Hamster, hippo, or Moomin? [Bishzilla sticks the cute little Joe in her pocket and goes off to construct Joe-powered carousel.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC).

Definitely Moomin! (I read them all, my dad read them to us, and I will most likely visit Finland next month, for the first time in my life, and am very excited about it). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Darwinbish, who identifies almost sentimentally with Little My, recites her favorite lines of poetry in an unwontedly solemn voice:

.. Min lilla syster My

Har för en stund sen lyckats fly!

Men Mumintrollet sade nej,

Min kära Mymla, lugna dig!

Hon är nog gömd av någon skurk

Kanhända just i denna burk!

[Db pastes the poem reverently into Googe Translate for the benefit of the ignorant. Falls over herself laughing at resulting doggerel. Now we recognize you, db! ] darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 12:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC).

Aww, thanks for that, how can one not adore Little My, and how can one not adore db? I lied, we only had the written books (except for The Moomins and the Great Flood), not the picture books. It took me a while to figure out where your poem is from, but I did find an English translation ("Moomins Not Mormons" :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 07:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Sand-Covered Church may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• kirke|year=2013|publisher=Diocese of Aalborg|language=Danish|accessdate=6 September 2013}}</ref>) <!--there's a handbook with small line illustrations of coastal churches which would be the ref

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Good bot! Bishonen | talk 20:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC).

Re your block of User:CEngelbrecht

Self-admitted block evasion: [9]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks, Andy. At first I assumed they were a new user, from the way they acted and the fact that they were previously unblocked, but actually they've been here for years. Anyway, I've let them off with a warning about the block evasion, since they were so open about it. What can I say, I'm soft. I've blocked the IP in question, but it appears they can jump between them (since the original block included an IP block). I hope you'll let me know if you see any indication of further block evasion with new IPs, and I'll throw the book at them. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC).

I'll do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

He's at it again: [10]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Doesn't seem to get it, I guess. I've blocked the account for a week and the IP range for 48 hours; I hope there's not too much collateral damage from that. Bishonen | talk 03:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC).

Culture of Denmark

Modesty, punctuality but above all equality is important aspects of the Danish way of life.

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (June 2013)

Weird. Is this so strange?

It is the Danish way, you just know it. Everybody is doing it, well almost everybody. http://janteuniversitet.wordpress.com/about/, [11][12], [13] [14] Koldau, Linda Maria (2013): Educational Disaster. The Destruction of Our Universities: The Danish Case. (forkortet engelsk udgave af trilogien Jante Universitet med de vigtigste analyser og et kapitel om, hvordan Janteloven virker i uddannelsessystemet. Hamborg: Tredition (udkommer til efterår 2013). ISBN 978-3-8495-4936-7., [15] I think the Danish don't know about it before they go abroad. Than they notice it. Hafspajen (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I love the Danish character, but modesty? Puhleeze. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC).
  • You can tell they're modest because they can't stop bragging about it. MastCell ^Talk 21:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Quite. I happen to watch Culture of Italy fairly closely, both in honour of User:Giano and because it's rather subject to vandalism. That article is very self-congratulatory also (perhaps with a smidgeon more justification, actually?), but I can't remember ever seeing any boasting about the "national character" in it. When were national characters last fashionable in encyclopedias.. let's see, they were all the rage in the climate theory of Montesquieu (1689—1755), weren't they. Anyway, I removed the bit about admirable Danish modesty, and, for balance, took out Jantelagen as well. Bishonen | talk 21:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC).

Ah, I heard my name mentioned: I had forgotten Culture of Italy; it seems to have fallen off my watchlist - I have to say though the risotto does look very unappetising; no worse than your rotting tinned fish though, I suppose. Glad you're watching the page still.  Giano  21:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I am not sure that it was what I meant, to remove Jantelagen as well. I am kind of confused now, because I did agree with some of the stuff you removed. Did you lived in Denmark? Or Sweden? Hafspajen (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Like all Swedes Actually like all Scandinavians, I have a high opinion of Danes (and a correspondingly low opinion of Swedes). :-) But I have a poor opinion of having the notion of national character, positive or negative, as part of any encyclopedia article about the culture of a country. That applies to Jantelagen as well. (I'm familiar with the concept, which has blurred some since Aksel Sandemose invented it. I've actually read the book.) You might like to add something about it in an appropriate section of the article, if there is one (I hope you don't expect me to read an entire article ;-)), or create one. A section about how the Danes view themselves? But having Jantelagen in the intro is absurd in my opinion. Sorry, when people appeal to me it can in fact happen that they're not happy with the result, what can I do? Bishonen | talk 19:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

• Bishy if you treat me like this, I am not going to marry you. What is wrong with the Swedes? No way, I am not that fond of the Danish that I should start adding a new section about how the Danes view themselves. Actually I don't know, since I am not a Dane.

The only thing is that there is SOMETHING in these Scandinavian countries that is different from other coutries, Jante or whatewer that is. Bragging about youself is something very very rare. Nobody or allmost nobody does it, and if there is someone who does, it is usually not a Scandinsavian but someone from an other country. It is terible difficult to explain. like some undercurrent or subsurface current, like a water current which flows beneath and usually independently of surface currents, or what. And punctuality is an important aspect, too. Try Greece, and you will see the difference.

By the way, why should these heavy templates should be on top, they distort the whole article. Are there any common sense rules about those items (You know, christiany temlpate, and so on) ????? . Hafspajen (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You're not going to marry me?? C'mon. And please be punctual, we can't have it turn into a Greek wedding. As for templates, no there are no common sense rules, certainly not, you must be joking. They're templates! Bishonen | talk 20:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

• Suck. No, no Geek weddings, for Gods sake. Hafspajen (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

When I say "Suck" to my son, he invariably tells me "You do, too". That's your cosmopolitan (a k a halvspråkig) Swedish youth of today. Bishonen | talk 23:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

Think about the på barnets marginalisering! Hafspajen (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I guess you're a bit worse than he is. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC).

AN3 Complaint and topic ban

I take your point. I hope you can see my logic however. To me it was better not to become involved on the article at all because any reverting by me could be misinterpreted and I'd prefer not to face other sanctions. Hence the AE cases. Without being disingenuous how would you suggest I deal with such an instance in future where I see edit warring taking place on a troubles related article? Am I forbidden from raising ANI and AE cases when there is obviously a need for someone to do so? As you can hopefully see I did nothing more than urge participants to calm down and obey guidelines. I made no attempt to discuss the subject matter of the article.

Also, as you say you are a "softie admin" how do you fancy reverting my topic ban?  ;) SonofSetanta (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Haha. I don't know enough about the Wikipedia Troubles history to even form an opinion of your ban, and I'm not going to get involved with it. But if you worry that "any reverting by you could be misinterpreted", please do note, again, that you only get to revert obvious vandalism/BLP vios. You know what the policy says about that: the example of obvious vandalism they give is "such as replacing a page with obscenities". If you stick to reverting stuff on that level, which is the appropriate level for you to stick to, it's hardly going to be misinterpreted, is it? As for how would I suggest you "deal with" edit warring: you don't. You're topic banned, you don't deal with stuff on Troubles-related articles. You let other people deal. Why the <forceful word censored> don't you just take the articles off your watchlist for the duration of the topic ban?? Bishonen | talk 12:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

P.S. I know at least one of my regular talkpage watchers does know a lot about the wikipedia Troubles history. I ask them and others to please not comment here, since SoS isn't supposed to discuss it. Bishonen | talk 12:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

Seriously: I take your point. I've obviously misinterpreted the instructions at Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans. My intent was honest and genuine. Perhaps in future I should alert admins instead of trying to deal with it myself? I don't see any harm in keeping certain articles on my watchlist however because I can still communicate privately with others about content. I don't suffer from "itchy fingers". I agree that we shouldn't discuss the troubles here - or anywhere so I echo your appeal to your page watchers.

Thank you for your approach and your understanding. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

At it again

This is not a well-known economist.

Hi Bishonen, this guy is at it again, doing vandalism at the same article with a misleading edit summary. Do we need to do the whole warning and waiting escalation before an appropriate measure or can we cut to the chase? Zad68 13:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha, no we don't need that, in fact I just blocked them before I saw your post. 3 months. They don't do it very often, admittedly. On the other hand it's all they do, and it's obviously a really static IP. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

P.S. Three months, hmmm… I guess we can look forward to them putting a picture of Santa in the Paul Krugman infobox in three months and a bit. Bishonen | talk 13:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

Ha! I did feel kinda bad ratting on someone who was only reverting image vandalism but I got a note from the editors at borneo-orangutan.wp saying they felt insulted. Thanks... Zad68 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Porscha

Just tidying up my watch list in prperation for a busy period head and came across this [16] It seems that poor, dear Porcha is no longer with us! tres sad.  Giano  21:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What? Really? :-( Bishonen | talk 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

Fleetham

Hello there. I've taken a very quick look at some of Fleetham's recent edits on Yang Rong and Tata Nano, and found a number of disturbing similarities with his edits on Lavasa, adding new text and removing properly sourced existing content in the same edit, with an edit summary that gives the impression that he has done something totally different from what he actually did. Often with small incremental edits. Which is an editing pattern that to me at least looks as if he has been hired to make the articles conform to certain views. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And I didn't like this edit on Tata Nano. With a single click, and with no explanation other than the edit summary "restore", he removed eight months worth of edits (57 edits by 44 different users), including properly sourced controversies. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm. This edit summary is very strange, if you look at what he really did. And editing with ProveIt – que? Proveit is a specialized tool for references. But I guess none of that editing is really new. I'll keep an eye open for future developments. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC).

Another thing that irritates me is that s/he always moves things around in the articles, which makes it a lot more difficult to see what s/he has changed/added/deleted. An editing behaviour that I, especially when combined with a misleading edit summary, interpret as a deliberate attempt to make it more difficult to detect his/her sneaky vandalism/promotion/removal of content. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I dunno. It sort of comes with the territory that diffs of rearrangements are impossible to understand. Just look at this one I just did.[17] The only way to get any feeling for what's happened with such edits is to stare at the whole before-and-after versions. So, essentially, Fleet can't help that difficulty. Anyway… obviously, the big problem with the structure of the article is the extremely short sections. Before as well as after, sigh... I'd merge them into one or two sections, except that I don't feel such housework is the right thing to introduce as long as sourcing and possible COI are the big issues. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC).

Fox News Channel

You fully protected the Fox News article for a week (which seems kind of long), but left in the information that is in dispute. I'd like to request that you remove the disputed material while it's being discussed. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, can't do that, please see The Wrong Version. I've responded more fully on the article talkpage. I'll just mention here, Niteshift, that your personal attacks on the talkpage aren't exactly helping the discussion climate, or making a compromise more likely. Please tone it down. Bishonen | talk 13:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC).

• I think that it's wrong to ask me politely here and then essentially chastise me on the talk page. Sorry, but when he starts out with bad faith allegations, that tends to set the discussion climate. And that he started it that way has been ignored. Still, if anyone actually looks, we can see that the quote is actually inaccurate and that's why we shouldn't have it in the article while it's being discussed. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• What? Do you really think that? And here I thought I was being tactful, only reproaching you about personal attacks here on my page, and mentioning nobody specifically on article talk. There, I criticized the entire section on the page, thus, by implication, to some degree everybody contributing to it. Colour me surprised. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC).

• Yes, I do think that. It may not have been your intent, but since I was the only one you addressed by name, it had that feel to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Would you mind returning to the talk page to clarify what happened? It seems one of the editors thinks that you leaving it means you "judged it worthy". [18] Niteshift36 (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Result of clarification request concerning "Psuedoscience principles"

You participated in this recent clarification request. This message is to inform you that the clarification request has been closed and archived. If you would like to read the arbitrators' opinion section, the request has been archived to here. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 08:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Confession: I almost lost my temper today...

...which doesn't happen very often. But experienced users who issue user warnings in retaliation for being reverted p*ss me off, because it's the kind of behaviour that drives new editors off WP. A warning accusing me of not having provided an edit summary, and saying that my edit had been reverted, neither of which was true. The discussion I started on his talk page in response to the warning can be found here, with details about the edit/revert that prompted the warning. And please note his response. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at something?

Hi Bishonen, It was suggested I include you in the discussion of Swedish emigration to the United States at User talk:Hegvald#Your revert of my move, since you were the main author of the article. Could you take a look at the discussion and weigh in as you see fit (and move the discussion to the article talk page if appropriate)? Thanks, Mojoworker (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It's true I wrote the article, but it was a long time ago, and I confess I'm a little tired of going back over the same points re the emigration/immigration issue. It was discussed when the article was new, and I guess I said my say there.[19] If you disagree with my argument and User:Hegvald's, perhaps you'd like to take it to WP:RM. Bishonen | talk 17:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC).

OK, I'll file a move request when I get a chance. People will keep coming along to correct the grammar, so might as well see if we can get some wording that everyone can agree to. I've got a few thing to take care of first, but I'll try to get something started in the next week or so. Mojoworker (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

COI-editing on Theodore Garland, Jr. by Whatiguana.

Hello Bish. There has for a long time been a COI-problem on Theodore Garland, Jr., an article originally created by Whatiguana, a user who by all available evidence, including just posting a message on my talk page (identifying himself as Whatiguana) from an IP address that belongs to University of California, Riverside, is the subject of the article, making the article an autobiography. Whatiguana/the subject treats the article as a personal web page or a résumé and continually adds promotional/selfglorifying material, mixed in with adding pure trivia, such as today repeatedly adding a Youtube-link to a clip from a TV program where Theodore Garland appears. The article has been cleaned a couple of times, by different users, removing tons of résumé-material that most definitely does not belong in an encyclopaedia. I have reverted the addition of the Youtube link twice today, but don't want to risk getting into an edit war where I might inadvertently cross the magic 3RR threshold, so I would like someone else to take a look at it (including taking a look at what I've done in case I'm being a bit too harsh...). And perhaps add a bit more weight to the words than I can (metaphorically of course...). I have tagged the article with {{coi}} and Whatiguana's talk page with {{uw-coi}} so he knows that we, or at least I, suspect that there is a COI problem. Cheers. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Wow! A whole week with nothing from you. Are you OK? Hope all is well with the Bishpack! Here's a cupcake for whichever minion gets here the quickest. Tex (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been on sick leave. Too impromptu to leave a note here, unfortunately. Better now, and the delicious cupcake has restored me like nobody's business. :-) (Fortunately the minions were sick too.) But I'm only back on a bit of an "Oh, poor me, don't ask me to do any actual work" basis for the next few days. Feel free to post grapes, nectarines, or baked goods, HINT HINT. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC).

grapes, nectarines, ... get well soon!

... and don't forget your veggies

Vandalism to the Mirko CroCop article

Can you please ban the IP 188.75.201.173 from wikipedia and permanently lock the CroCop article? See my latest contribution to the Mirko Filopovic talk page. The article is unlocked and keeps being vandalized by some idiot from Russia. I am almost certain this is the same vandal from before. Machine Man (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for pinging me. I've blocked the IP for 6 months, since they returned to vandalizing sports articles as soon as the previous block expired, and I've semi'd the article for 6 months also, as there's quite a record of shorter protections,[20] and they don't seem to have discouraged anybody except temporarily. It must be tremendous fun to vandalize this one. But permanent protection, no, that's normally only done for real high-profile articles. You know, like Barack Obama. Bishonen | talk 16:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC).

Understandable. And you're welcome for the ping, thanks for the semi. I appreciate the quick response! Machine Man (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back

Nice to see you back. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the fruit, Sluzzelin! How pretty you are! Bishonen | talk 18:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC).

Ohh ... he's part of the gift! Added myself now. Far prettier! ---Sluzzelin talk 18:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you...

...but I'm kind of stuck right now. An IP-user (‎200.73.232.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made an edit on Wikia, deleting what seems like a perfectly valid reference with a misleading edit summary (an edit summary that didn't in any way explain why he deleted the reference). I reverted and posted a {{uw-delete2}} on their talk page, with a comment that I found the edit summary misleading. Followed by the IP reverting me again, with a snotty edit summary and an even snottier comment on their talk page (see user's talk page). And so on. The IP has now deleted the reference three times, with increasingly hostile comments on their talk page, including telling me to "fuck off", but still no explanation for why the reference is being removed. The last thing I did there was to post a 3RR-warning, which in hindsight was a bit premature since it's technically not three reverts, but one deletion and two reverts, but what's done is done and I was about to lose my temper. So if you have some time to spare I'd appreciate if you'd take a look at it, looking at both my actions and those of the IP. While I'm having a badly needed cup of tea to cool down (sometimes I feel that I'm too old for this...). Cheers. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. 201.215.187.159 (already under a 3-month block) is probably the same person. Same city, same ISP. Unfortunately I can't block a range like that, it's huge. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

P.S. I've inquired of Bbb32, who blocked 201.215.187.159, but I don't suppose he or anybody can do much, as it's not a manageable range. But who knows. I've only just figured out range blocks (and am very full of myself in consequence), maybe there are some smart tricks I don't know about. Here's a little fake Latin for you, Thomas: Illegitimi non carborundum. Chamomile tea is soothing, I believe. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

P.P.S. I've now blocked "your" IP, as they were evading 201.215.187.159's block. Not much point in blocking these dynamic IPs, but what can I do. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

Thanks. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC) (I had a cup of Lapsang Souchong, BTW. Try it, you'll either love it or hate it.)

The Wrong Venue

You might have a look at this WP:VENUE. I've been meaning to collect thoughts on this topic. You perhaps have experienced similar annoyance as me when editors import controversy to your talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 21:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, especially the bit about user talk pages. Methinks the general bit about finishing a discussion where it was started may need qualifying. Lately I've been running into discussions on biography talkpages where people at a certain point move the discussion to WP:BLPN for more eyes, which can be a good idea. Especially if it's a kind of low-profile subject that not many people follow, I've sometimes recommended people to take their favoured POV to a noticeboard (instead of nagging on and on on the talkpage forevermore and boring the rest of us to death, as it might be the SPA currently bloating up Talk:Deepak Chopra).

But it's a real problem to be always larding essays with "yes, but on the other hand" qualifications and considerations, as I'm sure you know. It de-focuses them. Essays need to be lean and mean and to know where they're going. I got so pissed off with the people who kept adding "but this is not always true" to the short snappy "With all due respect" essay I'd written, that I asked (successfully) for it to be deleted. If every statement in an essay is qualified and half-contradicted, it ends up saying absolutely nothing, you know? "Some people say, but on the other hand it sometimes happens that"… bah. So I dunno. I'll see if I can come up with some suggestions for using WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, and suchlike, without derailing the forward movement of your essay. Perhaps the best advice would be "if you're gonna move the quarrel to a noticeboard, do it right away"?

I'd have no hesitation in recommending people to fgs not move the controversy at any time to ANI, RFC, or to the grave of all naive hopes, the black hole where good intentions go when they die: the dreaded "dispute resolution".

Meanwhile, Darwinbish is honing her own best advice: "If you have an admin in your pocket, always rush any controversy to their user talk page, and bring cupcakes!" Bishonen | talk 22:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC).

With all due respect, I miss that essay and wish it were still around! :-( Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)″

Hi

Hi, I'm N0n3up and I'm sort of new on Wiki. I was wondering if you could help me out with some things..(N0n3up (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC))

Hi there. I've replied on your page. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC).

Hi again :), I didn't exactly call you about that situation, but now that we hit the topic.. you're probably right, I'll dig into the sources. I'm sorry for any inconveniences. :( (N0n3up (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC))

Glad to hear it. So what's the difficulty you contacted me about? Anything specific? To be going on with, I can give you the general advice to join WP:TEAHOUSE, a welcoming place for new users. :-) Bishonen | talk 09:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC).

he has several problems. edit-warring is one of them. I just reported him and an ip that was warring with him for vios of 3rr. I think he need a bit of coaching, he needs to get experience more than anything. he really needs teahouse. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are more patient nurses than me at the Teahouse, in fact most people are more patient than me. Thanks for the info, Aunva. Bishonen | talk 08:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC).

Royal Central

It'll probably come up on your watchlist; however, as you locked Royal Central against an article on a website being recreated, I thought it best to let you know I've created a disambiguation page at that location. I will assume some responsibility for the page. I have protected it, and will watch it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

All good. Bishonen | talk 11:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC).

Ethics

I'll defer to you, but the reason I chose pending changes was that there are never more than a couple three vandalism edits a day, which is more than within a manageable pending changes workload. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't defer, I didn't mean to change what you did — please change if you like. I was trying to save my post on your page for like five minutes — I may actually have started posting there before you did here — anyway, Wikipedia's like treacle for me. :-( Bishonen | talk 20:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC).

Sorry, I think I posted here while you were posting to my talk page. Per my reply there, I put pending changes for one month on there in addition to your short semi, so that when the semi protection expires the pending changes takes over. It should work fine that way. No hard feelings...protect conflicts are among the most confusing sometimes! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, lol. Too many cooks. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC).

Buyer's remorse

Hi. I've replied to you at User_talk:Rwxrwxrwx#Buyer.27s_remorse. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Spalagdama

Spalagdama (talk · contribs) is back at it again, not having learned anything from his two blocks. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC) (He has BTW deleted the user warnings he's been given.)

User:Thomas.W

Thomas.W (talk · contribs) is back at it again adding unsourced content to Apraca. He edit wars with me and when I revert his unsourced changes, he asks his buddy moderator Bishonen to block me, after which he proceeds to re-add the unsourced edits once more. Thomas. W made an erroneous report about me to [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case] who upon discovering Thomas. W's bogus, malicious report unblocked me. Thomas. W is now at it again asking his buddy Bishonen to block me after I reverted his unsourced content. Clearly both these buddies are in violation of the wikipedia's polcies, one adding unsourced content, and the other blocking anyone who intervenes. SpalagdamaSpalagdama (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)He has deleted any and all warnings I have left for him in regards to repeatedly adding unsourced content to the article Apracarajas.