User talk:Bishonen

Hello, amiable 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.

MONGO Army has arrived to help protect page from wackos!

MONGO tank somewhat obsolete but lunatic (me) driving it so killing power enhanced!--MONGO 17:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Tiktaalik!

Hey, Zill. Gotta love an early tetrapod whose name is cognate with ichthys. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Cognate with ichthys, really? What is your evidence for that? The Tiktaalik#Discovery section of the article doesn't support it. Deor (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don’t think “cognate“ is the word you want: AFAICT the Inuktitut word is composed from two roots. The first, tik, I‘m not sure of, but it’s also the stem of the word for “index finger“; -taalik means “long”. I believe the most generic word for “fish“ is iqaluk. OTOH the origins of ichthys are unknown–at any rate the word doesn’t appear susceptible to analysis. (Sorry for the pedantry, but I was unpleasantly reminded of a certain prolific Usenet Hellenomane who claimed, among many other silly things, that iglu derives from oikos.)—Odysseus1479 21:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

my mistype probably

I can't do the gravure diacritical above the O, but I didn't mean to type the extra I. Just oddly enough by coincidence I was trying to compare examples with the RfD at wishes and tried dishes and bishes and so on: then you came in I am surely entirely coincidentallly so I mentioned bish, which leads this way to bishonen as {{R from title without diacritics}} (at least it should; not sure that it does). I just mistyped: please excuse me; I have never heard this forenam (or surname): please excuse my ignorance. Which language is it from? Si Trew (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Japanese. Anime, manga and bishounens are features of Japanese culture. Did I forget to link them in my message on your page? Bishonen | talk 21:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

Politics

Please take a look at Soraya Post, Kristina Winberg and Peter Lundgren (politician). Thank you :)--BabbaQ (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you're on the ball! Excellent work, Babba. Bishonen | talk 20:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC).

Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at BabbaQ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--BabbaQ (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the latests posts from user Libstar at my talk page. I think it is OK to discussions but when posts are done only to taunt then I think it goes a little to far. I am not an angel by any means but I let other people have their opinions and I do not re-add posts three times after other users remove them :). Is there a way to strike out those latest unnecessary comments. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Libstar was re-adding anything verbatim, but they were certainly nagging and taunting and refusing to drop it. I've asked them to stop. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

There is a deeper story to this (BabbaQ and I have interacted for years), and this forms part of the jigsaw puzzle. All will be revealed soon.LibStar (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Libstar is right. There is years of this user contacting me being rude and not respecting other users opinions and taunting (atleast against me ) in connection with AfDs and I have had enough. These last comments has been the last straw for me. And I am telling you right now Libstar, do not contact me with taunts or rude commemts anymore. Users are entitled to their personal opinions about notability etc, and you have no right to taunt users simply because they do not share your opinion about certain things. I frankly wish to hear nothing further from you.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

then why did you decide to deliberately follow me around in a conversation in the last 24 hours on another user's page on a discussion that you had no previous participation in .. If you wish to ignore me and no longer interact with me, you could have easily not. WP:KETTLE Regardless your comments above confirm an extra piece of the puzzle, I was unsure before of the origin of certain things but that more securely locks in what I've been suspecting. All will be revealed soon... LibStar (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I was definitely provoked by your attempts on again and again contact me, as you yourself point out this is a pattern of you contacting me over several years on Afds that you have had no previous involvement in, and also continuing taunting me at my talk page. I still do not understand why you get so provoked by my comment at that other users talk page considering that you do exactly the same thing all the time at AfDs :)But that does not change anything about my opinion that you could/should take the high road from now on and leave me alone. And for your Finland comment are concerned I did not respond to them on three occassion because that is just simply childish and yet another provocation from you, and frankly I am not surprised that you want to provoke me because it has been your MO for years. This is my very last comment about this and I hope this is the last time I ever hear from you Libstar. And no I am no angel and I give you back when you go to far, but still I do not see a good reason for your over the top taunting. I am fed up with you to be totally honest and I think you are out of line on so many levels. I wish to hear nothing further about this if not totally necessary, and I will ignore this conversation. Regards, --BabbaQ (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh the irony, "I'm fed up with another user and don't want to interact with libstar anymore but will happily join in a discussion on another user's page because I need interaction." On so many levels?.Takes two to tango (idiom). The Finland question will become very clear and relevant soon. LibStar (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to not tango with you when you have a history of contacting me after I post anything on any AfD. You need to get over whatever grudge you have against me and move on. And for your Finland comment,,, well see you in Helsinki and stop threatning me. Now have a wonderful day :)--BabbaQ (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hard to understand the request for no interaction and I will ignore conversation and the continual replies from BabbaQ . Contradictory? LibStar (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

BabbaQ even thanked me for above edit! :) LibStar (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Following BabbaQ around like this looks like Wikistalking to me. Don't you have anything better to do? Thomas.W ^talk 14:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

and suddenly joining in a discussion on another user's page when never previously involved in that discussion is classed as what? LibStar (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did it one time after you provoked me for the thousand time. And I apologize for that. But please move on and try not to interact with me again for considerable time. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a pause for thought, if you react this heavily to me doing that. How do you think other users reacts to you contacting them, making comments at AfDs in a much harder tone? If you can not take it, you should not do it. That is all. Bye.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Still replying? You said 30 mins ago you will ignore me and this conversation. I am bewildered. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you both stop? What you're doing is just silly, especially when it's being done on the talk page of someone else. Thomas.W ^talk 14:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

as I said someone keeps replying, totally confounds me, I've had some people say in the past I will not interact with you and they meant it, in this instance, doesn't make sense. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It still takes two to tango, and you're doing your best to keep the squabble going. So why don't you just leave the dancefloor and do something productive here instead? Thomas.W ^talk 14:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And what are you doing then! Coming in didn't exactly stop BabbaQ responding... LibStar (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You've posted three times since she posted last, so who's keeping it alive? Thomas.W ^talk 14:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, chère, I bet you're really glad you have a talk page archiving system designed specially for the sort of erudite discourse above. --T-RexxS (rawr) 15:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, RexxS. LibStar, it's a little hard to interpret BabbaQ's one comment, which you have now mentioned perhaps five or six times, as Babba following you "around", so you might as well drop that before it becomes (even more) ridiculous. See WP:REHASH. You need to keep AFD discussion on AFD and article discussion on article talkpages. It's completely inappropriate to flood people's user talkpages with scolding about the opinions they have registered at AfD's, or with triumph at an admin having agreed with you, and other such pinpricks. Please don't post on Babba's or Necrothesp's pages again, and don't try to keep the repetitive arguing you seem to enjoy alive by moving it to other people's talkpages, either. (Not mine, not Thomas's.) Article talkpages, and such discussion pages as AFD, are provided precisely for the purpose of discussion of encyclopedic issues. Do not personalise these issues by taking them to user talkpages, and especially don't post so insistently and repetitiously that it becomes harassment. (I'd say that happened on Babba's page, with the idiotic hinting about "Finland"... what? No, no, please don't bother to explain, I don't want to know. Just drop it.) Recently you have posted 7 times on Babba's page, 4 times on Necrothesp's, and when I return after some hours away from the keyboard, I find 10 posts from you on mine (!). I respect your AfD nominations and AfD arguments, but argumentativeness on usertalk pages does nothing to improve Wikipedia. It merely irritates people and is bad for the Wiki climate. Bishonen | talk 22:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC).

necrothesp did not request I cease contacting him/her, so somehow characterizing the 4 edits on their talk page as excessive is misrepresentative. is 4 times some yardstick? You do talk about not irritating others, so what was the intent of BabbaQ turning up suddenly on necrothesp's page to oppose me? Takes 2 to tango as I said. LibStar (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(So now it's six or seven times you've mentioned that very same single post of Babba's. You just have no respect for WP:REHASH, do you?) You say Necrothesp didn't "request I cease contacting him/her", so apparently his "Good grief, it's like a stuck record!" was too subtle a hint. Don't get technical with me about how many posts are "some yardstick", please. It's not a matter of how many posts, but of how annoying and repetitious they are. ("Please point to the policy that says bla bla". Bah.) Don't bother to try the same tricks with me. Just stop going around trying to rile people unless you want a formal block warning for disruptive editing on your page. Oh, and I formally request you not to post on my page again, since the hint about your ten posts while I wasn't even here was seemingly also too subtle. Incidentally the next person who invokes that stupid old chestnut about "two to tango" (see wiktionary:chestnut, sense 6) may consider themselves banned from my page. This is a cliché-free zone. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC).

WP:SEASON

Anyone know (stalkers, don't be shy) if this[1] is a fad or something that is actually part of the vitals of MoS these days? Are seasons overall considered bad prose and not permitted as general indicators of time periods?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would you need to ask another user when the answer is to click the link in the heading? SEASON has been part of MOS for a long time. --John (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't know anything about WP:SEASON, I was as innocent of this principle as you, Peter, but it does make sense. It says Because the seasons are reversed in the northern hemisphere versus the southern (and areas near the equator may have wet and dry seasons instead) it is usually preferable to avoid such references as winter 1995 in favor of (for example) early 1995;  the first quarter of 1995;  January to March 1995. But I don't see how you're expected to remove information, as John does when he changes "the summer of 1512" to "1512". Why? "The middle of 1512" would presumably work, unless somebody wants to go to the (print) source and find what month it was, and use that. There may have been other raids in 1512, so just removing "the summer of" potentially makes this raid less well-defined. I agree with your revert, but you want to reply on talk, too, don't you? (Incidentally, don't you think the phrase "poor writing" referred to the "however"?) Bishonen | talk 10:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC).

Reverted some of the reverted fixes. I'm looking for second opinions, because a lot of these changes don't make all that much sense to me, even after reading the MoS. I'm all for neutrality, but it seems like somewhat of an over-reading to defer to the southern hemisphere in an article that is geographically limited to a specific part of Europe.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What about our numerous Antarctican readers? Penguins are people too yah know.--MONGO 11:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not just about the southern hemisphere, there are also the tropics to consider. In India and most of Africa, where a majority of the English speakers of the world live, there are no seasons. There may be a dry season and a wet season, but these are different from place to place. Saying the summer of 1608 is not just lazy and ambiguous writing, it may also place a barrier to understanding between you and the reader. Why would you wish to do that? Would you accept an Indian writer saying the dry season of 1408? The situation is no different. --John (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If an Indian writer wrote the dry season of 1408 or the wet/monsoon season of 1408 in an article about an event that took place in India, it would be far more informative than writing early/middle/late or whatever 1408, since it would tell the reader what the weather was like when the event took place; just like writing summer/winter of 1512 for an event that took place in Europe. So I'm all for stating what season of the year an event took place. Thomas.W ^talk 12:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. It would depend (as MoS makes clear) whether it was something like a harvest or a miltary campaign where the season makes a difference, or just as a lazy and half-assed way of talking about when something happened. The former is ok if the sources support it and proper explanation can be made. The latter never is. --John (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The specificity of certain events are always dependent on their relevance to something. Why is it relevant to know the exact dates for the start and end of the 1664-65 logging season in Sweden in an article about a ship?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed....John is correct. I would have been as mystified as Peter was...and I am guilty of being a northern hemisphere partisan as I know I have, numerous times in my writing, used the seasonal wording to describe the time of year....I can hear them now....the Antarcticans are coming to get me!...--MONGO 15:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to ask for this, but could someone just hint about the lack of consensus regarding WP:SEASON at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kronan (ship)/archive1?

Peter ^Isotalo 20:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter....looks like an excellent article. MOS does guide us to avoid mentioning seasons, explicitly stating that naming the month or perhaps the quarter of the year to make the issue hemispherically unambiguous is expected. John is a fairly strict adherent to MOS guidelines, and for the sake of standardization, that's probably not a bad thing. The best thing about this project is that the collaboration brings specific talents together at FAC and the end result is usually some pretty damn good articles. However, my take on MOS guidelines allows some grey areas that would excuse noncompliance with SEASON.--MONGO 01:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It feels more like it's simply jumping through hoops right now, especially in view of this.[2] Is this type of language sticklerism common fare at FAC these days? Right below the FAC talk on the paramount importance of not writing "winter", there's a fierce discussion on the beastly American habit of not writing "admitted to hospital".

Peter ^Isotalo 05:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru

Fresh from our interesting discussion above about seasonal nomenclature in Featured Articles, it's good to see you again in regard to this editor. I approve your restoration of talk page access and your block of User:Stimpy3 as an illegitimate sockpuppet. I'd probably say the same about User:Fasf14, but then I realized that actually I find myself indifferent as long as they don't continue the shenanigans. You might block them too if you feel like it. I also thank you for digging out this, which with this and in its way this made interesting reading. I got dragged into this matter via an unblock request in which I was able to broker a deal to get FergusM1970 back editing other areas when he had got past a point where his edits were productive in a certain area. I wonder if ultimately something like this will be best for QuackGuru too. In any case, I am not comfortable discussing it at QG's talk page beyond a certain point. Let's wait and see if the user comes back with an unblock and meantime I remain open to your suggestions about how to proceed. --John (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm a pretty conservative duck hunter; I don't block just because a "new" account obviously isn't new, or I'd be going bang-bang-bang all day long. I blocked Stimpy3 because they not only acknowledged being a sock, but also spelled out their discreditable motives for not using their main account (wrapped in self-righteous accusations about abusive admins protecting QG, why is nobody surprised?) I summarize: they were trying to avoid scrutiny.[3] And you notice their random relationship with facts again in their next post: assuming that anybody who thwarts them must be an admin and getting two out of four right. But I suppose that's too common to point to anybody in particular.

As for Fasf14, maybe I should ask Darwinbish to edit her template warning to apply to throwaway "accounts" as well as IPs, then it would be just right for them.

About the block, I'll be frank, John. It will probably stick because QG does give sceptics a bad name, as someone said. But I don't think it was well timed, in the middle of an argument between the two of you, and following hard upon your revert of his removal of a conversations from his talkpage (not good). A bit like arresting Al Capone for tax evasion, as another of those IPs said, and he wasn't even evading very much tax. (My god, doesn't any of the acupuncture and chiropractic true believers have the guts to use their account? Or maybe they're all blocked.) As for an unblock request, yes, he should post one, but I'm beginning to wonder if I didn't tell him emphatically enough that I'd restored tpa. Does he know he can appeal? Well, probably. He must be reading the page, after all. Bishonen | talk 09:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC).

QG / KV is perfectly capable of discussing when he wishes, but for strategic reasons has a history of either laying low and being quiet when in trouble, or becoming a nearly normal editor, with lots of promises of reform and offers of compromise when seriously threatened with indef blocking/banning. That's his history under both IDs. If one were to apply duck to both accounts, you'd see one person masquerading as monozygotic twins..... -- Brangifer (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For sharing that insight. I will review it in detail before I post again to any Admin board. Cheers!) - ℅ ✰WPPilot✰ ^echo 22:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

☺ Bishonen | talk 10:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC).

email harrassment

Hang on: You asked me for my email address, I gave it, I should expect you to be polite by giving you the privilege of knowing it (when I don't advertise it on Wikipedia) and you abuse it.

Now, User:BDD had suggested a couple of months ago that someone had been impersonating me since it was not my style. I checked but couldn't find that was the case, so I imagine it was mine, but it is possible. The only time I have ever sworn (in what I would regard as swear words such as F; which many people seem to use as commas) in the many years I have edited WP is to express my extreme discontent with this hounding by a few admins who have a different opinion from mine. Even though I have done my research offer an opinion – often several which negate the others – for others to choose. I thought it was redirects for discussion, not redirects for imposition, and is certainly not Redirects for deletion, no matter what the sidebar says.

I probably pushed that point rather strongly. When I come to' RfD with refs, researched, before bringing the discussion, I am told I am WP:TOOLONG. Not my fault people have short screens and short attention spans. If i come with an allusion to another relevant topic that has the same relationship, I am told it is irrelevant, even though I point out what relationship it has (a kinda law of similar triangles): a redirect we should but haven't to similar triangle: A is to B as C is to D; a [[ratio] (from which we get the rational numbers and the idea of being rational, although that is a back formation of rationale, by the way, but comes from the same root). If I bring special knowledge and declare an interest in having that, I am told I am up my own backside for showing offset: WP:RS means I cannot quote means I cannot even quote what someone else has written but have to quote what someone else as said about someone else writing it, i.e. gossip. So we have an enyclopaedia founded on gossip. A successful one but ultimatel if one cannot go to the horse's mouth then useless.

But if I am humble and edit without commenting, I am told I should have made it clear. The other two pillars, WP:N and WP:V are equally dodgy in practice. WP:N means "is the person who said this someone you might of heard of?", so Oprah Winfrey's chat show applies but an expert in numismatism or calisthenics doesn't, and it is not a triangle in the first place since WP:V is just WP:N and WP:RS in a straight line. (Mathematically that is a triangle but rather a special case.)

I am not out to win and don't need to. I tried to improve the Wikipedia for the last eight years. I am not saying I always succeeded.

Do you know how much shit I have to take from it? I have the pleasure, on balance, to have contributed and have people thanking me for doing so. They used to thank with a brief message, and perhaps how we could proceed togethere to make it even better... I went to libraries and sourced books and even bought books (second hand) to improve articles. Now one just hits "thank" and that is enough. No, it is not enough.

I have given you the courtesy of a reply. Now you are an admin, I blanked my account, please delete my account.

S.

Please don't babble and maunder on my page. What do you mean by posting a section called "e-mail harassment" here and talking about me "abusing" the e-mail addy you confided to me? As if I'd been harassing you by e-mail? I've written two e-mails to you, ever, in which I tried to explain certain things to you that I didn't want to tell you in public. *You* have e-mailed *me* ten times. Do you realise I have also given *you* the confidence of *my* e-mail address (and I'm sorry I did)? I don't "advertise" it on Wikipedia either.

As an admin, there's nothing more I can do about your account than what I already described in my e-mail of May 27. But since you're still in good standing (=not blocked), you can vanish for good from Wikipedia, if you're sure that's what you want to do. Read all about it here and follow the instructions. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) I don't think anyone can delete an account; however you can apply for Wikipedia:Courtesy_vanishing, if you'd like to leave and not return.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Note left on user page

[4] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. I hope the user takes advantage of the advice he has been given from several quarters. Bishonen | talk 09:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC).

Flood geology

Interesting response. To paraphrase: "I haven't done anything wrong, it's the others (the Christians). Edit warring is bad, reverting is bad, but I think it's ok if I make these 2 reverts." Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't hate me for being quicker on the draw....

I assume he removed your vote when he transcluded, per the usual guideline on waiting until it goes live, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deor. I had already put in a commented vote before you but it broke stuff so I reverted. Anyway, it is live now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Dennis...see that tank up top...that's my tank and I operate it...but dealing with me and my tank is far better than dealing with some of Bishonen's more powerful allies....so watch yer step partner.--MONGO 14:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

She started it... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Grrrrr....lol.--MONGO 15:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikilawyering "new" IP

Hello Bish. Would you mind taking a look at IP 85.197.52.156, a Wikilawyering "new" IP from Köln/Cologne, Germany (see discussion my talk page), to see if the actions and the geolocation ring any bells for you? Because it is definitely not a new user, and you seem to have a knack for spotting new incarnations of old users (remember TE?). I have a faint memory of having encountered an indefinitely blocked or banned user from that part of Germany, but my memories of that encounter are very faint. Thomas.W ^talk 18:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've always thought myself remarkable for my lack of sock sense, so I'm glad you noticed my unique TE feat (where I think I followed an SPI back inte the archives, and there was TE, bold as brass, no intuition needed). A MOS nerd in Cologne? Sorry, no, it doesn't ring a bell. I think I agree with them about removing the bolding, though. But their claim to know all about the MOS seems a little weakly founded, in that they don't know it's (of course) not a policy. Accusing you of "policy-violating" edits was a bit silly. My taste in tea is more vulgar than yours,[5] almost kitschy. Have you tried strawberry tea with a lime leaf in it? I like to eat a lot of jam and cheese with that. The combo would cheer up a tiger. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC).

The Lapsang Souchong satt bra, with a piece of fullkornsbröd topped with Kavli Kyckling & Baconost. I guess I haven't adjusted yet to not working 9-5 anymore, because being retired isn't as fun as I thought it would be. Thomas.W ^talk 21:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

asmallworld protection

Hey Bishonen, I saw that the protection expired on the asmallworld page. I know when you spoke to IIIraute and me you mentioned such protection would be ongoing. I don't know if you intended it to become unlocked or not. I just wanted to notify you. Since it became unlocked an IP has been editing it and deleting sourced material and adding unsourced material. I only removed/restored the more heavy handed moves of the IP. Anyway, if your initial intention was to protect the page indefinetley you should reprotect it. Thanks (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC))

Thanks for letting me know. I actually never semi'd the page, I merely fullprotected it for a couple of weeks, timing it to expire at the same time as User:Ymblanter's semiprotection would have. Complicated? Yes — the log, here, makes it clearer.

The IP isn't necessarily trying to disrupt the article, even though they don't know about Wikipedia sourcing (you see how they attempt to refer to a source in the edit summary here?), or about how to write in an explanatory way for the common reader in an encyclopedia ( for instance, I have no idea what they mean by "assets = The World's Finest Clubs AG (November 2012)"). Perhaps you can educate them? They might blossom into a useful editor, I don't see why not. I've written on their page, suggesting a few things, but they're going to need more practical help than that. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC).

Sounds good, thanks. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC))

I see they came back from a different IP, either without having read my note (the most likely scenario) or having ignored it. A pity it's so hopeless to try to communicate with dynamic IPs, because I still think they may mean to be helpful. But I'm not going to chase after them trying to get lucky and have them actually read a note from me, and I obviously can't expect you to do that, either. (We should require registration to edit Wikipedia IMO, not least because of cases like this.) I agree with your request for semi at WP:RFPP and with Kelapstick's action on it. Bishonen | talk 14:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

Thanks

Hi. Just to say thank you for your swift action in the case of User:AHLM13. Have a great day!

RomanSpa (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

And thank you very much for the report. I wish I, or I suppose any admin, had paid attention to it sooner, because there is now a lot of work to do reverting those unconstructive reverts. I see NeilN has started. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC). P.S., you'd think Johnuniq was an admin, wouldn't you? But he's not. Bishonen | talk 14:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

clear gaming

[6] with edit summary Reverted 1 edit by Collect (talk): Rv WP:OR -- a very surprising BLP violation by this editor...

I suggest is gaming here. Especially with his talk page comment: This edit amounts to WP:SYNTH and is thus a BLP violation. Please do not repeat it. And please be mindful of 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Inasmuch as he asked for the claim that "Santorum is a Catholic" to be cited, so I cited everything under the sun, and used separate sentences to boot. The edits which it replaced were [7] and [8] which appeared UNDUE as the issue of euthanasia is the teachings of his church. This is the type of thing I face every day -- and frequently from the same folks, and I rather think their intent is clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What, another article? Sorry, I don't much feel like reviewing that one, your editing of it, Nomoskedasticity's editing of it (there, I've pinged him for you), and on and on... and without that, I can hardly comment. Are you saying that you "facing stuff like that everyday" is an explanation of your BLP ruleslawyering and your combative sarcastic tone on the AN3RR noticeboard — is that your message here on my page? If so, I can understand what you mean. I can recommend a cup of tea and hanging with some nice people. You know, decompressing. Too much inhalation of the polluted air around the political articles on Wikipedia can't be good for anybody's temper. I wonder if the ongoing RFAR will help, but I can't say I'm really optimistic. Political passions on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit are bound to reflect political passions IRL.

I hoped you'd read my AN3 comment as emphasising your clean three-and-a-half year block log, but it seems you saw chiefly my description of your old blocks, which I meant to mention only to dismiss, as being, you know, old. Your response even italicised the words "more than three years ago", practically a fucking quote from my own first words, as if to awaken me to some novelty. I'll have to work some more on my emphasis and focus. But I'll stop typing now and go have some tea myself. Who's Nomo? (But this is not really meant to continue a conversation, in case ending on a question sounds like it. Please reply if and how you wish, but I think I'm done.) Bishonen | talk 16:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

• Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.....--MONGO 23:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello most honorable Ms. Bish and family. I was out and about on wiki - and wanted to drop by to wish you well. I did go see the new Godzilla movie (on opening day) ... WOW ... FANTASTIC!!!

Hope you and yours are doing well -- All my best always,

Ched — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.99.132 (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ansegam

See here. I left a message on their talk. to which they replied here and then proceeded to revert the edit. The "data" added by the user is consistent with editing pattern of Ansegam with citations added from 'books.google.es'. If it's a SPA, I simply don't understand why the user cannot appeal their block and explain their actions. Any thoughts? Thanks.  NQ  talk 01:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha, thank for the heads-up. Did you notice Ansegam has a template on his page that reads: "This user is new to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite while he/she gets accustomed to Wikipedia and its intricacies." And Graniole wrote to you "Let me become accostumed to Wikipedia". (Spelled differently, but then the first one was a template, not his own spelling.) That's almost enough for a duck block on its own. A little more ROPE might put it beyond doubt without bothering a checkuser. Let me ponder a little — I'm not really awake yet.

What an unhelpful diff. Ludicrous system. I had to stick it into Word and use the "Compare documents" to see what exactly it was he added..! Were you able to see whether it was in fact a restoration of refs that had been added by A before? (Please don't bother to chase it down if not, I think this is bound to be resolved rather quickly in any case.) And did you notice the UK IP reverting him afterwards, and then Graniole reverted again? That's enough of that, I'm going to give him the newbie 3RR template while I think. And a "use edit summaries" also. You already told him, but if he has no conception of them, he needs a link. Bishonen | talk 06:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

Now at 4 straight reverts:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Systems_of_inheritance_among_various_peoples&action=history&offset=2014061310

Includes a revert after your warning. It's not often I wish I had a block button. --RexxS (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the echo of the quack from the quasi-dead duck hanging that rope loud enough? Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I saw this thread and filed a report at AN3, resulting in Graniole being blocked for 24h for edit-warring. Enough time for a quick look at the quacking. Thomas.W ^talk 12:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Yes, Sam, it's deafening. I thought seriously of just duckblocking, but it's an indeffing matter, of a user who originally meant to help I guess (though he immediately started showing he's not cut out to edit here, when he was challenged), so I thought it would be nice to have a check, and now I have. And the CU immediately blocked Graniole himself. Noooo… here I was just going to tell RexxS how satisfying it is to have your own block button and go BANG BANG… and Reaper Eternal went and stole my sockthunder! :-( Never mind, I go indef the master now. Unbelievable guy. You'd think he could at least have found an open proxy in China or summat. Bishonen | talk 14:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

PS, just drop a note here if anybody should notice new Ansegam socks at these articles. I won't make a song and dance with checkuser again. And thank you, Thomas, for procuring me some breathing space with the 3RR. [/me stuffs Thomas, RexxS, Sam, NQ, and Reaper Eternal into her pocket. I mean into Bishzilla's pocket! She especially likes to have a good selection of checkusers in there.] Bishonen | talk 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

Might not be of any value, but I did notice earlier today this post dated May 15, from a Spanish forum. I guess he didn't have a helluwa lot of luck recruiting collaborators. Judge for yourself. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 16:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Did you get that just by googling Ansegam? Poor fellow. I thought he was well-meaning from the start, and that post certainly looks like it. Enthusiasm comes through, about Wikipedia, about his own articles, and about erudition. What a pity he wasn't able to adjust to our ways. :-( Bishonen | talk 17:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

Right you are. And how ironic is it that he tried to canvass off-wiki for co-editors considering that he could have had a dozen friends here and have been held in high esteem for his knowledge and hard work. Alas, WP:ACADEME. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little late, but glad to see everything resolved quickly, just like you said it would. Like Sam Sailor said, he could have been an asset with his knowledge and hard work, had he worked well within the framework of Wikipedia guidelines. I have been keeping a tab on the foroches forum thread ever since Ansegam got blocked, to see if there was any mention of edit warring or sock puppetry, but couldn't find any. The user Graniole was created merely two minutes after the last edit by Ansegam's IP and the first edit was to this article. The style of writing, adding lengthy non-formatted url citations from google books (spanish), constantly reverting edits with no edit summaries were dead giveaways. However I gave the user a chance to come clean by providing some context about the whole situation on their talk in order to dissuade them from making further edits and let the situation resolve itself. However they decided to create a new persona, claim ignorance and rightly characterised it as "a battleground between one user and the rest of Wikipedia0s community" - and that really rubbed me the wrong way along with Ansegam's prior attitude. Thanks for taking care of this.  NQ  talk 20:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Chauhan

Ha! The most recent contribution to Chauhan may be the source of all the prior disruption. Chauhan1192 (talk · contribs) has just reappeared after years of inactivity. I don't think SPI will do much, though, because of the IP linking issue. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw him. Never mind the IPs, we could get the registered socks checkusered. [Checks pocket for little checkusers. Sure, a good flock of them. They're playing poker in there! Cute little fellows!] Hang on, I'm trying to think. That loud quacking noise is very distracting. Bishonen | talk 12:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC).

I was a little slow on the uptake there, sorry. Now indeffed per WP:NOTHERE and WP:USERHADBETTERNEVERTRYTOPLAYPOKER. Bishonen | talk 13:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC).

Didn't seem slow to me. Thanks, Bish. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Article

When you got time for it please take a look at Skogssamer. Thank you :)--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, on sv.wiki a focus on the Swedish skogssamer is natural, but surely on en you need to bring in Norway and Finland under this umbrella? That may be a lot to ask, since you're obviously starting from the Swedish article. If you want it to be about Sweden exclusively, the intro could acknowledge prominently that there are wood sami in Norway and Finland also (but this article is going to be about Sweden). I was going to suggest you could acknowledge it in the article name, but since the name is a Swedish word, maybe it's allright as it is.

I've copyedited the lead some, except the bit about how Manker in the early 1900's found only one remaining habitation (kåta?) which "was located in Malå during the 1800s". Huh, what? Had it moved away from Malå to somewhere else by the time Manker got there..? I don't mean to make fun, but I don't understand the sentence. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC).

48 Hour Block

Hello, I just pinged you in regard to this; I was told you had blocked me for 48 hours in April of 2014. However, I show no record of being blocked. I was gone for much of that month and my WP access was intermittent so I may have just missed it. However, in case you forgot to apply the block I wanted to give you a heads up and let you know I would receptive to its application now. I reviewed the case in question and I agree such a sanction would be justified for a 3RR I made, however, as I have not edited the article in question (Vance McAllister) since that time I would request you vacate the block. Thanks for your kind consideration. 23:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueSalix (talk • contribs) .

• [9] is your block log, which provides the details. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• "Vacate" the April block? Now? What are you talking about? There's a record in the block log, if you follow Dennis's link, and a block notice on your page.[10] I see you took a break for six days after 9 April, when I placed the block, thus perhaps didn't attempt to edit, but I'm still surprised you didn't notice my block template on your page when you returned to editing on 15 April. I thought it was quite conspicuous. Please sign posts on talkpages with four tildes to produce a signature, not five. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Dennis Brown and Bishonen; thank you both, kindly, for this clarification. I've replied in the ANI, however, allow me to again apologize for this extra bookkeeping hassle resulting from my oversight. BlueSalix (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for your support, even though I felt compelled to delete it before transcluding the RfA. You will at least have escaped the shame of a disadvantageous association if I manage to completely mess something up. Should I find myself in need of heavyweight backup, I'll keep the 'Zilla in mind. Deor (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

[Bishzilla can on occasion be protective of the little 'shonen, and now she's outraged.] Delete little 'shonen? _ROARR!! bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

Darwinbish bites Deor shrewdly on the ankle. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 18:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

172.3.208.11

In a recent discussion, you suggested I contact an administrator should this IP return to the editing practices that provoked the warnings. Well, they have as you can see here and here. I waited until the 2nd occurrence to inform you. A short block of less than a week probably won't be effective, since the user occasionally goes more than a week between edits. I propose two weeks if that's possible. Thank you! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. The original idea was for "a short attention-getting block", but I agree they might not notice a short one. Two weeks should not be necessary, though, because at a quick look at the contribs, I don't see them going more than five days without editing, at least recently. (That's quite an orgy they had for a couple of days in May.) Blocked for a week. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

Your Proposal about Rajsector3

Hi. Just to let you know that I've made a comment on your proposal about the above user here. I'll be interested to hear your comments. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuit

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Legal_threats_against_Wikipedians. Not sure if that is the best forum; I'd appreciate your guidance. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I see is already taken care of. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Request to take notice

I request you that on page Central University of Haryana there is competition to praise the present employees and creating accounts and advertising as per their whims and caprices. Previous information has been removed without giving any explanation by user:CuharyanaRajsector3 (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, Rajsector3. I've reverted Cuharyana's removals of sourced criticism and his long additions of promotional content, which also violate our copyright policy, being copypasted straight from the university's own site. (It's expected that a university website will read like an advertisement, I suppose — it is de facto an advertisement — but an encyclopedia article is different.) And, as you know by now, the copyright issue is serious also. I'll write a warning on Cuharyana's page. They're new, have editing nothing except this article, and probably know nothing about our policies. Thanks for the alert! Bishonen | talk 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC).

I've taken the equivalent of a Darwinbish bite out of the article to clean it up. Let's see if actually reading the source and summarising it accurately finds any favour with its current crop of editors. --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Very nice fixes, RexxS, it's looking 1000% better. I was going to suggest to RajSector that he try to get some copyediting help, but you've beautified it beyond any reasonable expectation. I wish Indian articles weren't in such a parlous state altogether. I don't know how Sitush does it, really. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC).

Request for help in survival of a page

Friend / Sir, I request you to help in survival of the page Corruption in Haryana , I am resident of Haryana and topic is notable with sources and essential to stop this menace. I make it clear hear there is no inclination of criticism and promoting someone. Even Lokayukt (Ombudsman) comments have been mentioned on the page. It is truth and having information for the world. If you are agree, please remove the template of deletion or extend the time period for discussion. Profound thanks.Rajsector3 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

(for reference, the recent ANI thread. [11] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC))

The sources may indeed demonstrate the notability of the topic, but the article itself is a piece of polemic and has no place in an encyclopedia. I understand your grievance with the authorities in Haryana, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs™ and I'd strongly advise you to read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing #Righting Great Wrongs and take note before it's too late. If you continue to treat Wikipedia as "essential to stop this menace", I'm afraid you'll rapidly outlive your welcome here. --RexxS (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please listen to RexxS, RajSector, and take to heart what he says. You're flogging a dead horse. Wikipedia is for neutral encyclopedic articles only, not for polemics or for saving the world. Your continued attempts to keep Corruption in Haryana in the encyclopedia are frankly making you look like you didn't understand the arguments made against it on ANI. The topic may be notable, (although the very title needs to be more neutral) but no Wikipedia article can be written with yours as a basis. Sorry to be blunt, but it needs to be deleted per WP:TNT. Please click on that link. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC).

Hm, yes, I am curious

Per your post here I would be interested in said info. Feel free to email me if you wish. Montanabw^(talk) 22:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, just noticed this. I'm only observing for now. Montanabw^(talk) 07:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously somebody's sock, since new users don't often start by re-formatting footnotes, using templates. I had some hesitation about blocking per WP:DUCK, though, because the master account doesn't seem to use those same cite templates, so I've asked a checkuser, to make sure. Confirmed, sock blocked, sockmaster warned. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC).

Follow-up to SOCK

Bishonen, I thought people were innocent before proven guilty, but have been misjudged here yet again. I'm not sure exactly what has been done wrong here. Do you really think there is necessarily one person living in a home where there is only one computer? We have several computers, and any number of people who use them at any time. Why not update your system to that which is more sophisticated so this type of thing doesn't happen? We went through this same stuff with Amazon last year. If I didn't know better, I'd say you're looking for a reason to argue. Peace to you, bro, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I will also follow-up with Coren, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if Wikipedia should ever be interested in updating it's system, I can recommend some great models by which to follow, including AT&T, PayPal, and various credit card companies. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't call me "bro", please. In view of your "I'm being oppressed as a woman" schtick, it seems a little sexist of you to assume everybody on the internet is a man (I'm not one). You have said the same thing now on three pages; I see from your exchange with Coren that a member of your family using the same computer was responsible for the brand new account that gave you a barnstar. Obviously a Wikipedia-savvy person, whose very first edits were to format some references using cite templates, an art many established users haven't mastered. Quite remarkable. Does the person perhaps have another Wikipedia account? And no, I don't think there is necessarily only one computer in your home, so why were they using yours? Were you not aware that Checkuser can pinpoint the actual computer used? See also WP:ROOMMATE.

But I'm quite willing to let the matter drop. I wouldn't have said this much if you hadn't come to my page with so much condescension. Bishonen | talk 06:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC).

Edit notice

Hi Goddess. Would you please consider creating this edit notice? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, it turns out I have to use a ¥”¢‰¶\{}}≠}{\¶ fucken template. Why? Goddess Darwinbish created an edit notice for her own talkpage with the greatest of ease and intuitiveness. Well, I'll have to fly by the seat of my pants. Let's see if it works.

It seems to — so far — I can't really test without going live with it — but shouldn't there be an introductory sentence to guide new users, or they're liable to add their "thoughts on anything" to the article, or — in confusion — nowhere? How about "If you have any comments on the article, please add them to the talkpage. We're particularly interested, etc"?

I see there's discussion about this in box form, and not everybody may be OK with your edit notice either, but I'll (try to) create it boldly, if you're around to respond to my suggestion above, and it can very easily be removed if it needs a fucken RFC on talk or something.. my god. Anyway. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC).

Hang on, I just realized you want to add the edit notice to the talk page. Then I suppose it doesn't need an introductory sentence. On the other hand, will new users even find the talkpage? We tend to think our system is intuitive because we're used to it, but it can be quite opaque to n00bs. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC).

Ah, sorry. Go to the article and click on the box that is in the infobox's spot. (I asked User:Drmies and he's not touching it with a bargepole. But I know you're so much braver and wiser than him.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, quite. Try to edit the talkpage now and see what you think. (I'm going out, back later tonight, if you'd like it changed.) Bishonen | talk 15:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC).

Thanks! It works, but I don't think it needs

• "Please add comments below" because that's pretty intuitable from the layout I think.
• "For a new comment, create a new section at the bottom of the page" because they're already doing that.

Is it possible to delete those? And could you please make the font a bit bigger? (<font size=4>bigger?</font>)? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As it happens I can edit that notice as well. I've made some of the changes you want, but I've left "For a new comment, create a new section at the bottom of the page" because you also get the edit notice if you click the edit link at the top for the whole page - and we'd like to then direct them to edit at the bottom of the page. Is that ok? --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you RexxS. Well, would you mind deleting that bit too? My thinking is this, in all the time since that article went live - 3 years or so - not one newbie has ever edited it or left a talk page comment. So, odds are that any newbie who does edit the talk page now is highly likely to have come via the invitation button, and the present wording would be meaningless and confusing to them. While the edit notice is on the page, I'll be fielding any comments or questions, so should a reader put a comment in the wrong place, I'll move it. This isn't a universal solution to be rolled out over all encyclopedia articles, it's just an attempt by me to get some (ideally expert) input to that one, well-watched article.

Also, would you mind changing "but your thoughts on anything – especially ways in which the article could be improved..." to "but any ideas on improvement..." - just for concision? Ta! (Link to edit notice.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. I was never crazy about "your thoughts on anything" — I mean we sometimes get literally some of those on talkpages… Bishonen | talk 08:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

Anthony, would you perhaps like to be a template editor? If so, check out the guidelines for granting it here. If you fulfill 'em, I can give you the user right. Well, once I figure out how. Bishonen | talk 09:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

That sounds very impressive. I'll definitely look into that. Thanks. And thank you both (User:RexxS!) for your help just now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already asked Bishonen to give me the template editor permission. Waiting impatiently for a whole new field for my endeavours! I'm very good with templates! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 00:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC).

Does it come with a badge? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This user has template editor rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Yeah, cool "in your face, suckers" badge. You should use it, Famously. But the documentation don't inspire much confidence, does it? They've imported some admin documentation lock, stock and barrel. Some template editor needs to fix it. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 09:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC).

I so want that badge. Mmm. I pass 3 and a half of the 6 criteria but it does say, "Items in this section are merely guidelines. An administrator may choose to substitute other proofs of an editor's competence in handling high-risk template responsibilities." (I promise not to handle high-risk template responsibilities. I swear, I'll make you proud.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This user has template editor rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Well the badge that the geeks have devised isn't quite as pretty as DB's, but it is a little easier to invoke. At least it is now that someone has created the proper documentation for Template:User wikipedia/template editor, rather than having the documentation just point to somewhere generic. --T-RexxS (rawr) 12:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That's very neat and professional. But I think I prefer darwinbish's Dadaist approach. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You are now a template editor, Anthony, per rationale of highly active user, flawless editing of late years, plus he calls me "goddess". Anybody else who'd like to be a template editor, please call me "goddess" below. Bishonen | talk 18:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• MONGO pathetic monster refer to you as Goddess first!...but template editing bad bad bad to let MONGO do...better smart user do it. MONGO make massive mess, crash servers, anger users.--MONGO 11:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think so, MONGO.[12] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Goddess, I have multiple template edits and even a template RfC change pending. I've even been pocketed by Goddess' friend and have even spottierless record than MONGO and used less Tanks. Plus I only edit templates that are broken or not conform to policy. And also use sandbox, testcase and talk page--DHeyward (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Little DHeyward is now a template editor by divine intervention (Bishzilla ex machina). Fell free to use Darwinbish's improved userbox as per above, and to use tanks. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC).

A topical video

This is fun. During 4:33-4:38 she is trying somewhat unsuccessfully not to laugh. vzaak 00:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

One question. I think I get the gist of most of this, for instance the suppressed giggling I mentioned is a prelude to this fantastic insult: "Er fula nuna är en skam för den person som bär den, ni förefaller skrynklig som ett handklaver." But what comes after the second "Alla kan ju inte älska alla här i världen, bland andra har jag särskilt svårt att älska er" at 4:25? Online translators and dictionaries are confounded by "Å hujjanemej, å hujjanedej, å fy faderullan faderittandej", if that is what the lyrics are. vzaak 13:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha, yes, great insult. Incidentally I tried putting my extract into Google Translate, as I assumed a page watcher or two might do that, and it was quite amusing, introducing a completely extraneous "your husband" (for "er man" in "särskilt sällsynt bliver den när er man ser", so one can't much blame it :-)). This version is very good, provided you keep your eyes tight shut while listening as the illustrations are beneath contempt. I think that's Brita Borg singing. It's better as a monologue, and I think it was written as such, for, indeed, Brita Borg.

As for those words… yikes. They're… exclamations, a bit dialectal and oldfashioned (as suits the song), expressing surprise/indignation. They're mostly just… rhythm, really. But there are a few semantically significant elements. You see how hujjanemej morphs into hujjanedej? That means "me" has turned to "you". So, you might loosely render the two together as "well, I'll be damned, well, you'll be damned". As for "fy faderullan", it's a euphemism for "fy fan", like saying "darn" instead of "damn". (Swedish is extremely fertile in those euphemisms, religiously-oriented swearing being more important than in English. Anything beginning with fa.. or jä.. is liable to be pressed into service: Fy fagerlund! Järnspikar!) And "fy faderittandej" conjoins the whole: "curse you to hell".

But your Swedish is obviously very good. Any background in it? Swedish parent? Bishonen | talk 17:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC).

Oh my, I am flattered by the thought that I might be cultured enough to know Swedish, but I have only a vaninishingly tiny knowledge of it arising from a general interest in languages. Despite being co-opted from a monologue, the duet arrangement was quite enjoyable for me, so much so that I was following the lyrics phoenetically while looking at the corresponding the Google translation. Initially, visually, the stage piece might appear to be another saccharine number akin to A Bicycle Built for Two -- I love how it's actually a series of insults and profanities. The mysterious "å hujjanemej..." part was tormenting me, resisting all my googling efforts. I really appreciate your explanation, thanks. Getting the lowdown from a native is always interesting. vzaak 05:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Making that out was quite a feat, then. I don't know if you noticed that the male singer in the duet was the writer of the song, Tage Danielsson. Creative guy, dead too soon. If you want to challenge yourself some more you might try Elektricitetsvisan. :-) Bishonen | talk 08:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) Or Tage Danielsson's monologue Om sannolikhet from 1979 about the Three Mile Island accident. Which is a real classic. Thomas.W ^talk 09:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I found a version with English sub-titles too ([13]); watching that version is cheating, though. Thomas.W ^talk 09:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Block me if you can

6 months.[14] Abhi (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I found you from here as I had searched this user's history after he commented in ANI thread to confirm what I was saying. Nothing strange about it. In fact your this comment is strange. I have given my previous username on my userpage, I have given dozens of links under username neo in above thread on arbcom talkpage. And you casually walk in the hall and declare that 'NOTE! THIS IS Neo.!'. So are you going to block me or should I continue banging my head against gang of anti-Indians and anti-Hinduism admins/users? Abhi (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute... If those admins delete my posts on arbcom talkpage, then it would flame me and I will come back with IP or new username even after block. Those admins use alien tricks to flame users and then block or ban him. So first, restrain them or please wait. Abhi (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

[Light breaks.] Oh, what I took as a challenge to block you was a request for a self-requested block? Sorry. I don't do those blocks conditionally, but on request as per my page User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks. Please read it. Mind you, your threat to sock indefinitely if "those admins" (who?) "flame" you (I don't think you mean "flame", really) is almost enough to make me block you without any request. But for the moment I'll do nothing, unless/until you come back with an unconditional request where you indicate you accept my conditions for self-requested blocks. In the meantime, please refrain from voicing personal attacks and conspiracy theories about other users. I know you haven't tried to hide your previous account, but you didn't make it clear in any visible way on the arbitration talkpage — not everybody clicks on links — so please don't take offense at my pointing it out. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

Sitush ANI complaint #36785

A clueless complaint in Aisle 2, of the paid-editing sort. I mentioned your sadly defunct Clueless Complaints about Sitush subpage. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, I didn't know Sitush was a brahmin,[15] I'll be more respectful. About the clueless complaints noticeboard, some asshole hassled me about it on RfD, so I defuncted it. I guess it had got a little old anyway. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

The vandal in Chile is back

Hello Bish. The vandal in Chile you blocked (after being reported by someone at ANI) is back, now as Special:Contributions/190.96.34.46. Same geolocation and the same old vandalism, introducing small factual errors in articles. Thomas.W ^talk 18:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Chillum. Thomas.W ^talk 18:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Right. But please tell me who it was I blocked for the same thing before, so I can take a look at the range. I block so many! [Lovingly applies extra lick of polish to her well-worn cherrywood block button.] Bishonen | talk 18:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

201.239.30.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The IP-ranges aren't related, though, and are even from different ISPs (this latest one belongs to Gtd Internet S.A. while the previous one belongs to VTR Banda Ancha S.A., both of them in Santiago, Chile), so a range block isn't possible. Thomas.W ^talk 18:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you meant the one I just blocked? Sorry, I might have known. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

Gente Totalmente Dispuesta (es:GTD Group) seems to be principally a business ISP; VTR Broadband (VTR (telecom company)) seems to have a strong presence in the home market. There's a reasonable chance you got both locations, unless the Chile vandal has figured out how to edit with a mobile phone. If so, could you ask him to explain it to me before you block him? --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing on a mobile phone is hopeless, but many modern smartphones can be configured to serve as a wireless hub, letting you surf on a laptop, using the Internet connection of the mobile phone. And it's easy to configure, all you need to do is to read the phone manual and then tick a box in the settings on the phone (that's what I did on my Samsung). Thomas.W ^talk 21:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

All you need to do is read the phone manual?? [Still trying to get past the first page on her Samsung tablet manual.] But yes, editing on a touchscreen is indeed hopeless. Bishonen | talk 21:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

I've got myself a tablet too, but since I'm not particularly fond of on-screen keyboards I got a tablet with a keyboard dock that turns it into a 10" midget laptop. I hardly ever use it for anything that requires typing, though. Thomas.W ^talk 21:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It might be better to take your info and request to the ANI thread for more eyes, RexxS. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

Aaargh, no, not the drahmah boards - what did I do to deserve that? Thanks for the tip, Thomas; unfortunately, here in the UK some of our mobile ISPs (I'd better not mention my old mobile provider) don't allow you to use your phone for tethering. --RexxS (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

How would they be able to tell? The only way to tell would be if they were packet-sniffing, looking for the identification tag of your web browser, indicating a desktop/laptop version of the browser (I'm typing this on my 10" "midget laptop" using Chrome for Android and tethering, with the web browser set to show the desktop version of WP and not the mobile version...). --Thomas.W.mobile ^talk 21:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh they know, I assure you. Here's a typical tethering policy that forbids tethering on unlimited data plans, and clearly shows that they look for it. Another mobile data provider that I won't name forbids any tethering at all. It may be worth checking your own T&C. --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WordGirl IP user

Hi, Bishonen. We've got a problematic IP hopper originating from Zapata, Texas. He has repeatedly added the May I Have a Word episodes? to the List of WordGirl episodes article, but it is unsourced, and has added the May I Have a Word critics into film articles ([16], [17]). I consider the IP's edits as problematic. Can you please do something about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

My lord, do you think you could ask another admin, please? I find those kinds of articles/lists, including their sourcing, so impenetrable. It's almost like asking me to handle a footballer article. (I avoid those even at RFPP, I'm afraid.) Sorry. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

I'll go ask around and see what can be done. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Russians

The user I1990k is a WP:NINJA who refused to negotiate the reverting of the collage. There was a consensus established a few months ago to change the massive to collage to a smaller one with ethnic Russians only. The massive amount of text regarding Soviet cinema violates WP:POINT and focuses on a country's cinema rather than an ethnic group's culture. I've already reported User:I1990k for edit warring and I'd appreciate it if you understood the situation better. Khazar (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking into it, and will respond on WP:AN3 soon. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

Thank you for your co operation. Khazar (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User behavior

Hi, User:Ezzex badly behave in Talk:Operation Protective Edge, especially uncivilized wording You should stay the fuck.., own restrictions, which are not Wiki policy. Eg: Jewish editors should not don any edits on this article, Should not use Israel media as references. I don't see it as a constructive edit. Therefore, I want to complain about the user. Could WP:ANI be suitable place or could you take necessary action? --Anton^Talk 19:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Admins are talking to the user at User talk:Ezzex and I added a formal discretionary sanctions notification. There should be no need to take any further action at the moment. I'm replying because Bishonen is on a wikibreak (see the message at the top of this page). Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Johnuniq for your prompt action. --Anton^Talk 01:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

95.180.123.154: disruptive editing continues

Hello again, Bishonen. Please note this. The IP was blocked for one week for the very same edit. Regards.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Now there is an other IP address but its most likely the same person vandalizing my talk page.--Uishaki (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it is the same person. I've semi'd your talkpage as well. Going to bed now, folks. Bishonen | talk 23:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

Please note that I've reported the IP at WP:ANI.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

More generators

This one is funny, though I couldn't find enough material to support sticking it in his article. And COULD TEENAGE SEX TAX THE QUEEN? Drmies (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It's only funny if you don't live in the country where he was Home Secretary. --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried the headline generator (getting "ARE CHAVS TURNING YOUR PETS GAY?" on my first try) but it wasn't particularly funny, maybe because the headlines you see every day in the UK make no more sense than the ones from the generator. Thomas.W ^talk 20:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a little disappointing that there's nothing about Sitush in that generator. Still, and while it doesn't cause cancer, the genuine headline in re the political leaders meeting at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela remains very nice: Obama and Castro agree on same-sex marriage. Perhaps from CNN. User:Tony1 showed it to me. Bishonen | talk 13:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC).

Amazingly, perhaps, this recent effort is the first time I can recall being called a Nazi. I do believe that Mr Blunkett was referred to in similar terms on a few occasions and, given that he is older than me, I may yet catch him up. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems continue at Chauhan

Yes, the problems continue at Chauhan. Most recently, it is Kggochar (talk · contribs), who has just yet again changed the article despite what the sources say and despite not offering a source that demonstrates an alternate opinion. I left them a sanctions warning here a couple of days ago because they've been making similar unsourced/anti-source pro-Gurjar edits on and off for months now and have shown no sign of discussing them except for a few minutes in January.

Could you perhaps fire a shot across their bows? - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but note that their last edit so far was made just after your warning + general sanctions template. In other words, they could easily have made the edit, and only then seen the warning (through getting an alert). So, I don't think I should do anything right now, but one more of the same and (if I'm around for it) they'll get a guided missile across the bows. Incidentally, do you take this user to be related to you-know-who? Considering they have been editing since September, perhaps not? Bishonen | talk 20:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC).

That is a very fair point re: timings. I'm sure that it won't make any difference in the long run but it is the right call. I wondered whether there was a connection but the range of articles is much smaller. We get spates of these Gurjar/Gujjar claims from time to time across a big swathe of subjects; sometimes they're obviously socks, more often I think they're meatpuppets inspired by a call to arms on web forums dedicated to that caste. This one may even be flying solo. Me? I wouldn't know a Gurjar from a goujon and really couldn't care less provided that they're following the sources and the policies. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah.. now that they've continued, I've posted a warning. Not nuclear at all, but the user's technical incompetence touched me (and also made it, for me, impossible to tell what s/he was talking about). But it is a warning. I'm going to bed now; perhaps it'll resolve itself, through some other admin, in the night. If not, I'll be as good as my word, and block next time. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC).

I can live with the technical incompetence and you'll note that I've done some mild refactoring of talk page comments - indents etc. It is the underlying mission that concerns me. While their sources thus far are useless vis-a-vis what they wish to support, I'll take yet another look at the general issue when I have a moment. Right now, that has caused me to divert to Irawati Karve, whose article was poor and who just perhaps was one of those eugenicist types who favoured the viewpoint. I'll wrap that one up and see what else I can find. I'm beginning to wonder whether a lot of these caste articles need a Historiography section where we can dump the indubitable nonsenses of the Raj era. And by pure coincidence, given my immediately previous in the section above, Karve studied for her PhD at an institute in Germany that was a centre for Nazi eugenics! - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Pi Pie

Do you want more to add to your collection. If so then check this. Thomas.W ^talk 21:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nom nom. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

I'll just...

*ba-cock*

...leave these hens here.
Peter ^Isotalo 20:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Aha, the excellent new Swedish pronoun höns? Fine critters, very motherly-looking! There should be one in every cookpot! (Am I quoting Marie Antoinette? Perhaps not.) Bishonen | talk 20:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

Kokt höna med currysås och ris är gott. Boiled hen with rice and curry sauce. Nom nom. Thomas.W ^talk 20:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So you say, and indeed it is. But do you realise Google Translate thinks "kokt höna" can appropriately be rendered as "boiled chicken"? Can you fathom that there exists on earth a language so primitive as not to honour the (culinarily) essential distinction between tough old hens (a gourmet treat if boiled long enough, not to mention producing the world's best bouillon) and their tender but boring and flavourless immature offspring? How can a language that mashes the two together have become the global default? The Untergang des Abendlandes is upon us! Bishonen | talk 21:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

English is a primitive language in many ways, in spite of its claimed exceptionally large vocabulary. In my opinion Swedish is a more precise language than English, in the sense that it's easier to express nuances, in all its meanings, in Swedish than in English. At the expense of Swedish being a grammatically and syntactically more complex language than English. IMHO and so on. Thomas.W ^talk 21:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Continuing problems with user Kutsuit

Hallo Bishonen
after your educational intervention on User Kutsuit at Talk:Largest cities in Europe, she has been continuing her behavior on several articles, as Azerbaijani Language and Languages of Europe. The idea behind her edits is always the same one that you noticed last month, and the pattern is always the same: she edits boldly, and after being reverted according to BRD she reverts again invoking BRD against the other user, accusing him of disruptive editing, menacing him on his talk page, removing article templates, refusing to accept past consensus, and so on. Afterwards, mostly she accepts to discuss, but with her version as the stable one. Before yesterday she has been strongly reproached here by another user for having accused me of canvassing. Today I restored the lead on Azerbaijani Language (an article where I was not involved so far) and removed the most problematic edits at Languages of Europe. Can you please watch these articles, just in case that she continues her behaviour? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll look into it, but it'll have to be a bit later. Bishonen | talk 08:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC).

Thanks a lot Bishonen, it does not hurry, this story lasts since one month... :-) In between, she reverted me again at Azerbaijani Language and Languages of Europe, ignoring my request to go to the talk page. BTW, to this two articles you can add Turkish Language, where I have removed a non pertinent reference explaining the reason on the edit comment, and she reverted me writing that the reference is "important". Alex2006 (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That looked a bit worse than I expected. I've just taken some action. Bishonen | talk 09:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC).

Thanks a lot! So much energy of so many people wasted, which could be devoted to make wikipedia better... :-( Alex2006 (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with IP 114.31.218.104's edit warring and personal attacks

Hello, Bishonen -

I saw your exchange with Binksternet after he put indefinite semi-protection on Good Luck Flag, and I just wanted to weigh in to say that IP 114.31.218.104 has continued to revert and to engage in personal attacks despite having twice been blocked, once for 24 hours and again for 60 hours. So I don't think that the latest block will be effective beyond its one-month duration. The personal attacks are especially worrisome and really do need to be prevented permanently, which I assumed the page protection would in fact accomplish. But would repeatedly blocking the IP be better? I don't know enough about Wikipedia policy to figure this out, so I'd greatly appreciate knowing your rationale for blocking instead of protecting. Many thanks! Ailemadrah (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, we often try to prevent abuse, but it's hardly ever possible to do so permanently..! But we try particularly hard with biographies of living people. Yes, I think repeatedly blocking the IP is better than repeatedly semiprotecting the article. Semi probably couldn't have been made longer than one month anyway, in view of the page's (modest) protection history,[18] and I'd rather not swat away all IPs and new users because one static IP is being disruptive. It's different when disruption is coming in from dynamic IPs, which is actually a more common case. If the person pops back up after the one month (but I find people often get bored and move on after a longish block), they can then be blocked for, say, six months, and so on. If something else happens during the block, such as for instance this person discovers how to change their IP, then I will certainly semi. (Please let me know if I should miss it.) Binksternet, incidentally, isn't an admin; I only intervened because I knew Bink couldn't protect or block himself. What he told you was that he would request protection, and he did, on this page, where I also replied. I understand your concern, but I don't think you need to worry too much. Feel free to ask again if there's anything else you're wondering about. Bishonen | talk 08:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC).

Thank you! This makes perfect sense, and I very much appreciate your willingness to answer further questions. Ailemadrah (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Administrator intervention needed

Hello Bish. Could you please take a look at Vikings and Talk:Vikings. There's a POV-pushing new editor there, Wikifiveoh, who seems to have totally lost it. They have repeatedly been removing the British Isles from the intro of the article, claiming that it's offensive in Ireland, and have kept on doing it in spite of having been reverted by several different editors, pointed to WP:BRD and told to get a consensus for the change before doing it again. In addition to repeatedly messing with my indentation on the talk page, in spite of being told how we do things here, and being pointed to WP:Indentation. Probably in the hope of getting me irritated enough to leave the article.

The failure to get consensus for their change has now made the editor totally losing it, accusing me and editor RhinoMind of being the same person, claiming that I POV-push for the term "the British Isles" on other articles too (which I have of course never done), and so on. When all I have done is defend a version of the intro that has existed for a very long time, and that there is no consensus for changing. Thomas.W ^talk 21:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no time. Talkpage stalkers ahoy? Bishonen | talk 21:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC).

Replied on your page. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

I believe we have a competence problem... Thomas.W ^talk 15:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm usually the guy who empties the standard external e-mailbox, but I haven't seen anything. Then again, it's been frightfully hot here, for days now, so maybe the report withered. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I had to offer you a Kitten. Why you ask? Because of those awesome balloon pictures on your user page! I guess also for your good admin work on Wikipedia.

NathanWubs (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

[Bishonen tickles the kitten under the chin. It purrs.] Awwwww. Thank you! Bishonen | talk 19:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

Do you remember ...

... what the situation was with Charlie Strap, Froggy Ball and Their Friends and related? I dimly recall there being a long-term abuse case involving someone obsessed with these cute films and their voice actors. A new IP has cropped up and is removing maintenance templates and making other troubling edits at the group of pages I have on my watchlist, but I don't remember whether there's a ban-revert-on-sight situation and before I ransack my talk page archives trying to find it, I wondered whether you do remember. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Checking the article history, it comes back to me. 90.224.246.99, a static corporate IP, had been vandalising these articles all over the place, and is globally locked until Oct 2014. And for three years on sv. Compare my note here. When I discovered that, I blocked them for a year on en. 192.36.199.133 and their brother 192.36.199.130 who appears in the article history are also static IPs. Let me check, with my limited skills, if I can get in via port 80 or 81 (said she as if she had any idea what that meant, but I have a point-by-point manual from a nerd in my pocket).

No, I can't, so they're by my lights not obvious open proxies. But they're static, so if you think they're obviously disruptive, or obvious representatives of the globally locked 90.224.246.99 (though as you can see they're not in the same part of the country), you can block them for as long as you like. Or, better, just block their tiny range, 192.36.199.128/29. There are so many articles involved that semi would be a pretty boring option. Bishonen | talk 12:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC).

That would be my first ever rangeblock, not a career step I look forward to. So I'll continue to play whack-a-mole, I think, unless they do more outright vandalising (such as the talk-page blanking). It does serve as a useful reminder of where those actor articles are that I need to expand from sv. Thanks for the context. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

They are sometimes adding new text in poor English and with strange emphases (as in the past), but today are mainly removing maintenance templates and sometimes removing one project's template from article talk pages. I've just given them a Level 4 warning for the former; you or RHaworth may want to step in if they do it again. I'm rather hoping they stop with that. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• My reservoir of credulity that this is not the same person is getting low now. I just deleted Talk:Stall-Erik And The Snapphanarna as a hoax - supposedly opened in 2020 - and will shortly tell them so. But now I see sv:Stall-Erik och snapphanarna, with 2015-20 as the projected opening date - more plausible but still unlikely. Feel free to undelete it and move it to article space if you think I was over-hasty, but it seems to me like the same kind of writing. I'm going to try simply explaining why I deleted it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The long list of Swedish kändis-es is a tad hard to believe. I've dropped a query to someone I happen to know at Svensk Filmdatabas, the only source given, to ask whether or not Svenska Filminstitutet guarantees the contents. If the database is more like a wiki where directors get to list who they've worked with, then it's not a reliable source. I'll get back to you. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC).

I've also just zapped another recreation of Talk:Agaton Sax and the Byköpings Village Festival (the globally locked IP had been creating it with And The). It would be nice if someone else would create these articles, with a reference or two, but I'm not equipped to do so, and inclusionist though I am, I'm not sure every film ever made should have an article. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yngvadottir, I've e-mailed with one of Svenska Filmdatabasen's reps, who's a friend of a friend and is also given as one of two people to phone here. And it seems to be legit. She, my contact, wrote the database page herself, after some critical analysis of the director's claims. And, thinking about it, those actors are the kind of people likely to google their own names now and then, and to blow up if they find them misused. (They're not all dead.:-)) As for the 2020 date: the director used to say it'd be ready in 2015, later changing it to 2020, so 2020 would be correct in the article. But, since you do "Swedish with dictionary" I can forward the info from the horse's mouth, if you like, with some more details and opinions about the film from this expert. (I wasn't thinking, or I'd have asked her to reply in English.) So I guess it should be undeleted. (And then maybe deleted again but with a non-notable rationale. A Swedish film scheduled for 2020? Wikipedia is not a chrystal ball.) The suspect IP only translated, they had nothing to do with writing the sv article, which I won't meddle with, since it's notable enough for domestic purposes IMO. Bishonen | talk 12:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

Thanks. As I say, I wish someone else would do these instead, with a ref. but I can't. I'm going to ask you to look at that deleted talk-page article, and the Agaton Sax film talk page article, and the rest of the IP's contribs and see whether you think we should be treating them as a blocked/banned user (that was my criterion for the Agaton Sax deletion). If there's still enough doubt, then I'd be happy to do that, or you may want to do so yourself, although the wording in the deleted article should probably be changed to future tense in that case before it's re-deleted. From my few dealings with the first IP, it seems the poorly translated English and heavy use of Swedish is part of the M.O., but it could just be a different film enthusiast ... Yngvadottir (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh god. I mean, sure. I'll look at it later. It's too hot. Bishonen | talk 18:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

Yeah it is here too, and Wikipedia seems to have gone mad the past day or two. Thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, still pretty hot, but I've recreated the talkpage article, moved it to article space, copyedited for comprehensibility (the incompetent use of tense tricked you into thinking it was a hoax), and added the source which is certified reliable. After all that, I'd feel a little mean if I immediately PRODded it for notability, but I really think that's what it needs (2020 is just too far in the future). I don't think the creator is the same as the globally locked IP, at least not with any certainty. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

Many thanks. I'm relieved you don't think it's the same person; I was afraid it was looking increasingly that way. Now I don't have to be a total hard-ass. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• In response to your note - ugh. I looked, watchlisted, and looked again at the IP's talk page, and I'm back to thinking this is the same person. Unless there's a club involved. Maybe you should try repeating your message about sticking to the source in Swedish? Their English isn't great (though better than my Swedish would be, heh). Otherwise, it's looking to me as if they're now doing too much damage. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah. It doesn't really matter if it's the same person, they're doing too much damage whether or not, and are too unresponsive. I'm just typing up a strongly-worded warning. Bishonen | talk 11:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

• (talk page stalker) I know it's none of my business, but why hasn't someone blocked the IP long ago? Their talkpage shows that they were warned, using formal warning templates, three times on 21 July, a level-1 followed by two level-2s, then on 28 July they got five warnings, a level-2 followed by level 1 through 4, on 1 August they were warned twice, a level-3 followed by a level-2 (???), and so far today they have been given three templated warnings, levels 1 through 3, plus Bishonen's hand-written warning. That is 13 templated warnings over a period of two weeks, but still no block. On a static IP making repeated unconstructive/disruptive edits. Thomas.W ^talk 12:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• • I believe I'm involved. Also, creating articles on talk pages isn't a crime per se. If only they would do it well. That was why I asked whether Bishonen thought they might be the banned person. I don't like blocking and mass reverting, but it would be a clear guideline. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• • I'm still not sure they're the banned person, who was an obvious vandal. This edition is more incompetent and uncommunicative. They've been told how to create articles; persistently doing it wrong may well be done in good faith, Yngve's daughter (perhaps they simply never look at their talkpage), but it makes little difference. All the persistence and incompetence is now pointing one way: towards a block. I'll block the range 192.36.199.128/29 (which also contains their brother 192.36.199.130) for a couple of weeks next time, then for a couple of months, etc. Thomas, yes, it's static, and I tried to figure if it's an open proxy, per above. I wasn't able to determine it, but I retain a strong suspicion. I don't know how to do mass reverting, btw. Anybody? Bishonen | talk 13:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

• Here's a nifty little tool for you: http://www.ip-adress.com/Proxy_Checker/ . Enter an IP followed by a colon and the port you want to test. I tested ports 80 and 81 on the IP we're discussing, and it's not a proxy. Which my instinct/gut feeling already had told me since a) the IP leads to an ISP (Resilans AB) in Helsingborg, i.e. the country where the person behind the edits obviously lives (based on subject choice etc.), and b) the editor seems to be too young to be able to use a proxy. Thomas.W ^talk 14:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The most thorough proxy check is the one that people will do for you at WP:OP. Post the IP address there and often somebody looks into it in a couple of days. Here are a couple more links that could be interesting:

• Global contributions from User:192.36.199.133. They are working on similar topics in all the languages I checked.
• IP's contributions on the French wikipedia, where they are now blocked one month for repeated creation of non-encylopedic articles.

If you suspect that a global block is justified, User:Tegel might be able to help. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

A one month block, for lack of competence, will be long enough to keep the IP away from en-WP until school starts again in Sweden, and they have less time to spend on Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 15:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

A schoolkid working at Resilans AB? Hmmm. I don't think they're necessarily so young. Anyway, thanks, EdJohnston, I've asked Tegel on Meta. Bishonen | talk 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

It's not a company computer at Resilans AB. Resilans do many things, including providing webhosting for others and being an internet service provider. As can be seen from that geolocation lookup (for the IP we're discussing) the ISP is Resilans AB, and the level under that is Cygate Group AB, who specialise in managing large networks, including stadsnät. And one of the stadsnät they manage is AFAIK the stadsnät in Helsingborg. A tracert to the IP from me also confirms that the last router before the unconstructive IP (192.36.199.130), i.e. what is currently the IP's gateway router, is registered to Cygate Group in Helsingborg (and the router before that, 193.108.5.251, is registered to Cygate in Stockholm). So the IP is an ordinary "retail customer" in the city net in Helsingborg. I worked with these things for many years, Bish. Thomas.W ^talk 19:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So what are your thoughts about a possible relationship with the globally locked Kalle Stropp vandal, 90.224.246.99, who's 600 km from Helsingborg? Any way the same person could use both IPs? The individual may have moved, of course, but it's not ideal to have a card like that in the deck. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

I haven't looked at similarities in edits etc, but will try to do that tomorrow. From a technical standpoint the only connection between the two IP's is that Cygate is a subsidiary of TeliaSonera, which is a very weak connection. They could have moved, though, but how do we prove that? A global block would have to be based on similarities in subject choice, editing style etc... Thomas.W ^talk 21:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that a global block of this guy wouldn't necessarily have to assume it's the same person (and I'm still not convinced it is). 192.36.199.133 could simply be blocked because they're persistently disruptive across many projects. We'll have to see how Tegel calls it. His meta talkpage is here, in case you want to add a comment there. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Update: Tegel has blocked 192.36.199.133 globally for three months. Suits us, I reckon. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Speaking of "Charlie Strap", is this an official translation? There are no reliable references for it in the articles. Googling draws blanks or just leads back to our own articles. So where does it come from?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it's made-up. Fake. Compare LIBRIS: nothing in English or any other foreign language.[19] Thomas Funck wasn't Astrid Lindgren. God knows where it came from (I'm not about to go look, sorry), but I suspect the Kalle Stropp vandal made it up. 192.36.199.133, probably the same person, did that with Stall-Erik And The Snapphanarna: made his own translation of the title. Here, you can see it being moved to the Swedish title, by User:Smetanahue. All that Charlie Strapp stuff should be moved as well, no doubt. And in the other language Wikipedias too... great, isn't it? Good catch, Peter. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Found one for 1991 film ("Flying High").[20] I figured it was a bit too good to be completely bogus. But doesn't seem to apply to the earlier films.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• [pokes head in after actually getting some sleep] I see. So now I should finally expand those actors. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

From extensive googling, stropp would seem to be a strop - a strip of leather used for sharpening razors - as in en rakkniv stropp. Does that sound right? They seem to derive from the the Latin stroppus (a thong or twisted belt), so I suppose the made-up translation could have been worse. I'm having trouble getting the image of a grasshopper in a thong out of my mind. --RexxS (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your research, but the translation couldn't have been much worse IMO. In the name Kalle Stropp, stropp is rather old-fashioned Swedish slang which means strop as in stroppy. (Modern kids including the Kalle Stropp vandal probably aren't aware of that sense, insofar as modern kids read or view this dated stuff at all.) Try Svenska Akademiens Ordbok, enter "stropp", scroll down to sense 4. Even though Kalle Stropp is the hero of the stories, the original sense of "liten person som är löjeväckande stram l. spänner sig på ett löjeväckande sätt" suits him well, especially the way he talks. No thong nuance. Bishonen | talk 15:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC).

I'd like to mend my relationship with you...

Hi Bishonen, I've given this a lot of thought last night, so here goes... You and I have gotten off on the wrong foot a few months ago, and unfortunately things between us just deteriorated until the recent quarrels. I'm glad that you understand that I felt I was harassed by you for many months, and I also understand that you're trying to do your job as an administrator. The thing is, I'm usually not confrontational. In real life (i.e. outside Wikipedia) I'm a very happy-go-lucky person. I don't know what it is about this place but it always seems to bring out the worst in me, but I plan on changing that. Wikipedia is a very confrontational place, if you think about it. Edit wars and flame wars take place almost every second around here, so the environment is intimidating. Nevertheless, I understand where you're coming from. I shouldn't stoop down to the level of engaging in these kinds of antics/arguments and I shouldn't have viewed everyone as a potential threat. I'm sorry for hurting your feelings earlier, my dear, and I hope we can put this behind us once and for all. And from this day onward, I'm willing to learn from you. You have many more years of Wikipedia experience than I have, and I'll be willing to follow your footsteps. Anyway, have a nice day. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your olive branch, Nadia. But your situation on Wikipedia isn't so much dependent on your "relationship" (? do we have one? relationships are slow ripening fruit, as IIIraute said of friendship[21]) with an admin who's been trying to advise you, as on the way you act towards other users, all of them. I'm sure you're not like this in real life, as you say, and it's great to hear you acknowledge that Wikipedia — or perhaps the internet altogether? — brings out the worst in you. I read that as saying you want to turn over a new leaf, and to, well… work on your interaction style..? That's great, but why not start by mending bridges with the ordinary, non-admin editors you're in conflict with and whose Wikipedia experience you've quite frankly soured lately. By speaking of mending bridges, I'm not asking you to eat humble pie, merely to change your demeanour for the future. If you don't know who I'm referring to, have a think about it, research your own interactions on user talkpages, articles, and article talk. This has not been a matter of "getting off on the wrong foot" with me, still less of my "hurt feelings" (I don't have any). Happy editing, and I hope we get on like a house on fire in the future. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

Hello Bishonen

I've got something perking and would like to hear your views about it off-wiki, away from prying eyes. I'd appreciate it very much if you'd drop me an email at your convenience as a couple of people have suggested that I get in touch with you about it. ShoeHutch@gmail.com Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Done. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

Local Nature Reserve and National Nature Reserve

Last September I asked for help at Talk:Local nature reserve to move Local nature reserve to Local Nature Reserve, and you kindly sorted it out. An editor has now unilaterally and without discussion reverted the move and also moved National Nature Reserve to National nature reserve. Can you advise how to deal with this. As I pointed out the names should be capitalised. Dudley Miles (talk)

I've moved it back and left a note for the user. I'm frankly not sure which is the best name, but just moving it the way they did isn't the way. I've reverted the changes to capitalization in the article, too. Bishonen | talk 11:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

Thanks very much. As I pointed out in the previous discussion, Local Nature Reserve and National Nature Reserve are always shown capitalised in the sources, correctly in my view as they should be title case. The editor is changing National Nature Reserve and the lists for each county similarly. See Special:Contributions/Mauls. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just looking at that. Oh lord, the National Nature Reserves is dispersed into four articles, all with the lower-case spelling. And it's been renamed. I think maybe you need to discuss that separately, if you think it's worth it. You might put a note on Talk:National nature reserves in the United Kingdom, and links to it on the talkpages to the four subpages — England, Wales, etc. Please let me know if you need any admin moves going forward, if you get consensus (or indeed if you get no objections in say five days or so) for your versions. Bishonen | talk 11:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters - "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". The section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters #Institutions is probably the closest to this case. In general, we only capitalise proper nouns and that implies that generic titles like nature reserve should not be capitalised, although specific instances, such as the Ripple Nature Reserve will be. --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In this case capitalisation is necessary for clarity, as well as being the usual style in sources. "Ripple Nature Reserve is a local nature reserve" does not signify that it is legally protected, whereas "Ripple Nature Reserve is a Local Nature Reserve" signifies that it has a specific legal status. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

er... YGM

heh. Begoon ^talk 21:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. You too. :-) Bishonen | talk 21:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

Disruptive Editions of IP-hopper

Hi. Pending changes didn't work out. He persists. (see new developments here). RegardsRpo.castro (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Responded on ANI. Pending changes does work, after its own fashion: the persistence won't reach our readers. Bishonen | talk 15:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

Did you mean to block 85.245.57.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? I see the block notice but not where a block is in place. —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, gee. Thanks, Fred. Bishonen | talk 16:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

Perrelli

I have worked to improve the Charlotte Perrelli article today. If you can find any further improvements, that would be appreciated! :)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice work, Babba. I've done a little copyedit on the first sections, maybe I'll return later. Bishonen | talk 19:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

AFC help, please

Hey Bish, Blitzkid has been deleted eight times, mostly per CSD A7. I've been looking at Draft:Blitzkid and, allowing for the fact that it is a left-field sort of band and so uses some wayward sources, I'm pretty confident that notability is now asserted. Do you have a moment to check the prior version? I'm expecting it to be mostly unsourced fancruft. If it is then I'll accept the draft version. But if it uses the same wayward sources then I won't. - Sitush (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have userfied the article into User:Sitush/Blitzkid. Please do whatever you want with it, when/if you don't need it let me know and I will delete it Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Alex, good call. Haven't seen you in a while! Bishonen | talk 09:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC).
    • • Hi, Bish. I got a mix of procrastination and a lot of commitments in real life. Thought about quitting but eventually settled on patrolling my 22K+ watchlist (your talk page included) and new Russia-related articles). Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @Alex Bakharev: thanks for that. I've reviewed the userfied version and it can now be deleted. However, I cannot move the draft over to Blitzkid because the target has bee protected due to repeated recreations. The draft looks nothing like the deleted version and, while I'm expecting some sources to be challenged, it passes GNG. Can we unprotect, please? - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @Sitush: I have merged the histories of both articles, reviewed the draft and considered the notability proven. Being an old-timer (mostly active before the Draft process was designed) I still hope one reviewer in good standing is enough Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
        • @Alex Bakharev: Two reviewers in good standing, Alex. I'm not the creator of that thing: I just went there to review it and then made a few tweaks. All's well. Thanks very much for your help, and thanks Bish for allowing the usurpation of your talk page in this way. - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Thanks! Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
            • /me is pleased to note her page has the magic power to fix quite complicated situations without herself doing any of the work. :-) Bishonen | talk 08:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC).

Til Eulenspiegel

Hi Bishonen. I noticed that you indefinitely banned User:Til Eulenspiegel in May for block evasion. It would appear that he has continued to evade the block by using ips, and may also in the process have created a new account. The following was originally posted by myself and User:AcidSnow on User:Bbb23's page, but I think as the original blocker of Til Eulenspiegel it's most germane here. Middayexpress (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have greatly apresaited the help you provided me these past few months and I surely need it again. User Binghi Dad has made numerous personal attacks against me and user Middayexpress

He has:

1. Called my actions "dickish"[22]

2. Accused me of making attacks against Rastafaris and their beliefs.[23][24][25]

3. Accused Middayexpress of article ownership.[26]

4. Made character assassinations against me and Middayexpress.[27]

5. Accused me of putting my own interest and point of view in my edits.[28]

6. Accused me of threats.[29]

This user also has:

1. Refused to provide sources for his orginal research.[30]

2. A severe case of ICANTHEREIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.[31][32]

3. A battleground mentality.[33][34]

4. Refused to read the policy's recommended to him to improve his attitude.

5. Put his own belief, point of view, and interest in his edits on Wikipedia.[35]

6. Most of all, has taken the dispute out on Wikpedia.[36] (see here for acknowledgment).

Despite being warned about his inappropriate behavior he has chosen to continue with it. I Anyways, if you need anything don't hesitate to leave a reply on my talk page! AcidSnow (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Besides the above, the Binghi Dad user in late July vandalized an admin's userpage on Wikitionary using an anonymous ip ("I wanna see you block a whole bunch more accounts, chickenshit boy" [37]). This was the same ip that he used to edit war a few days later on English Wikipedia's Sabir people page [38]. Additionally, one of his Sabir people dynamic ips was used to avoid 3RR on the Ethiopia page [39]. The user later also admitted to using that ip ("it was not misuse, I was logged out" [40]). Interestingly, his ip range is in the same Virgina geolocation as that of User:Til Eulenspiegel (as on the Geats page [41] [42]). Til Eulenspiegel was indefinitely banned in late May for block evasion via ips, and the new Binghi Dad account was registered a few days later in June. The new account also shares the same unusual assortment of interests as Til Eulenspiegel (specifically, Ethiopian, Native American, Rastafarian and Biblical affairs; one of Binghi Dad's ips intimated that he is Native American [43]). He has in turn alluded to Rastafarianism on the Amharic wiki project [44], where Til Eulenspiegel indicated that he is also a frequent contributor through his Codex Sinaiticus global username [45] [46]. The insistence that a particular phrase on Rastafarianism must be mentioned in the Ethiopia page's lede in particular stands out (viz. "[Ethiopia] is also the spiritual homeland of the Rastafari religious movement" [47] [48]). Middayexpress (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply, AcidSnow and Middayexpress. I don't think Binghi Dad is a reincarnation of Til Eulenspigel — they don't sound like it to me — and the checkuser I've consulted on IRC has also declared it unlikely. On the other hand, I agree they're being pretty disruptive. I've posted some advice on their page. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC).

I see, well that was not what I was reporting anyways. Can you at lease do something about his personal attacks against me? AcidSnow (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you read my post on their page? I don't think most people would call it overly meek and mild, considering that this is a new user (at least we have to assume it is). In other words, I'm doing what I can to stop the personal attacks and other abuse. If the problematic editing continues, I'll speak more strongly next time. Did you expect me to block without warning? If you're displeased with the service you'd better try WP:ANI next time. Bishonen | talk 00:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

I have read it after posting. As for being "warned", Midday and I both warned him about how this could lead to him being blocked. Instead of stopping he caused me of threatening him. So I am not really sure what an Admins warning would even do at that point. None the less, your post on his talk page will do for now. Thank you. AcidSnow (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Pointer

User_talk:Sitush#Quack.2C_quack.3F And I'm surprised Bishzilla hasn't eaten the hamsters yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Words do matter

Bishonen, I have always associated your name with justice, with fairness, with anti-bullying, and with protecting weaker and more vulnerable users. So I am quite surprised to see you apparently defending some questionable language on NYB's talk page. Maybe since, as I understand it, your first language is Swedish, you don't understand the power for harm some words can have for native speakers of English.

Sweden may be a quiet and uneventful place, but in the English-speaking world, cultural and ethnic groups that do not defend their right to be treated with respect may quickly find themselves on the receiving end of domestic, homophobic, or other physical violence. Objecting to racist, misogynistic, and homophobic language is not being "too invested". On the contrary, it is the person who does not have any objection whose ethnics need to be examined.

Let me be clear: the specific edit I am objecting to is here. While this edit contains much that is vulgar and offensive, the most serious objection to it that it contains racial and ethnic slurs that foster a climate of hatred and prejudice, in this case specifically against blacks, women, and gays. While I am not naive enough to think that it is possible to control people's prejudices, or to expect anything even approaching professionalism in a venue like this, Wikipedia policy on No personal attacks is very clear: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic,...epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors" are "never acceptable". To me it is rather begging the question to say the epithets do not rise to the level of insulting a "group of contributors" because blacks, women, and gays have the option of escaping harassment merely by concealing their identities.

A couple other things. It is not reasonable for Hell in a Bucket to expect people to constantly google his name when they are reading a thread, as he suggests on NYB's talk page, or to remember every obscure album the Dead ever produced. This is just a weird expectation. For him to accuse everyone who does not google his name of "poor judgement" is really over the top, not to mention lacking in the AGF he is so fond of bandying about. Has he googled *my* name? Even EatsShootsAndLeaves, who has a much less threatening name, has an explanation on his user page for those who do not automatically recognize Lynne Truss.

If you think encouraging Hell in a Bucket to be a better person is a sign of mental illness, why don't you take over and mentor him? Look what he says on the ANI thread: "Yes I'm aware I'm not perfect and yes I'm sure a more level headed person could have phrased it differently but I'm not now nor ever will I be an administrator so I will have to deal with being a "low life" with no expectation of respect and be true to who I am and let the people here who want to live in fantasy castles in the cloud where everything is perfect fix the world on wikipedia." Did you catch that? "No expectation of respect". That's really sad. And he thinks that's "who I am", and that he has to accept being called a "low life". In all fairness Baseball Bugs did try to help him out, and probably did a better job of it than I could have done, but the guy is stumbling badly, and en.wp has nothing for someone like that. There should be some essays or something about how to avoid patronizing language, for example.

I have also noticed you defending some questionable actions by people who should know better, and who I thought were decent people, but lately have really disappointed me. I'm not going to mention their names here, but perhaps you could think of talking to them quietly and getting them to moderate their language. It's a pity but even the WMF does not seem to care what kind of provocative words are used. I know that Russavia is not exactly part of English Wikipedia at this point, but if you notice here, he pretty obviously drops the c-bomb, right on the Wikimedia-l pipermail list, and no one even says boo. It's like the WMF totally buys into the idea of comparing someone to a woman to express how revolting and despicable they are. This is doubly ridiculous when you consider that only a few months ago, Wil Sinclair was run rather roughshod over on the same list for posting too many times. Imagine that, you can post whatever misogynistic trash you want, but as soon as you start creeping up to your so-called word limit, they start to talk banning. Wikipedia is now even worse than Wikipediocracy, where the c-word has now been officially replaced by "female urethra".

Bish, I'm sure you know that not everyone appreciates your, um, footwear collection, but I have been proud to ivote for them publicly and defend them privately. In the past, we have agreed on some things, and will probably agree on some things in the future. But there is no way I can go along with the current path you seem to be starting down. I hope you consider well your direction.

Hm, for your poetry corner, have you considered an American perspective, perhaps a little Countee Cullen? Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, one thing I forgot, User Hell in a Bucket keeps posting the most vulgar meaning for the abbreviation "GFY". I have provided him a link with the definition...according to this it means either "government fiscal year" or "good for you", and since I used it in reverting yet another obnoxious template someone left on my talk page, you can guess which one I meant. But even though he refused to discuss it with me at his talk page, he has been all over NYB's talk page and ANI, with a most tasteless definition. I do believe he enjoys posting my name together with the f-word. —N 07:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep drinking the kool aid Neotarf. Bishonen you may wish to see this as Neotarf has decided to involve you further [[49]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, Neotarf. I don't understand how you can think I said or implied on NYB's page that encouraging Hell in a Bucket to be a better person is a sign of mental illness. I don't know what to say. As a native speaker, you condescend to my inferior sense of cultural nuance in the English language and to my uneventful ethnicity, but that wasn't even a matter of nuance, it was saying something completely utterly different. Yes, I did accuse you of passive-aggressive behaviour in talking about "encouraging Hell in a Bucket to be a better person". No, you talked about mental illness, I complained that in doing so you changed the subject. The article passive aggressive makes a distinction between the behaviour and the psychiatric condition and so did I. You've read my short NYB post (carefully, I assume), but for the sake of the talkpage stalkers I'll link here to your post that I responded to and to my response. In the unlikely event that anybody cares. Most of us have had more than enough of the issue. Hell in a Bucket, I advise both of you to bow out gracefully, to just stop posting about it, anywhere. You're boring the audience. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC).

pictures are better, --incredibly toxic personality --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I just learned that I'm a drunk antisemite, though the latter possibly unbeknownst to myself. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. Are you also interested in becoming a collector of fine indignities and epithets? —Psychonaut (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, Drmies, you did give him a newbie welcome (after one of those diffs, but before the other). Not nice, though I don't know much about the history before that, except that, yes, I expect you do understand the Dutch language and history better than him. My favourite slur for an admin is this, lovingly enshrined on an earlier version of Black Kite's talkpage.

A very fine collection, Psycho. (She called him a psycho! Block her!) If you get repeated epithets from one user and they get to you, feel free to contact me (when they're fresh), and I'll consider doing some abusive adminning. But it's what you get for working in areas where passions run high, as I'm sure you know. :-( Passions + cluelessness are probably at their Guiness Book of Record highest in the areas where Sitush attempts to stem the tide of crap (or clean out the Augean stables with a teaspoon, to vary the metaphor). His collection would outdo you all, I bet, if he kept one. I made a kind of Sitush sampler here once, a complaint generator for the now deleted User:Bishonen/Clueless complaints about Sitush noticeboard, but I've stopped updating it. Bishonen | talk 12:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC).

The newbie template was for their EW template. Come on Bish, why should I rise above tit for tat? It's not like we get paid for this shit. Drmies (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Because a. historically, you're better than that, and b. an eye for an eye makes Wikipedia blind. NE Ent 12:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ent. You're right (on b., that is.) But I'm not sure you know that you're talking to someone who introduces Nazi POV to Wikipedia articles. That's a heavy straw for one old camel. Drmies (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You're awesome

I met User:RexxS the other day. We agree. You're the best. Though, I think my devotion to you is deeper and more enduring. He seems a little fickle to me. --Anthonyhcole, Esq. (talk · contribs · email) 08:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ça s'explique: he has met me and you haven't. Preserve the mystery, Anthony, and thanks. Bishonen | talk 14:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

Even if your in-person shortcomings are half as significant as RexxS made them out to be in his caring and sympathetic description, it wouldn't diminish you an iota in my esteem. Yours, Anthonyhcole, Esq. (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Shortcomings? What shortcomings? I know of no shortcomings. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sure that she has no shortcomings either - apart from those which I think it best I don't mention - I do hate those who repeat unpleasant gossip. Sadly, Antoine le Cole has have never met me otherwise I'm sure he would be equally devoted to moi - if not more so. One can't deny that sweet, little Mrs Bishonen certainly has some good qualities, and very admirable they are too...in their own way. Furthermore, I'm quite sure that when our esteemed Mr Wales called her "toxic", he meant it in the nicest possible way, but one can't help having a lingering doubt about her, can one? When he and I were dining (a deux) at the Savoy Grill last week (Mrs Risker was lurking enviously and sick as a parrot on the balcony having escaped from Clerkenwell - poor Jimmy all these women chasing him) I was very impressed by his commitment to civility and good manners. I explained to him, that it was totally unnecessary to give me a full court curtsy each time he left the table for the lavatory (I do hope his prostate's in good health), but being American and humble he was keen to do so - I think that's rather nice and shows a great understanding of civility - it quite caused the Archbishop of Canterbury (another admirer of mine and dining at the next table) to have apoplexy, but then then he went to Eton and understands these things. However, I'm digressing: I so very much wish that I could have presided over Wikimania, but it was out of town, and worse still out of town in August - you must have found London frightfully deserted; I just hope you weren't all too lonely. Should you and dear, handsome Rex require a signed photograph of myself, you have only to ask - I doubt Mrs Bishonen needs to keep a supply of such artifacts. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

My Lady: we haven't been formally introduced but I've been a great admirer for some time. I wonder if you would consider offering me a signed photo. I would treasure it, and place it in one of the more central circles of my Bishonen shrine. Your servant, always, Anthonyhcole, Esq. (talk · contribs · email) 08:56, 16 August 2014‎

Hahahahaha, his Bishonen shrine. Did you see that, m'lady? This is the guy who calls me "goddess" (at least when he asks me to give him template editor rights). Does he call you goddess? Didn't think so. I wanted to say this to you discreetly by e-mail, but since in your charming pre-war way you don't have e-mail enabled, it'll have to be here. Bishonen | talk 09:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

• Jimbo called Bish toxic? Really? It would seem, then, that he is heading well along the road to viewing everyone here to be toxic personalities. Perhaps he wants the place to himself, being the significant contributor to article content that he is. One wonders whether he could find it in him to demonstrate a little "more honor". - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• (Proudly) I am the original toxic personality, all others are imitations, as Iridescent acknowledged recently on his page.

There seems to be a bit of a drift towards assuming Eric is the biggest and best toxic personality. Bah, no. I took Jimbo to ArbCom over it in 2009. Well, over that and a short block. Didn't I link you to the private discussion page between me and Jimbo about toxic personalities, Sitush? As an example for you. Well, not really, but kind of. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

• I doubt that Jimbo's remark was a reference to the demure and seemly Bishonen--I suspect he is still a bit disenchanted with Wikipedia after that unfortunate Pricasso business. You have to admit that was rather lacking in decorum, even for an Australian. —Neotarf (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Was disenchanted (or heading down that road per Sitush) years ago (five years). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I put my view of Jimbo on Eric's page, reproducing same here--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

(Jimbo:)
As of course I do not worry that some content must be found,
I've got a little list — I've got a little list
Of civility offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances though content they may write —
Say all sort of naughty words, and who just may who knows be tight
But at peer review do dominate, though saying words like "twat"—
And get articles through FAC, and little things like that —
But in spite of all of this, to say “fuck” they do insist —
They'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed!

(Chorus of WMF sycophants:)
He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed.

(Jimbo:)
And although I don't write content, and could sink without a trace,
At least this is the gist — Put Eric on the list!
He's of course a bit annoying, and can get some in your face,
He never would be missed — he never would be missed!
In my speech I've just applauded, with enthusiastic tone,
How the 'pedia is trusted, in every country, and my own;
Though it oddly has escaped me, to ask the question "Why,
Is it that they trust articles, and rate them rather high?";
It's that singular anomaly, the content specialist! —
Somehow he won't be missed — I'm sure he'd not be missed!

(Chorus:)
He's got him on the list — he's got him on the list;
And I don't think he'll be missed — I'm sure he'll not be missed!

(Jimbo:)
To get articles deleted, like the one about my wife,
I try and do insist — I've got that on the list!
All funny fellows, content men, who have a little strife —
I've got them on the list — they'd none of 'em be missed.
And although I make a living with "God-King" speeches to the folk,
I won't let others earn a farthing, for unpaid must be the Volk.
Wikipedia is trusted, though sometimes when I feel blue —
I realise that others say, "It's not because of you!"
So I think it doesn't matter who you put upon the list,
For they'd none of 'em be missed — no one knows that they exist!

(Chorus:)
You may put 'em on the list — you may put 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — for none of them exist!

source = Jimbo Wales, following his closing speech to Wikimania 2014

Fashions and fads change, so I think I'd currently head you in a list of most toxic personalities according to Jumbo Wales even though you do have the advantage over me of being able to block his holiness. God, how I'd love to do that! Eric Corbett 17:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You did, Bish. The "toxic" bit just must not have registered when I read it. I'm not quite sure why all the then members of the Greater Manchester Project were included in Iridescent's list - that's a scary number of people. Still, when the person calling people "toxic" is also (hopelessly) aiming for loved-up civility there is definitely a case of pot and kettle. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The GM project people, of which there are still quite a few around, valued truth, plain speaking and results over hippie idealism. Not worthy members of the body in other words, to be shunned. Eric Corbett 17:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

One can't help wondering how much air-space poor Jimbo's speech would have obtained had he not mentioned the "toxic" ones. Really it was quite a clever thing to do; one can't help wondering if he were advised by a professional spin doctor, but I'm sure our beloved monarch would never associate with such an "uncivil" [51] [52] person. Perish the thought; if Jimbo were to come withing a hundred meters of such a person, he would be scuttling back to narrow, lower-middle-class America on the next available plane - would't he? Well perhaps not. Whatever, should we not just accept Jimbo's speech for what it was, and not dignify it, and give it further publicity, by commenting on it. Personally, I would rather be "toxic" and have a bit of life about me, than be some nerd whose only claim to fame is a tombstone saying "He was polite." and so would most sane people. So sod off Jimbo and let those that want to write this bloody project continue to do so - you just stand their and try and claim the credit - we are happy for you to so, but just shut the fuck up while we are doing so. None of us are perfect, we all have some dirty laundry that doesn't need airing - so let's live and let live. Giano (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Drifting off topic I know, but one final thought. Apparently there were something like 2000 attendees at Wikimania 2014, but there are only 3000 active editors on the English Wikipedia. So are we really supposed to believe that Jimbo's standing ovation came from two-thirds of the active en-WP editors, as seems to being implied by some? Has Jimbo identified toxic personalities on other language Wikipedias such as the French, German or Greek? Does anyone in the WMF have even the vaguest idea what's happening on the Greek Wikipedia anyway, if anything? Is incivility a problem on the Armenian Wikipedia? How come the French Wikipedia can make do with with only three pillars whereas en-wp needs five? Why, in front of an international audience, did Jimbo try to pretend that a possible problem with en-wp was endemic across every language version? So many questions, so few answers. Eric Corbett 21:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: I raised a not dis-similar point at Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia recently, before deciding that it was best to retire before the militant feminists really got to me. There are/were (not looked since) citations to various sources that referred to "Wikipedia" but did not specify whether they were referring to the entirety of WMF-hosted 'pedias or just to the English-language version. I also suggested that, for example, the gender gap for any of the Indic-language WPs would be much greater than for the English one. I could expand on that last sentence but, hopefully, it is common sense to most informed people, who are the sort that tend to frequent talk pages such as this.

It is bollocks, it really is, and the daft thing is that all these people who cite systemic bias - including Gardner, Wales etc - are almost certainly citing English language-centric studies and, probably, mostly US-centric studies. I couldn't be bothered trying to prove it but the lack of specificity in the sources seemed a pretty clear indicator to me. - Sitush (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And what's also noticeable is the lack of a far more important pillar than civility: WP:HONESTY, which explains a great deal. Eric Corbett 01:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sitush, when you make a sentence with the word "feminist" in it you frequently sound like some of those students that have complained to various deans and heads about me. It's common sense to me that those who complain that supposed penis bearers like Eric are chasing off women editors don't have a clue, but that doesn't mean that there isn't systemic bias, lack of coverage, and possibly a mildly testosterone-flavored atmosphere. We can solve that, of course, by (respectively) citing not just the 1911 Brittanica but by including the most recent and up-to-date scholarship we can find, by constantly thinking about what else we can do and what obvious subjects we're missing, by being--dare I say it--civil. (And by "civility" I don't mean "not saying the f-word", though that's maybe part of it.) I don't see the need for moral ambitiousness, but I also don't see why we would deny that Wikipedia is just like the rest of the world--catching up slowly. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• I forgot to state that Bish is, of course, awesome. And with "f-word" I meant "fuck", not "feminism". Drmies (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  That there's some systemic bias has never been in dispute as far as I'm aware, the dispute surrounds what that bias is. It's always seemed extraordinary to me for instance that en-wp is lambasted for its insufficient coverage of let's say Armenian topics, while at the same time the WMF is trying to promote the development of an Armenian WP, which is where you'd expect to find in-depth coverage of Armenian topics. But there's some very muddled thinking in evidence here. The first point to make is that the overwhelming majority of local language WPs are tiny and/or moribund. The second is that the criticism only makes sense within a mind set that supposes the English Wikipedia is the one that ought to contain "the sum of all human knowledge". Eric Corbett 02:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias isn't in dispute. Or, at least, I've never come across anyone who disputes it. But these campaigning-type people - the really vocal ones, some of whom are indeed active off-wiki in similar campaigns - are mostly going around yelling and screaming but not actually doing much else.

I go fix articles on any subject that takes my fancy and that has included a fair number of biographies about women, which are supposedly under-represented. Eric does the same; I'm sure that you, Drmies, and many others do also. But people like CMDC spend 70% of their time arguing and campaigning outside mainspace and when they are in mainspace it is not so much gender-related general content that they edit (which would make sense, given their concerns) but rather "hot" topics - gun control, Palestine, libertarianism and, yep, the political aspects of feminism. They're using Wikipedia as an extension of their outside activities and, no, I don't like it. I've seen enough flavour-of-the-day rent-a-mobs in real life without having them wandering round in a pack here, too. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What's irritating about this isn't purely that Jimbo rates "civility" so highly but that he's publicly basically saying that editors who've contributed thousands of times the content to the encyclopedia out of their own good will than he has should just bugger off. Wikipedia is desperate for decent contributors and at the end of the day we're an encyclopedia and our readers care little for what goes on behind the scenes. That he rates civility over content and even has the audacity to criticize anybody who has added a wealth of content to the website for free I think is a kick in the teeth. I think it just goes to show how little he is really aware of what people do on the site and what is more important. It's not his place to say that sort of thing, I don't care if he sees himself as a God-King or not. He should not be trash talking anybody who has contributed to the project, regardless of what he thinks of the way they behave.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

All true, but what's kafkaesque is to impose more civility (kindness ... compassion) by saying something that seems uncivil to me, lacking respect for editors even. 2009, really? And nothing learned since? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Gerda. I followed your link to Nikkimaria's post on your page, and then followed her link to that old page. I've linked to it myself quite recently, for Sitush, but I haven't actually read it for oh... about five years, and it was kind of embarrassing. I'm amazed at myself, and ashamed too, at having wasted so much time and energy on trying to argue with such a non-receptive interlocutor, such a teflon man. It makes me look ridiculous. I must have been foolishly optimistic about the power of argument and reason in 2009. I'm glad to report that optimism has passed. Gone. As if it never was. Saves a lot of time. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

You handled that very well, I thought. Jimmy looked ridiculous, not you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

So, are you all telling me that while I went away on wikibreak (a very relaxing one, I might add), Jimbo expounded some "great wisdom" somewhere and I totally missed all of it? Dang, I can't go anywhere these days. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Expounded it to great applause at Wikimania in London recently, little Heim. Here's a text version that includes a cogent comment by Randy from Boise. Lot of discussion on User talk:Iridescent, with a fine comment by Giano about clapping seals.[53] There, now you're all up to date and can unrelax yourself with my links. Bishonen | talk 15:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC).

Slurp

The Agave attenuata or olifantslurp

Did you know that Afrikaans for "elephant trunk" is olifantslurp?

Peter ^Isotalo 20:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, cool. But does Agave attenuata look like an elephant's slurp to you? Odd name for it. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

Flowering Agave attenuata, very trunk slurplike

Aha! "Sometimes known as the "lion's tail," "swan's neck," or "foxtail" for its development of a curved stem". Got it. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

Sluuuuurp! Just keep saying it. It only gets better.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Ahem, sorry. I hate to interrupt, but, ahem, the Dutch is funnier: slurf. It is one of the silliest words we have, and we have some silly ones. Of course the Germans have the word "Schlumpf", but that's not really funny, since one can't make jokes in German(y). Drmies (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• OK, that was unfair: the Germans have a funny word--"Schmiere". Ask Huon to come by and record the sound file. And even the word's syntax is funny--"Schmiere stehen". Hilarious! Drmies (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM warnings, India

Hello, Bish. I know there's a template to slap on the talk page of caste warriors, but is there a similar template (or even ARBCOM sanctions) for religiously motivated POV-pushing on articles relating to India? I found a new "religion warrior" today (Rainyday007, sample edits: #1, #2, #3), making unsourced edits on a large number of articles, inflating the numbers/percentage/share of Muslims in various locations in India, and would like to slap an ARBCOM template on their talk page too, in addition to the warnings up to and including level 4 that I've already given them. Thomas.W ^talk 12:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, there's the attractively named {{subst:Ds/alert|topic=ipa}}. Never forgotten once heard, huh? It's not specific for religion articles, but for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan altogether. P.S., I keep my notes for that stuff here, it's not a bad place to check. Note especially my note about how they're liable to be obsolete in lists on WP pages. Unless that's been improved recently. Bishonen | talk 13:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

Thanks, now added to the user's talk page. Thomas.W ^talk 13:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Ready for a game of whack-a-mole?

Ready for a game of whack-a-mole? See this comment at Talk:Cheema. I'd previously explained the problems with their edit and someone else had also reverted them, so this time I just used rollback. Sometimes you just know that they are not going to listen. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not ready until you give 'em the template, Sitush, sorry. {{subst:Uw-castewarning}}. Bishonen | talk 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC).

On second thoughts and a closer reading, blocked for two weeks. You'd better let me know if any articles need semi. (Though doesn't it sound more like an empty threat?) Bishonen | talk 12:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC).

Oh, yes. They will likely beggar about with a few IPs over the next few days and then get bored. That said, we have had some concerted campaigns in the past on caste articles, usually co-ordinated off-wiki by caste-based usergroups on Orkut etc. BTW, it is a bit pointless me templating an IP unless they are obviously online when I do it: this person has already used at least three different ones in a matter of days. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that you semi'd the thing while I was typing the note above. Thanks for that. Fancy weighing in with a comment at the last section on Talk:Jat people, re: changing citation style? An edit war is brewing and it involves two relative newbies who are well-intentioned but misguided. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume "beggar about" is a genteelism? What are you doing with it, Sitush? Don't forget to nurture your reputation for incivility. You see how, after being the great toxic personality, I've let myself slide into "demure and seemly"? (Only to users who haven't met me on IRC, I guess, but still.) Be warned by my example. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC).

Beggar about, bugger about: to mess around with ;) - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, gee. I know what it means. That wasn't the question. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC).

Ah, in that case I'm a bit mystified regarding your question, sorry. I'm not having a good day: arguing with people all over this place, including socks, POV pushers, newbies, think-they-know-it-alls etc. I might go beggar about with a few pots and pans instead. (For which I have another use of "bugger": my standard recipe is "When it's brown, it's done; when it's black, it's buggered.") - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

... and that's it. They've had a 3RR warning etc and I can't be bothered any more. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the toxic-est of them all

When did Bish become a follower of Guru Jambheshwar? You're a Bishnoi now? [54]  NQ  talk 16:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

What a puny "race to the bottom" this is. Does everyone not know which Wikipedian is the most toxic of all? Iä! Iä! Darwinbish fhtagn! And now that you don't have to be an abusive admin to run for ArbCom anymore, no one has to wait for the end of the late Devonian to vote for an arb who is truly on board with incivility. —Neotarf (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Joni Ernst

Joni Ernst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There seems to be some dispute over the Joni Ernst article. I've have never heard of this person before but it came to my attention because I'm a WP:BLPN patroller. In any case, a part of the dispute that seems very questionable is this bit here.[55] In a run-on sentence, the article seems to state (or at least suggest due to its poor wording) that the US Supreme Court ruled that Ernst "may wish to brush up on her high school civics". It highly doubtful that the Supreme Court said such a thing and a closer inspection of the source[56] reveals that this is the opinion of the news reporter. I think that the wording of this sentence is unclear, and that including this phrase is gratuitous and unencyclopedic. I was going to remove this part myself (or perhaps reword it to make it clear that these are the words of the reporter, not the Supreme Court) but the article has been locked. Given that this is a WP:BLP, I was wondering what you thought about temporarily removing this phrase from the article until the dispute can be resolved on the talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please compare my comment here. This article is not something I'm inclined to become involved with, sorry. Bishonen | talk 13:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC).

OK, fair enough. (To be honest, I'd rather admins block the edit-warriors than lock the article, but I understand that that's more drama for you.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm you have a mop.

If you could be so kind as to watchlist Amanda Curtis, who was just nominated as a candidate for US Senate from Montana. CFredkin is there and I see he has a history of edit-warring. Am discussing an issue at article talk, we shall see. But I'd like someone with the mop on standby. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 00:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I just asked for it on RFP before you responded, but yes, two days if possible. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Bishonen | talk 01:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC).

Quirinale

Good evening Bishonen, Alessandro writing! Don`t worry, I am not here for the reason that you fear :-) . It is a service question: I just found out that the very interesting recent additions to the Quirinale Palace (the residence of the Italian president) article have been copied (cloned?) 1-to-1 from the English version of the audio guide text given to the tourists (you can find it here) and reproduced on the presidency web site. Of course, the guy who copied it did not even find the need to put this pdf as reference... Is it legal to do that? I looked on wiki:it, and the same web site is used as source, but there our fellows paraphrased the Italian text... Thanks for your expertise, I just hope that Jimbo won`t be bombed by our Tornados because of that. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Heck no, it's not legal. A hefty amount of text, too! Sometimes it happens that when you think you've found a copyright violation, it turns out that the other site has actually copied the Wikipedia article (which they're allowed to do, provided they credit Wikipedia). But looking at the way it was added, that looks unlikely in this case. I've removed the additons and warned the user. Good catch! Er, could you link me to where it's reproduced on the presidency website? My Italian isn't up to much. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC).

P.S., lot of peacock words, too! Bishonen | talk 21:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC).

Hallo Bishzilla :-), thanks! In the meantime I could also find the copyright advice ("Avviso legale") on the presidency website. The pdfs are here (very well hidden, I must admit). About peacock terms, what can I say? This is typically a italian trait, since we perpetually oscillate between self flagellation and delusions of grandeur. BTW, the user who inserted this stuff is a superb peacocking athlete: yesterday evening I reverted a dozen of edits of him, all about how simply largest, most scenic, longest, whitest (sic), etc. the Italian landmarks are worldwide. Of course, each edit is rigorously sourceless. What a shame... :-( Alex2006 (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This on the other hand doesn't seem patriotic at all. Those are Rome's laurels! I went to revert it, but somebody else got there first. I think they need a note about adding unsourced content. Hmm… you notice how they've never responded to concerns on their talkpage, in the two years they've been editing? And, in an admittedly quick look, I can't see where they've ever sourced anything. This looks like a problem. Someone very young..? Bishonen | talk 09:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC).

Strange, I always tought that Jerusalem was known as the big apple... :-) Yes, I suspect that - unfortunately - "93" stands for his year of birth. I found his account on wiki:it, and as you can see from his talk page, there he has the same problems as here (altough our Italian fellows appear to be much tougher than we are :-)) What is disconcerting is also that stuff as "the withest building in Europe" remains on the lead of two articles (the Vittoriano was tied with Le Sacre Coeur in Paris) two months, before someone notices it...Mala tempora currunt! Anyway, a note about the necessity of sourcing his edits is the least that he can get. Alex2006 (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, he's got one, and just now now another one, per his latest edit (guess what that's about! No, really, guess!). He's the same on it.wiki as here, I see: no edit summaries, no edits to any kind of talkpage ever, and interesting copyvio notices (one with an actual block threat). I ought to check those copyvios here. I mean, I ought to go see if he's added the same material at en.wiki. Later. Unless of course you would like to? NUDGE NUDGE SAY NO MORE? Being bilingual it/en would help, after all. (No, I'm kidding, please don't feel obliged.) P.S. What, don't you mean Jerusalem is known as the Venice of the North? Look at this lot! Bornholm!!! Bishonen | talk 13:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC).

Hallo Bishonen, of course I will help you (BTW, actually I am trilingual, being the third tip the German one... :-)) . I will look at his addi(c)tions :-) at wiki:it and I`ll see if he copied some copyvio from there. About the Venice of the north, after reading his edit I must confess that I begin to feel some vertigo :-) , also because he inserted in the list Sete, which actually lies south of Venice...Maybe should I read the list upside down? :-) P.S. In the meantime you could search for copyvios here and here... Don`t worry, it was a Witz, they just passed both the DYK exam. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

With flying colours, I bet. You're a great content contributor, Alex. Bishonen | talk 18:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC).

Thanks a lot for the nice words and the beautiful barnstar! It has been an eternity, since I got the last one... :-)Alex2006 (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Re:Palazzo FAO

Of course! What do you mean by copyedit? Should I paraphrase the article, so that we have no copyright problems anymore? Alex2006 (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, is it copyvio too? :-( Actually I just meant fix up the English. I can't read the source, much, but I doubt it claimed that the realization of the edifice was started for want of Benito Mussolini. :-D But paraphrasing would be cool also. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC).

No, there is no copyvio, but the language was very involute, very spaghetti-like (I wonder which was the nationality of the author :-)). I tried to put some order, inserted some info and eliminated the "Duce" from the story (he was not cited in the article, and in 1938 he had for sure other things more urgent to do, rather than follow each new building in Rome). This weekend I will see if I can find some more info on this (rather dry indeed) subject. BTW, this building is always nominated among the three worst looking edifices of Rome, and thanks God that the Ethiopians accepted to get back the giant suppository erected in front of it. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. Look at the last masterpiece of our friend... :-)

I've already warned him about that last masterpiece. A final warning. Bishonen | talk 18:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC).

Hey, great rewrite, Alex! It's a whole new article! Bishonen | talk 19:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC).

Hmph! I thought you only admired my writing on palazzi. I'm sure Alessandro is far younger and cleverer than me - you just keep on admiring him; I don't care in the least. Giano (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You know I adore your brilliant palazzi, darling, I bow before them. Alex can hardly be younger without being in short trousers, surely? Bishonen | talk 20:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC).

Whole new? I would not say so, I just added a couple of sentences and refs... About my age, well, stendiamo un velo pietoso. I'm a booming baby boomer :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Email

Not sure if you have BlueSalix talk page on watchlist: [57] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought I did, but apparently not! Thanks for the heads up. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

See: [58] How much good will needs to be shown to BlueSalix before he does the right thing (for him and for the project)? Even providing him the words for an "apology"? I am all for giving people second chances, but really? BlueSalix has known what to do from the beginning, and per his last comment he is still passing the blame around and providing excuses rather than assume responsibility. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What, still? Cwobeel, I understand you're dissatisfied with BS's evasiveness and blame-shifting, but, after all, he's indefinitely blocked precisely because of that evasiveness and blame-shifting, following on the serious accusations he made against you. I certainly regret that some people, or really one person, has been encouraging him to continue the blame-shifting, praising his "maturity", etc. It can't be helping him to do the right thing. There is only one thing that can be done to stop it, and that's to block BS's talkpage access. I always hesitate to do that, especially in a case like this, where the obvious subtext to his posts is accusations against me (without mentioning me by name). But some other admin may decide to. Meanwhile, I have written to User:CaroleHenson, protesting about an admittedly minor aspect of the whole. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC).

Oh boy, I surely learned a lot about human nature on this one. I guess that by now, you can write a book or two on the subject :) - Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

See [59] - Using the words suggested by others to request an unblock instead of finding his own. Attaboy... - Cwobeel (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And this one [60] is a thing of beauty. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

replied to your message

Hi - I've replied to your message. Also, I'm not getting the option to provide an edit summary to this post explaining what this note contains; I'm not sure if it's the browser I'm using? (I just wanted to let you know I'm not intentionally avoiding providing an edit summary for this post.) Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

IP blocks

Thanks for taking care of the two blocks and your documenting it in multiple places to keep everyone fully informed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure one month is enough, really, since the last blocks were for three weeks. Make it more if you like. (Though be warned, it'd need to be documented in six places. ;-() Bishonen | talk 20:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Cosmos Master 1

We have a small washing line of dirty socks at present. Fiddle Faddle 11:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Right. I washed number 3. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

Would you like a tumble drier? Fiddle Faddle

I'd like a filter (for the lint). See comment at the SPI. Bishonen | talk 11:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

If you take enough teabags and place them in your ears that works. So does cheese. Fiddle Faddle 11:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

unblock request

Per [61], please unblock BlueSalix. NE Ent 11:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to expand - he hasn't passed us the emails in question, but rather emailed us to tell us he'll be passing it them to us in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 11:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I won't unblock. I acknowledge I was wrongfooted by ArbCom having initially mislaid BS's e-mail. I did attempt to check, and an arb told me, two days after BS's self-imposed deadline, that no message from BS had arrived and also there wasn't one in the moderation queue. That's when I blocked. Then the e-mail was found. But I won't unblock, as the issue of writing to ArbCom was only a tiny detail in the background to my block. Thank you for commenting here, Worm. I had just written some commentary to NE Ent on the unhelpfulness of your unexpanded original reply, which I now won't bother with. So it's still "in the future", just as usual, eh? I was assuming he hadn't forwarded any abusive e-mails from Cwobeel, as the subject line of his message doesn't suggest it,[62] and also, do these claimed e-mails exist? If they exist, why has BS been leading us such a song-and-dance, and been so evasive, for months? I blocked for personal attacks, calumny, trollish evasion and procrastination, and I stand by it. ArbCom has all the information, which I don't, in the sense that I don't know what specifically his message to them said. Therefore any arb should feel free to unblock at any time (I don't mean as an arbcom action, but simply as an uninvolved admin) if the contents of that message so inclines them. (Incidentally, Worm, he didn't claim he had an e-mail from Cwobeel, but some e-mails, see the ANI thread.) Bishonen | talk 11:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

Well, from an "admin with a little extra information" point of view, I see no reason to unblock, especially given the length of time since he's made the comment and the length of time before he can provide evidence. I'm very much of the opinion that people should provide evidence for claims like the ones that BlueSalix made - if the attack was on-wiki, I'd expect a diff - and I see no reason we should react differently because it's off-wiki. He does talk of emails (plural) in the email he sent Arbcom, I've corrected my statement above. Worm^TT(talk) 11:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × x2)You're blocking for "procrastination" because (as least in part) an editor went real life for a while after stating At this time, you haven't edited for a couple of days, nor sent me the promised e-mail. That's all right, everybody always has a right to disappear from Wikipedia, temporarily or permanently?? You're coming off as capricious and arbitrary -- which fuels the who anti-admin thing (currently on display at Kumioko's unblock review, if you've been following that). Anyway, having happily spent most of the Northern Hemisphere off-wiki, and reviewing the original thread -- which was an argument about the wording of an RFC and kinda / sorta insults from Cwobeel to B Salix and -- well, you know the whole thing is absurd, right? I've always thought WP dispute resolution should be the anti-Thunderdome -- Two editors enter, two editors leave. So … what do you need from Blue Salix to get him unblocked so they can get back to editing the encyclopedia (the important stuff)? NE Ent 00:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't personally need anything from him. You realize I'm only one of 1500 admins or whatever it is, and as per below, I would rather an uninvolved admin review BS's next unblock request, if he wishes to make one, and evaluate it. (As is standard practice.) Depending on how concerned you are about the capricious and arbitrary, you can always take that aspect to ANI for more eyes, or on up (user RFC, or a RFAR). Bishonen | talk 01:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, as the editor who was the target of the personal attacks and false accusations, I’d like to say that we all make mistakes and sometimes are too proud to admit them, pushing us into a behavioral slippery slope that eventually ends us in the pits. I’d suggest you consider allowing BlueSalix to continue contributing, if he can admit he made a mistake, issue an apology (not only to me, but to you as well for the foot-dragging and evasion), and commits to be extra careful in the future not to jump too quickly to conclusions that may have a negative impact on others. I have seen amazing transformations IRL when people are given second chances, and it may work here too. WP:OFFER could be an alternative if an unblock is not something you’d consider. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, your suggestions may be better addressed to BS than me. How about making them on his page? If, even now, he writes a decent unblock request, a reviewing uninvolved admin may well choose to unblock, or at least shorten the block. I'd much rather a different, neutral, pair of eyes considered the matter, than me; I feel I may be too cynical by now. I wouldn't object if another admin suggested unblocking. (Well, as long as there was a decent unblock request, I wouldn't object, nor, for my part, insist on any apologies. Forced apologies are worse than meaningless.) Bishonen | talk 00:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC).

^^^^^ this. If he spontaneously admits a mistake and apologizes, I'll be the first to support unblocking. But can we please not do the usual Wikipedia thing where we coerce an apology as a condition of unblocking? Per rule #16? MastCell ^Talk 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

But that would surely set a dangerous precedent. Prostration before the one true god is the WP way. Eric Corbett 01:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to read your comments on cases you haven't looked at, Eric. MastCell..? Did you notice me just quoting #rule 16? I have no interest in humiliating the guy. Editors have pride. An unblock request without lies would do me fine. Bishonen | talk 01:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC).

Totally - I was agreeing with you, although I missed that you'd quoted it. The "^^^^^" was supposed to be a pointer to your comment, with which I agreed, although on re-reading my comment I can understand that I was unclear. MastCell ^Talk 01:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You misjudge me Bishonen. Please don't do it again. You know at least as well as I do that an admission of guilt is a prerequisite for a successful unblock request, so don't play dumb. Eric Corbett 01:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Here yah go Malleus! Ride em cowgirl!--MONGO 03:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And you misjudge me. If you like, I can e-mail you some examples of recent unblocks that I have done discreetly and unconditionally, assiduously avoiding the attention of the eagle eyes who will insist that before blocked users can be unblocked, they must apologise, admit their mistakes, agree to learn to avoid previous pitfalls, work to address all of the issues, pave the road, seek redemption, face the music, show that they understand why exactly they were blocked and how right it was that they should be, and show remorse. That's an extract from #rule 6 of my Bishonen/Optimist's guide to Wikipedia — a rather nice complement to or commentary on MastCell's #rule 16, IMO. And I totally agree it's depressing I have to do these things covertly, hiding from the triumphalists with the pitchforks. But if you'd rather just take an invigorating gallop on your hobbyhorse and ignore the specifics of this case, that's fine too. Bishonen | talk 01:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC).

I'm saddling up my hobbyhorse even as we speak. Eric Corbett 02:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

95.180.123.154 disruptive editing again

Hello again, Bishonen. Hope you're doin' fine. Can you please talk a look at 95.180.123.154 (talk · contribs) latest contributions? It seems s(he)'s back again with their disruptive editing pattern once their block expired. I've provided some diffs at their talk page. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, Jet. I see what you mean, and I understand it's irritating. But it doesn't look like they're trying to disrupt or vandalise. You remember my request here for help from a Serbian speaker? I've tried asking at WikiProject Serbia now. If nothing comes of it within a couple of days, I'll block per WP:CIR. Bishonen | talk 10:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC).

Yes, I remember your request. It's also true that the IP has had enough warnings to know they are making exactly the same modifications that led them to a block. But of course we can wait.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Right. If they understand the warnings. Taking the long view, it's true that there's little point in people who don't understand any English editing the English Wikipedia. But before I place a really long block, I just want to give them every chance. Bishonen | talk 14:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC).

• Wikiproject Serbia doesn't seem very active to put it mildly. However, another admin has blocked the IP for three months. Oh, I see you asked on WP:AIV, so you probably knew that. I see you didn't mention I was trying to deal with it. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC).
  • Hello again, Bishonen. Yes, I did ask for admin intervention at WP:AIV. We had to wait a while to confirm that the IP seems to have understanding of English and, even blocked, their disruptive editing continues under another IP across articles related to Serbia [63].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS

You left me a message about one I left on Worldedixor's TP. You didn't see the subsequent exchanges as he removed them from his TP, but if you read his "View history" page you will see what happened and how I responded. I hope this clears it up. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

As long as you're now clear on what an 1RR restriction is for, and what tagteaming is, fine. I have to say Worldedixor's removal of the subsequent exchange, while leaving your original edit on the page, was pretty damn... oh, never mind, I won't finish the sentence. Let's just say I don't admire his action. Bishonen | talk 12:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC).

An admin left a message on Worldedixor's Talk page and I responded apologising. It was an innocent gesture and I genuinely overlooked the implications. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Well, except that Writegeist isn't an admin but a concerned experienced editor, which works too. Bishonen | talk 13:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC).

Sock-puppets

A week or two ago we had a sock-puppet on the ISIS page, a Krish8, and the next day a Krish39 appeared. I was suspicious and contacted AcidSnow (who had warned us about Krish8 on the ISIS TP) and it turned out he was yet another sock of Khaboos(?sp). AcidSnow asked me to keep an eye open for other suspicious appearances. Now for my question! To whom do I report suspected socks? AcidSnow? Ponyo sorted out this last one. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Report to Ponyo, and you may want to ping AcidSnow when you do so. Bishonen | talk 13:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC).

Timely block.

All this wiki-editing makes me so hungry! Sometimes I could really murder a good Indian. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Alas, I quite frequently find myself contemplating the murder of some bad Indians ... - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"The only good Injun, is a dead Injun." - John Wayne? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixing talk page archives

Hi, any idea what would be the preferred method for fixing the archive problem at Talk:Sengunthar? There is definitely an "Archive 1" as well as the linked Archive 2. There may be others under different names but I've no idea how to check that. - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, archives. We'll have to trust to the talkpage stalkers. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC).

@Sitush: Just the two. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick Question re XLRI- Xavier School of Management

Hi. I'm curious to know how you came across this page. Was it just fortuitous for me? I only stumbled across it using STiki. For the record, I think it is very poorly sourced and totally promotional, and needs a slash and burn approach. My problem is that I'm chicken. thanks -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've started to click on links in List of companies of India, just for fun. (Compare my recent contribs. Red, red, red! Slash! Burn! Stub!) Actually, now I think about it, XLRI- Xavier School of Management was probably in its turn a link from one of those. Association for Promotion of Creative Learning, maybe. Clicking on those pages one by one and going medieval on them separately is a bit like trying to clean out the Augean Stables with a teaspoon. Rerouting a couple of rivers would be the thing. If there's a decent article on that list, I've yet to come across it. It might actually be more encouraging to start from a slightly shorter list, say List of business schools in Asia. Bound to be full of fertiliser, that. Mind you, I'm coming round to the notion that the entire project is so full of it that Wikipedia needs the WP:TNT approach: blow it up and start over. And thanks for your good work, Roxy, I see you all over the place. ("For fun"? Yes, in a horrible dark way it is kind of fun.) Bishonen | talk 09:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC).

P.S. I only looked at XLRI yesterday, just before going to bed, and felt I had to get that warning posted. I've returned to the article now for a more thorough, uh, reading. You are absolutely right about it. And I see Sitush has joined in, good! The Avenger! Bishonen | talk 09:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC).

Oh I noticed. I assume Sitush is a regular here and started off the process. I have been observing this morning, and I have a satisfied feeling, not malicious at all, about the improvement. Thank you for your kind words above, but lets get the perspective right, I like to consider myself the wikipedia equivalent of Ensign Redshirt in a TOS away team. I'll know I've really arrived when I too get sanctioned by Jimbo. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi

if you find time for it please take a look at the articles Martina Montelius, Athena Farrokhzad, Victor Hartman, Helena Quiding and Lilla Skuggan when you got time for it. Appreciate it! :)--BabbaQ (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I fixed Victor Hartman, Helena Quiding and Lilla Skuggan, but BabbaQ then made a blanket revert of my fixes to Helena Quiding, restoring language errors and removing sourced content that I added, with no explanation, so I'm not going to fix the rest of them. Thomas.W ^talk 07:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Haldiram's

Thank you, Bishonen

Hi Bishonen: Just a note that your proposal for deletion of Haldiram's has been declined. Upon source searches, the company is notable per WP:CORPDEPTH. In the event that you're not aware of this, please note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. Rather, notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources about a topic. Please consider source searching prior to proposing articles for deletion, if you haven't already been doing so. Thank you for your consideration. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You know, it really is a bit rich, trying to level criticism here. The article was created in May 2006 and languished referenceless until yesterday, despite a {{refimprove}} that had been there since October 2013. As it seems that the threat of deletion is the only thing that gets articles referenced, you ought to be on your knees offering prayers of thanks to 'Shonen for providing the trigger for your frenetic activity on the article. The article is much improved, thank you. Now it's your turn to show a little gratitude. --RexxS (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Unique stance, but not quite right. Please consider reading Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. However, you're welcome for my significant improvements to the article. Cheers, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You know those are essays, right? Somebody's opinion. Not policies and guidelines to whack people over the head with. Please consider doing without the faux politeness when you write on this page. All those "please consider" and "Thank you for your consideration" really sound pretty rude, you know. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC).

Yes, they're essays (tagged as such atop). I prefer to be polite in my communications, which never goes out of style. At any rate, hopefully you'll consider the content at WP:NRVE, which is part of the notability guideline page, as was the intention of my initial post. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The blank line just below the heading doesn't belong to you, or any other humourless excuse for an editor, so I've put the image back. The page history is clear enough. As for WP:NRVE, you mean the bit that says However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface? Eight years not long enough for you? You're welcome. --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Note the sources that I added to the Haldiram's article, which establish topic notability. The proof is right there, in print, versus assertion by statement alone. Anyway, my post was intended as a friendly notice, nothing else. I'm not a mind reader about whether or not people are aware of various guidelines. On a lighter note, do you always speak for Bishonen, or just sometimes? (some humor, ha ha.) I'm going to go and improve some articles now, cheers. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That's much better. The sources were excellent (if a few years late - but let's not fall out over that), and the answer's 'just sometimes'. Happy editing. --T-RexxS (rawr) 22:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar

Hi Bishonen, thanks for the guidance in this context, As you have said, the clause social contract warranted a precise evidential backing, which the article from Telegraph, is expected to help clarify by as much as possible, as such when this institute had been founded (in 1987), the digital world, especially the world wide web did not exist and hence, any kind of retrospective documentary evidence to validate the clause would be almost impossible to locate on the internet. Being an alumnus of this business school, I have heard this clause being repeated in the institutional circle for years, hence, a self reference was potentially the most plausible (and the most easily available) content locally that could be linked, anyway, I hope the entry now fulfils the criteria, keep doing the good work ! Kamal Misra (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic / BS

I am not good at SPI stuff as they all sound the same after a while. The arguments regarding mail issues and infinite protestations to be restored seem similiar. CC only wanted to edit one topic with that alt account. See User talk:Colton Cosmic. --DHeyward (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That talkpage is an interesting read. I hadn't realized CC was a live issue so recently. But no, they don't sound the same to me. Not at all. I think… not sure how to put this without pointless offense… I think one of 'em sounds considerably brighter than the other. More straightforward, too. Mind you, I'll willingly concede I for my part stink at SPI stuff. Notorious for not seeing what's in front of my nose. Still, in this case… no, surely not. Let me just ping somebody who's pretty familiar with the habits of both accounts. Bishonen | talk 02:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC).

I'm hardly an SPI genius, but I don't see it myself. Besides the stubbornness (a trait found in many Wikipedians), I don't see that many similarities. Worm^TT(talk) 07:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC). 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.

Darylgolden^(talk) 04:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel currently at ANI

As the last admin to both block and unblock him, I thought you might want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Amharic_language_.2F_Til_Eulenspiegel. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Again with the separatists

I've had some low-level feuding with Boeing720, yet another local Scanian patriot. . So far, it's been relevant to Swedish language, Skåneland, South Swedish dialects, Scanian dialects where virtually all additions have been based on personal reflections or obvious skewing along the lines of "Scanian culture is a unique flower being crushed under the jackboots of Great Swedish thugs from Stockholm". I'm seeing activity at Scania as well, and I would appreciate some input from other users.

I wouldn't mind someone covering regional history with a local perspective. But as several users before him, Boeing is merely trying to add an overt pro-Scanian, anti-Swedish touch to articles. And without reliable sources, of course.

Stalkers, this goes out to you as well.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please listen to the man, stalkers. Boeing720 seems to think Scandinavian editors are likely to be prejudiced against Scania (?), so I don't want to waste my breath at the discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard. (I've put in a simple request for diffs.) At least, Boeing asked Diannaa here on the 5th to advise with a "preferably un-bias, un-Scandinavian" administrator about the question of the book "333-årsboken" as a source (is that really the book's name?). It can't be easy to get a non-Scandinavian admin to form an opinion about a book in Swedish, but now that there has been a fairly elaborate discussion between Boeing and Peter (both Swedes) at the RS noticeboard, non-Swedish speakers could reasonably evaluate their arguments. So far it's only the two of them doing the discussing, which isn't very satisfactory. It's the English Wikipedia, after all. Hello stalkers! Bishonen | talk 12:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

Good summary, Bish. These debates often get quite heated when suspicion towards fellow countrypersons arise. Being critical about these things can quite easily backfire if you also happen to be a native of Stockholm. To some, you might as well be wearing a monocle, sport a black leather coat and speak with a strong Bavarian accent.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Rev Del

I just came across this since Sitush's talk page is on my watcher's list. Please rev del this. It's vulgar slang used against Sitush in Hindi. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 08:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, LeoFrank, I'll be happy to do that but only if Sitush wants it done, because there's a problem: getting rid of the message will necessitate deleting all the following messages too (because all those revisions will still contain the message). Writ Keeper reverted it, and I've revdel'd the particular post, in order to get rid of the edit summary from the history. How about it, Sitush, do you want me to revdel the message and all that follows it? Bishonen | talk 09:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC).

There have been several similar ones over the last day or two, all of them seemingly from members of India Against Corruption. I can't see anything in the diff provided - no summary, no actual page content. Perhaps the revdel has been more effective than you thought, Bish? Or perhaps my eyesight has gone the same way as my hearing. - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. Because WK reverted it promptly, my single revdel got rid of it. I should have figured that out, but the brain isn't working very well this time of day, and it's a new wrinkle for me. All good, then! Bishonen | talk 09:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC).

Yep, all is good thanks. For the record, though, it might be easier just to ignore any future "teri maa" messages. That is what I was doing. I'm more concerned about their recent attempts to frame me for copyright violation etc than about some obscure insults. I'm wondering how much lower they will stoop and I'm spending increasing amounts of time away from my home address: these appear to be a serious bunch of people and they have a terrorist origin. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

So long as the last edit still contains the messages, and you don't revel that, then they won't be deleted although you won't be able to see which editor wrote what. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

But it doesn't contain the message we wanted to get rid of, because WK reverted it quickly, so it's not part of any later revisions. Right..? Or am I confused again? Bishonen | talk 19:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC).

You're right, Bish; you revdeled all that you needed to. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm very confused! And I'm very lost among all of these technicalities - sometimes, not even being able to see the admin buttons makes understanding the consequences much more difficult for us mere mortals. Anyway, since the **** has turned up again, what is the procedure for semi-protecting my talk page? I'm not really bothered about the insults but a semi might cause them to get bored. The downside is that it would have a dramatic affect on well-intentioned newbies. Is it worth it? - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Only you can say whether it's worth it. Please let me know soonest what you decide, I'm off to bed in 5 minutes max. Bishonen | talk 00:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC).

Me, too. No rush and a bit of sleep might be a good idea for me. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Nightie night. I liked the way you helped the ****. Bishonen | talk 00:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC).

Peculiar userspace edits

Hey Louis, come and look through this hole over here...

Hi Bish, Aatishkibar has just created User:Rao Asghar, a userpage for someone who was indef'd in December 2012. They have also just created User:Rana mudasir 2 and they've made two CHUS requests. I can't make my mind up what they are up to. Can you? - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Si, I had a look and it seems to be part of a pattern to identify Rajput editors. The Template:User Rajput was created by The Pakistan over the last two weeks and has been deployed to 12 pages - see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:User Rajput. Most of it has been done by Rajput334, but the last couple by Aatishkibar. I think 'tagging' other users as something when they haven't specifically self-identified is generally frowned on on Wikipedia, so maybe a word to the wise is needed for Rajput334 and Aatishkibar, but I wouldn't make a federal case out of it - it's pretty probably harmless. The reason for the rename request is "to contribute to sensitive issue (blasphemy in pakistan)", which seems fair enough to me. See what 'Shonen thinks. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks pretty strange, especially with the indeffed account. I'll ask a checkuser to take a look. Pity 28bytes isn't one; he changed Ranasherzaman to Aatishkibar.[64] Don't you ever choke on all that good faith, RexxS? Bishonen | talk 23:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC).

Nah, it's what keeps me warm at night. --RexxS (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

My gut said it is harmless, if misguided, but I need more eyes on it and I've got that now, thanks. I'm not familiar with CHUS, so the requests and then removals really fried my brain. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• The accounts are certainly the same individual. The following accounts are technically indistinguishable and editing from the same IP and device at the same time of day:

Aatishkibar (talk · contribs) (formerly Ranasherzaman)

Rajput334 (talk · contribs)

The Pakistan (talk · contribs)

Barrister at Law (talk · contribs)

The following accounts are also technically indistinguishable and editing from the same IP and device at the same time of day:

Sherry334 (talk · contribs)

The Pakistan (talk · contribs)

Ranasherzaman (talk · contribs)

Given the technical overlap across multiple IPs and devices as well as the behavioural similarities, I can't see how this is more than one editor, with Sherry334 being the master. I'd block the lot and advise them to choose a single account.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

hey, I know, user:The Pakistan and User:Barrister at law, we are from same office, rest of them i don't know, IP adress is same and inevitable, may be the other two used on my system because it doesn't shut down due to UPS connection. actually there is Load shedding Issue in pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput334 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Rajput334. Are you saying you people only have one computer between you..? I'm afraid people editing from overlapping multiple IPs, and especially if they do it from the same device, count as one person per wikipedia policy. See WP:COWORKER. Also, you know, even if you are different people, knowing each other and pushing the same point of view would still qualify as collusion, per WP:MEAT. I'm going to follow Ponyo's advice and block at least five out of the six. Let me know which account you prefer to use in the future, please, and I'll perhaps leave that one unblocked; I'll take another look at the contributions first. I've already noticed that you guys have supported each other (or you have supported yourself) in poking Sitush; that's a totally unacceptable use of multiple accounts. Could you please, tell me, btw, if User:Rao Asgar is also you or, well, a friend of yours? Bishonen | talk 09:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, IP adress of our device changes frequently, i don't know how. we are using on share network. its an office. i was saying That my system works on Uninterruptible power supply, and there is Load shedding Issue in pakistan, and i have confirmed guys used to use my system when main power supply is off. I'll ask guys not to support my argument any where. since i don't know its against wikipedia policy, i assume they don't know as well but i would let them know. as far as blocking matter, this discretion is yours, you may block according to what you feel good but however i suggest not unless there is disruptive editing by someone. make sure i don't know Rao Asghar. i had placed the template of Rajput at some accounts which i won't in future, as i just came to know u didn't feel good about that. reason why did that was because i knew these people were related to that Rajput community, i came across this, through their conduct at wikipedia. but i would avoid doing this in future. again i recommend, block the ones doing disruptive editing because blocking based on IP and same device would not be sound in context of the above mentiond things. what more i can say is that rest is up to you. Rajput334 (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If that's how you see it, I'm going to wait for User:Ponyo to respond to the technical points you raise before I act. Meanwhile, I notice you haven't replied to my question whether you all use the same device ("our device"? seriously?), nor my question about which account you'd prefer to keep editing from, if any. Bishonen | talk 12:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC).

I don't understand how you can dispute that you know these other editors. Are we supposed to believe that you, User:Rajput334, have no knowledge of the User:Sherry334, who shares an incredibly similar username, who edited the same articles as you, from the same IP range? And check out the history of Kot Ram Chand. Hello User:The Pakistan, User:Aatishkibar, and User:Rajput334, all on article created by User:Sherry334. Here is the article overlap between Aatishkibar and Rajput 334. Here is Barrister at Law, The Pakistan and Rajput334 all supporting each other in a recent talk page discussion. Picking a day at random, on September 12th both you and The Pakistan have a whim to use the same IP and a computer with the same UA to dabble with templates. At no time do the edits overlap as if you were two users editing contemporaneously. Here is The Pakistan editing Template:User Rajput at 18:16, and here is Rajput334 beginning to add that same template to user pages at 18:55. There is no way to tell where one account ends and the others begin, it's all one big can of worms. And you can add Army.pk (talk · contribs) and The Peaceful Student (talk · contribs) to the list of socks. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen yes same device, i am saying this. User:Ponyo i think this Sherry 334 is my old account some 4 years ago. since i didnt edit wikipedia during these 4 years, and i seriously don't remember its password. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput334 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Rajput, back when I was a lad we'd have said you're full of something. I forget what. Begoon ^talk 17:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd say whack 'em all, and add a long block on the IP. Thomas.W ^talk 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but you've always been too lenient... It began with an 'r', I think. No, 's', that was it, yes. I'll get it eventually - damn this senility. Begoon ^talk 17:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Aha, I had wondered about The Peaceful Student. Thank you very much, Ponyo. Since Rajput says he has lost the password to Sherry334, which is the oldest account and therefore technically the sockmaster, I'm going to treat Rajput334 — the account that has elected to talk to me here — as the main account. I'll block indefinitely all the others listed above.

Rajput334, are you saying you stopped using the Sherry334 account in 2010, then briefly remembered its password on 20 August this year, just enough to blank the userpages,[65] and now again don't remember it? OK, I guess that's no more unlikely than some of the other things you've said. You've edited from several accounts to attack Sitush on his page in a seeming chorus of unrelated voices, and tag teamed with yourself to game the WP:3RR rule on List of Rajputs. These are examples of either a use of sockpuppets (=one person masquerading as several), which the experienced checkuser Ponyo obviously thinks is the case, or of collusion between people who're closely connected. It doesn't make any difference which it is; it's abusive sockpuppetry in either case. The more I look at the contributions of the accounts listed above (for instance Barrister at Law giving The Pakistan a barnstar as one of his first edits — remarkable knowledge of Wikipedia procedures after just one day of editing, isn't it), the more my assumption that you're editing in good faith wears out. Since you have repeatedly ignored my question as to which account you'd prefer to use, I've assumed it's this one, that you've been answering me from. I'll block the others indefinitely and User:Rajput334 for two weeks for abusing multiple accounts. If it happens again, all the accounts will be blocked indefinitely. I'll put this whole thread on your page as a complement to the block notice. (Minus the comments from my talkpage stalkers, which are welcome here but don't belong on your page.) Bishonen | talk 23:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC).

Klågerup's Bloodbath

Hello Bishonen. I'm sorry for our "bad feeling", I won't be long. I have added "Klågerup's Bloodbath" to Scania-history again (a few sentances only) but after have found a source with secondary interpretation of overwhealming evidences (or sources as we say), also for details. It goes very deep in background etc. Old protocols are provided in the appendix etc. Reason I tell You this that I wouldn't have added the other two sources (from Sydsvenkan and Illustrerad vetenskap) if it wasn't for the Malmö museum source (as of now), The original authors are old or gone, i presume. I do also disapprove of bad sources. (I gave You a task not that long ago, by the way). I don't find Skåne "oppressed" today, but being teached in school "We should be glad of being Swedes rather than Danes" isn't my cup of tea, perhaps simply because I like Danes and Denmark. That has nothing to do with poor sources. All the best, Sinceriously Boeing720 (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Gave me a task? Did you really? I'm a volunteer, you know. But I do understand that you sometimes find it hard to choose the best expressions in a foreign language. There's no "bad feeling" on my part, believe it or not. (Where would it come from? I'm from Skåne myself.) My interest is in keeping articles encyclopedic and, as an admin, my particular interest is in making it possible for contributors to spend their time contributing content, rather than arguing (fruitlessly, as far as I have seen) with you and cleaning up.

OK, looking at your latest edits to Scania: please don't argue about Wikipedia's footnote criteria in a footnote! We write articles for ordinary readers, consulting the encyclopedia, to read. Including the footnotes. We don't expose them to arguments about our internal policies. That's what the talkpage is for. And we don't editorialise, such as by calling an event "very sad". I'm sorry, but I really think your sense of what it means to write an encyclopedia needs work. Your addition is also seriously WP:UNDUE in my opinion; I see Johnuniq has reverted it with a link to that policy. (You've been linked to WP:UNDUE several times. Have you clicked on it and read? Keeping additons "due" — relevant, and of reasonable proportions — is one of your big problems, and that was also what I was talking about when I linked you to WP:COAT.)

It frustrates me the way I'm having to explain things that have been explained many times before. Look, Boeing720, I'm really reluctant to block you, especially as I take your note to me here, about the new source, as showing that you're trying in good faith to write in a policy-compliant way, but I'm very concerned. Are you sure you're in the right place? All these complaints must be frustrating. Speaking of complaints, I can't avoid making another one: I'm flabbergasted at the way you answered a sentence I'd written on your page (speaking to Chillum), "And the great length of many of Boeing's talkpage posts must be discouraging too"" with an outsize, humongeous monster of a talkpage comment, five screenfulls on my good big monitor. I couldn't believe it. And further.. you also answered that short sentence of mine with direct commentary which reads like you hadn't understood it. That's why I've linked a couple of the words in it to wiktionary definitions. Are you sure the English Wikipedia is the place for you? I realize you're not allowed to contribute to sv.wiki, but there are many other fish in the internet sea. Bishonen | talk 11:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC).

Semi-protection II

Bish, I semi-protected your user page for 24 hours because of persistent vandalism in the last few days. Obviously, you can adjust it however you like. Of course, the last IP wanted the page deleted as nonsense, which I considered for a moment. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah but it's such wonderful nonsense :) - and thank you for blocking the IP. Given that it's an IPv6 and is unlikely to be reallocated to another genuine user much before the heat death of the universe, you could always be more expansive with the block duration ;) --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'll just speedy the page, it's not a bad idea. Thanks, Bbb23 and Sitush. What worries me somewhat is that none of these edits have shown up on my watchlist (I do watch my userpage, yes), and still do not. Do you suppose that's yet another interesting Flow thing? I wonder what else I'm not seeing. Besides the little red alert figure not working, that is. How about we all go on strike until they either fix those issues or disable the damn thing? (Incidentally I have unticked Flow notifications in my preferences. Doesn't help.) Bishonen | talk 23:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC).

I think you only see the most recent action on your watchlist, and if you search that for User:Bishonen you should find an entry with:

21:27 . . Bbb23 (talk | contribs) changed protection level of User:Bishonen

It's not relevant to this case, but it is possible to not have a changed page appear on your watchlist for another reason: someone might edit, but then a bot edits (and marks it as a bot edit). If you now look at your watchlist with bot edits hidden you won't see the page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, John, but that's not it. I know only the last edit shows up. Take a look at my userpage history. The last edit there doesn't appear on my watchlist — yes, I know where to look — and the others never did. I've checked my watchlist frequently over the past few days, I would have seen. Does any tps have a notion, about that, and about the little red number crapping out? (I recently put this bookmark on my page to replace the red-number alert function, which suddenly only works like one time in twenty. Cumbersome? Yes.) I'm tired of taking these annoying blips to the pump — don't want to spend my limited wikitime on that crap. I'll just live with them, if nobody has any idea, and hope the damn beta software they've been deploying sitewide gets fixed eventually. If I'm sounding tight-lipped, it's because I am. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC).

This is next to no help, sorry, but I'll say this - your user page is on my watchlist, which I do check, and I saw none of the vandalism, reverts or protection as they happened. I think I would have, generally, because that kind of thing stands out. So that's odd. However, if I search my watchlist now, the last (protection) entry is there. See - I said it wouldn't really help, but you asked... In general, the software changes are very annoying - breaking the one good thing they've done recently (Echo) by deploying and playing around with the woefully ill-conceived and broken, unfinished Flow is unforgivable. Look through WT:FLOW to feel the love. Or ask Fram... Begoon ^talk 11:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

MEASLY?!?!?

"measly 4 years"? MEASLY?!? It's four years too bloody long ;) Worm^TT(talk) 10:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You took care of the problem on your talkpage, I see. If you weren't an arb, I bet you'd have used the same abbreviation as I did, wouldn't you? Arbhood must make life dull. Anyway, I don't know that you can blame Cwobeel for posting on your page. For his first post, I mean. Considering that you said "feel free to come back to me with evidence" in the block rationale. (If Cwobeel or BS should happen to see this: please don't comment in this thread, unless you feel you really must.) Bishonen | talk 11:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC).

I certainly don't blame Cwobeel for coming to me, and I have no problems with him doing so again. That said, my comment to him of leave the other alone doesn't seem unreasonable. Arbhood does indeed make life dull. I went to an Editathon over the weekend, much more fun, I really don't know why I do this Arb junk! Worm^TT(talk) 11:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Appeal to my clever talkpage stalkers

How can I revert all the edits by a particular vandal? I know people do it.. but how? Bishonen | talk 11:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC).

User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js - User Contrib page -> under 'More' tab on top -> 'Rollback all'. Came across it yesterday while this happened. Just tested it out.  NQ  talk 14:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, love his scripts. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NQ and thank you Writkeeper. I see it says "Use with caution", that's a bit dull. [/me hastily restrains Darwinbish from clicking "rollback all" on Writkeeper's contribs page.] Bishonen | talk 15:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC).

Vávra Suk

Hello Bishonen, I just de-PRODed Vávra Suk using the edit summary "May be marginal notability, but based on significant (Swedish) media attention re. anything having to do with the extreme right. Also, notability is not lost by organisational changes in parties." I can understand some of your notability concerns given that this language version is international, but I don't consider it a clear-cut case, which is has to be for PROD to be used. A contributing factor is that you seemed to argue that notability had been lost due to ND becoming non-existent and his leaving of the editor's post. This is a principle I can't agree with, and which goes directly against WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Therefore, I suggest that you bring the article to AfD if you want it to be deleted, and without using arguments that goes against WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Best regards, Tomas e (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. "Swedish media attention re. anything having to do with the extreme right" is hardly the same thing as "Swedish media attention re. Vávra Suk". See also WP:NPOL. But I don't care enough about this dull stub to take it to AfD, where interest would probably also be very low. Thank you for your advice. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC).

I followed the activities of ND when they were still around. They handed out flyers in my neighborhood in Jakobsberg, and I received a pretty lame threat by one of their moronic activists when I told them they I didn't think they were welcome there. I'm pretty sure they were ones responsible for painting a red dot ("COMMIE!") on my door a few weeks later. Not that those klutzes ever tried anything...

Suk appears to have zero notability other than as being as party secretary of ND, which was pretty insignificant in itself. Right now, everyting except his birthdate would probably fit nicely in an expansion of the stubby article on ND itself.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Credible threats of violence!!!

Could be yours at a bargain price

First off....we should probably take down the credible threat of violence that I posted on your talk page which now sits ominously up top. "Wackos" are people too and the tank along with the whole MONGO Army stuff could be seen as a credible threat of violence which no Wacko should have to tolerate. But we really should consider other comments that almost anyone could see as a credible threat.--MONGO 16:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think your post constitutes a credible threat of violence. Even our current Supreme Court has stopped short of interpreting the 2nd Amendment to allow private ownership of main battle tanks, so you're OK (for now). MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wake me up when we get to incredible threats of violence. Zad68 17:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

But...I'm driving the tank! Most persons and especially Wackos know that Tank+MONGO=DEATH!!! But this isn't just about that...what about credible threats like when someone says "Nuke this" in an Afd discussion? Remember.....it's all in the mind of the beholder! Nobody wants to be near an Afd discussion where anyone is talking about the nuclear option!--MONGO 17:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

What I find incredible is that an admin should use the advice of an essay to indefinitely block a long-time contributor (7 years and 130,000 edits). Only 1 person in 75 in the UK has access to a firearm, and three-quarters of those are farmers using shotguns to keep down vermin. For any folks gullible enough to think such "threats" are in any way credible, I own a nice bridge in London that I'm looking to sell at a really cheap price ... --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

But London Bridge is now in Lake Havasu, Arizona where anyone can own a gun and carry it. So far, the bridge hasn't fallen over or sunk into the swamp. And it is very close to where Patton practiced desert tank training for the North Africa campaign. Very dangerous place. Mostly known for drunken deaths of college students on spring break and boats. --DHeyward (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Low quality" reverts

I expanded the lead of Party of the Swedes, but for some reason I'm being repeatedly reverted[66][67][68] by IP users with only "it was better before"-motivations. I'm guessing it's the same person. Anyone feel like commenting?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha, that's pretty funny. The IP-hopper probably has some experience of being told to leave explanatory edit summaries, since they have provided gems like "your edit was low quality, it was not a improvment" and "the article was better the way it was before your edit". I haven't come across that particular kind of "explanation" before. Anyway, if they would like to continue, they'll have to create an account, I've semi'd. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC).

Re: User:Bryancyriel/User:Mamaluigi2

Thank you for the rangeblock. I thought that those reverts won't end. -WayKurat (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for your efforts, WayKurat. No, when I looked at this, I realized they won't end! I don't think the person will remain confined to those ranges, though — it's only too easy to jump to a different proxy. I was just about to semi a bunch of those talkpages — I'll get back to that. At least it'll annoy him a little... Bishonen | talk 15:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC).

Yes, sad to say he used proxies again after he found out that they are all blocked up. He's now at 197.242.79.10 doing the same thing again. -WayKurat (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked by HJMitchell. Maybe the semiprotection (done now) will have more effect than the blocks. On the other hand, if it turns out there are a lot more of those IP talkpages that I haven't yet found, you might look at it like this, WayKurat: it doesn't matter that much what those talkpages look like. Who's ever going to look at them, other than the person himself? It's hardly worth the trouble, for either you or me, to do any more than we already have to keep them clean. Let him play. Reverting him on articles remains important, of course. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC).

Another one here: 103.6.219.2. He now targets the Manila Bulletin article, an article I restored prior to the talk page attacks and he cursed on his edit summary. Well, the kid seems have mental problems based on the FB page he "accidentally" posted on his original account's talk page. -WayKurat (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again. He's active again and this time, he's vandalizing the Angry Birds (video game) article. -WayKurat (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, of course, Angry Birds is his overriding interest. No bother, you're very welcome to notify me (even though I'm not necessarily around all the time). Semi two months. Bishonen | talk 17:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC).

Theatre Royal, Drury Lane

Greetings, I have had a look at the FAC and PR of the above and see that you were instrumental in both. A user decided that it would be helpful to come along and vandalise the article by plastering tags all over it requesting more refs etc. I have deleted them, removed the unsourced information and have started to copy edit it; Looking at it, it appears that this has been neglected for a long time and I'm worried that it may no longer satisfy FA. I'm going to try and tidy it up as much as I can, but I have no sources. Is this something you can possibly watchlist in case someone adds something dubious which I miss? Cassianto^talk 19:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Blast from the past! :-) But I had little enough to do with the article; it's Bunchofgrapes's baby. I see I got very chatty on the peer review; Bunchofgrapes was a good friend (much missed :-(), and also I had written several articles about Restoration drama, and was full of the energy of it, and choc full of 17th-century cruft. I'm sorry to say it all seems a bit distant now. But thank you very much for keeping an eye out, Cassianto, and for your good edits. I've watchlisted the article. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC).

Not a problem at all! It was the home and principal employer to two of my babies Dan Leno and Joseph Grimaldi which is why I don't want it deteriorating any further. I really want to try and keep it out of FAR and will be revamping it with Sagaciousphil over the next month or so. After that, I think a cheeky little peer review maybe in order just to make sure we have covered everything. Feel free to dip in where you can, your help (if any) will be much valued! Cassianto^talk 20:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't this handsome bridge that I happen to own look good on your lawn, RexxS?

Got one on my lawn already, but willing to part with it - no reasonable offer refused.

I've pedantically polished the References section so that any other pedants won't complain. The Notes is a bit of a mixed bag (and personally I'd have used {{sfn}} to auto-link the short notes to the full references, but I'm not up for changing citations wholesale). Nevertheless, I think it will pass muster except that I'm puzzled about where the current ref no 45, "Morning Chronicle, 7 July 1815" could be found. Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It is appreciated, RexxS, thank you. Incidentally did you notice this above from CU User:Ponyo? Maybe you should create yet another alternative account yourself, such as User:Famously Assumes Good Faith? I've got a lovely scenic bridge to sell if you're interested. Seven socks! (I'd taunt Sitush as well, but I'm afraid he may not be reading Wikipedia very avidly at the moment. :-( ) Bishonen | talk 01:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC).

Hello RexxS great to see you on board! Yes, the refs are a bit of a mixed bag, but I prey complete ignorance around the sfn format I'm afraid. If someone could undertake this I would support it however. Would the "Morning Chronicle ref not be found within the British newspaper archive? I have access, so I can take a look. Cassianto^talk 04:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Cass, I'm sure it will be in the BNA. My problem was I didn't recognise the title as a British newspaper, so I suppose I won't be the only one. Anyway, I've wikilinked Morning Chronicle to our article on the newspaper in case other readers are curious as well. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Help needed with page move over redirect

Hello Bish. Could you please move User:Thomas.W/draft/Glyptothorax conirostris to Glyptothorax conirostris? G. conirostris is currently a redirect (that I created a short while ago), pointing to a species that was originally erroneously classified as G. conirostris, but is now named Glyptothorax kashmirensis, while my draft is a stub article about the real Glyptothorax conirostris. Thomas.W ^talk 12:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose so, but why? I'm pretty sure you can move it yourself over an unedited redirect. It's only if the target page has been edited that you need an admin. Want Darwinbish to move it for you? (Cool fish! I didn't know you were into that.) Bishonen | talk 12:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC).

I tried but just got an error message that said I couldn't. I'm not really into tiny little catfish species like Glyptothorax, I just noted a request for help with translating articles from sv-WP a while ago, and did a few then. But then decided to do the rest (~90 stub articles...) too, a few at a time. So I've done a bit over a dozen now. Thomas.W ^talk 12:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? Odd. I'll just see if Darwinbish can do it. :-) Bishonen | talk 13:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC).

The system might not like moves from user space to article space over a redirect. Thomas.W ^talk 13:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Glyptothorax conirostris is now a redirect to itself, and the article has been lost somewhere in cyberspace. Thomas.W ^talk 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

But now it's where it should be. Thanks, Bish. Thomas.W ^talk 13:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know! Silly little footfish! It should be OK now. Bishonen | talk 13:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this. :-) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. I really mean that. :-) Bishonen | talk 13:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC).

Oh Btw keep Jat article on your watchlist. Since you know, one of our good friend is on wikibreak. So more eyes are needed. Thank you again. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for not blocking me.Things have calmed down. And I really should have listened better to Your first comment. This is my second barnstar ever given. Boeing720 (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Boeing720, I appreciate it. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC).

Now, in retrospect, I realize that I shouldn't taken so much offece as I did when You wrote "a friendly administrator advice" or something like that. If You had been of any other nationality than Swedish, I doubt I would have responded like I did. (Due to my bad experiences at SwWiki) It was indeed very stupid of me, and I'm very sorry. Also for one reply to John. Also, if I at that time hadn't already been upset by Peter (whom I admire from many perspectives, but not always agree with), I would neither have responded like I did. Regarding SwWiki, Peter seems to have had if not similar, so yet bad experiences there aswell (and typically with the same person aswell, Wapne/Yger.) I made some beginner's mistake in 2009 - yes. But I did resign after Wapne's harassments. Around half a year later, in 2010 Wapne was gone ! Then I began again. But only to experience that Wapne now was Yger instead! And when he blocked me (solely due to describing S-Bahn in Berlin not as "Pendeltåg" but "Stadsbana"), I found this to be very unfair, (and abuse of administrational rights). By that time I had began to understand what Wikipeadia really was about. (Not like "Susning.nu") I even humbly asked to forget the past - and many stated "yes of cource", but Wapne/Yger and his mates turned me down. And since Wapne could change to Yger, so could I change alias, I thought then. But here it would never happen, not like SwWiki was ruled some years ago. Never ! In my oppinion their problem was that I didn't always use Stockholm as basic perspective. I can especially recall that I had mentioned that Copenhagen is equaly importaint as Stockholm, also for many Swedes. (And examplified by the use of Kastrup as airport). The current Swedish "verdict" of me in my oppinion is untrue, exaggerated and extremely spiced and twisted. Some beginning mistakes are all what's true. I'm most certainly not stubborn, or debate things endlessly.

I'm indeed very sorry to have answered You the way I did. Thanks again for not blocking me, I hope we can put this behind us (atleast as time goes by), You must of cource still alert me if I should make mistakes. But I will never ever again answer any advises You may give me in the future like I did. I'm honnestly very sorry. And don't base Your thoughts of me, on the Swedish verdict, please. Boeing720 (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Breach of topic-ban

Hi Bishonen. User:Shvrs broke his topic-ban again: diff. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Yes, I see you are. Thank you for keeping an eye out. Bishonen | talk 23:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC).

Scary Til

Not. See User talk:71.127.138.35 and [69]. Pathetic really. But he isn't going away. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sad. He's ruining his chances of a standard offer. Just whack-a-mole time, I suppose. I did block one range on his account because of him, but this one won't work so well. Bishonen | talk 20:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC).

Agreed. I can't decide if it's actually him discussing hard discs though. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Boy, I didn't think I'd be issuing one of these in a hurry, but in your case I'll happily oblige. Thank you for being one of the most trustworthy and fair admins around; owing to my own experiences of late, you appear to be one of a dying breed. All the best! Cassiantotalk 19:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, how flattering (blush). Thank you very much. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC).

Mislabeling issues

Hi, Bishonen. What's this about antisemitism slurs? "imputations of antisemitism" sounds a little vague — do you mean I used the actual words "You are an antisemite", and referred to Nishidani? If I'd seen anything like that, I would certainly have recused myself with a self-imposed block. I still will, regardless if it was recent or not. Could you please give a diff and save me having to trawl through all my posts? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're perfectly well aware of what I mean, but very well. You said on ANI that you'd been "called a crying-Jew by a repeated offender"[70], and later on your page that you'd been "caricaturized as a crying Jew".[71] When I saw those posts of yours, I was horrified that the "repeated offender" hadn't been blocked for such egregious abuse, and posted to ask you who it was and where it had happened.[72] In response, you offered 12 - 13 links, none of them with any tendency to support your accusation, which had apparently been a mere (twice-repeated) troll.[73] A couple of your links were to antisemitic cartoons on the internet (not, I presume, cartoons created by Nishidani, or have I got that wrong?), one was to a 2009 editing restriction of Nishidani, which was lifted in 2011 (you have mentioned this editing restriction several times on ANI as well — you apparently think it's of great and enduring interest in the year 2014), and nine of your links were diffs to posts by Nishidani, none of which posts were antisemitic. Certainly none of them called you a "crying jew" or anything in that ballpark.

To summarize; you made an accusation against somebody you didn't name, and when I asked who it was, you linked, in response, to nine posts by Nishidani and one post about Nishidani. Are you under the impression that baseless accusations of antisemitism or of anything else are all right as long as you don't mention the person's name in your text on the page, but merely link to it, again and again and again, so as to identify them? That impression would be a mistake. Attacking-by-linking is no better than any other kind of attack, it's merely more underhand and passive-aggressive. That's why I wrote in my warning on your page (which was apparently quite mysterious to you) that "the next time you call him [=Nishidani] an antisemite, whether outright or by sly imputation… I will block you from editing". Please heed that warning. Don't attack Nishidani on any Wikipedia page, or via links, or for that matter in any other clever indirect way either. All right? I hope you can understand that I'm not happy about having my good-faith eagerness to protect you from ethnic slurs (an essential duty for an admin, IMO) used as a fulcrum for (as Johnuniq put it), ducking and weaving, and for an apparently never-ending waste of my time. What does you header here, "Mislabeling issues", refer to? Bishonen | talk 17:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) I hate to interrupt, but I think MarciulionisHOF may have misjudged something here. Bishonen was trying to help you, when she suggested that ANI thread be closed, because she's nice like that. Had it remained open, the other users may have (and still, I guess might) pursue[d] their very valid grievances regarding your personal attacks. If you want my advice (or even if you don't, I suppose), that was the point at which your best interests would have been served by dropping the whole thing, learning from the experience, and walking away. You still have that option, I think, though you've obviously endangered it. I recommend trying it. Anyway, as I should have said, just passing through. Begoon ^talk 18:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

CC: @Nishidani:

Thank you Bishonen and Begoon. I certainly assume good faith and apologize for not making a clear enough explanation. Brevity proved a disaster in this case. There was only one instance where Nishidani made a "sly imputation" towards me. He has now explained that someone suggesting that 'Palestinians support attacks on Israeli civilians' is the same as calling them antisemitic. He thought this was my "clear endeavoring", but his understanding is a misguided foreigner's perception. Palestinian motives are non-uniform and have an array of reasons -- some of them Nishidani mentioned (same diff) after attacking my intentions... but I was wholly aware of all the points raised and responded only in regards to the commentary about my alleged motives. Nishidani responded that there's proof for my intentions because of his lack of understanding and jumping to conclusions. Mostly (array of reasons), the concept of 'resistance' (Arabic: Muqawama) does not derive from antisemitism but from political Islam, and it has many uses. In the Israeli-Arab Conflict context the term is most prominent and has the meaning of turning back the wheel (Palestinian narrative on shrinking Palestine[74]) and returning Palestine back to the rightful owners. This entails wiping Israel off the map, but as a very high-ranking Palestinian official (Abbas Zaki) said on al-Jazeera it is unacceptable by the international community to say that outright and it should be kept private. Anyway, different groups have different views on what to do with the Jews once this is accomplished. 'Muqawama' in militant cases does not differentiate between soldiers and civilians. This is most clear with the atrocities in Syria and more recently by ISIS, and less clear in the case where the vast majority of attacks on Israel targets civilians, but the Iron Dome and other extreme security measures, e.g. the separation barrier, the checkpoints, reduce these casualties. To say this, is not an intentional smear campaign but realistic and source based. Thus, Nishidani's misunderstanding of the complexity of the issue turned into a comment directed at my "clear endeavoring" and not at the content. That I had used the term 'repeated offender', I now fully understand how my "repeated offender" comment was misunderstood -- and this is a grave error on my own part for not making a clear separation and explanation. It was not directed to the single offense -- which I still take exception to. I apologize for allowing the 'repeated offender' misunderstanding to occur, it was never my intention -- certainly not a sly imputation as you read it to be. My only reason for using "repeated offender", was due to seeing how in the last month, Nishidani made comments which served more for pissing others off than to promote collaboration ("Newspeak"(26 Sep) and "1,000,000 instances of shock in Gaza"(28 Sep)) come to mind. Referring to his less recent history was meant to show he should know better by now; after being released on good faith from a 2 year long "indefinite" topic ban in 2011 and was then blocked again with an expiry time of 1 day (Personal attacks or harassment) in January 2013. Again, I apologize that I have not clarified enough that nowhere in these diffs there was another instance of attacks on how my clear intentions must be to portray the widespread Palestinian support of the attacks on Israeli civilians as antisemitic (He ignored the part where I mentioned widespread support in Israel for wiping Hamas off the map). That said, I have been in about as much error as Nishidani was with his action (singular). I have, on one occasion, typed 'called' instead of 'caricaturized as' -- but it was an honest error which I made sure to clarify. 'Caricaturized as' doesn't mean I'm calling him or suggesting he is an antisemite. That connection is incorrect as someone saying I have intentions of smearing Palestinians does not automatically make them into an antisemite. An antisemite shows a clear pattern for abusive conduct towards Jews on a racially motivated agenda. Nishidani has repeatedly expressed disregard to Israel, not to Jews. There is a difference there as well. If I say that, it doesn't mean I am implying that he is antisemitic. With all the discussions and my horrible 'repeated offender' miscommunication, Bishonen jumped to the conclusion that this must have all been an intentional portrayal against Nishidani's character, rather than a reasonable objection to someone making bad faith assumptions on my intentions. For what it's worth, I have already corrected that mistake. I'm left to hope Bishonen and Nishidani will follow suit after this clarification and apology and correct their own misunderstandings into previous notes.

I hope nothing is garbled or left open for misinterpretation. Being new here, I had no idea so much drama can come from basic miscommunication. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no disaster of brevity there, and I'm not sure where you think there was one. Your response is unclear; I can't seem to extract anything responsive from it. I get lost in it, and I don't understand the relevance of this further elaboration of Nishidani's purported offenses. You explain about Nishidani making a "sly imputation" towards you in a way that's vaguely familiar to me — I'm sure it refers to one of your twelve original diffs — but why are you making me dig through them one more time? And then, to compound the obscurity, you go on to another point, referring to "the same diff" — but there was no diff — are you trying to make me crazy? (The only link in your entire post is to davidduke.com — what's that for, guilt by association?) Anyway, in brief, I don't understand what most of your post is for, unless for once again having a go at Nishidani. And with all that, you don't even answer my straightforward question, "What does you header here, "Mislabeling issues", refer to?". Perhaps your answer is implied in the totality of your two posts, but that's not the kind of answer I was looking for. If you want to post here again (you would be extremely welcome to just drop it), please take a shot at answering the question in one sentence, and altogether at writing briefly and to the point.

I don't think I did misunderstand the word "repeated offender", since you illustrated Nishidani's repeated offenses with some ten diffs, going back as far as 2009, and I'm surprised to learn it was possible to misunderstand my use of the term "sly imputation". It referred simply to your combination of a) accusing somebody unnamed of calling you a "crying Jew", and b) when asked who said that, linking copiously to Nishidani, still without naming him in your text. That in my estimation is sly. As for you typing called "instead of" caricaturized as in error (do you mean, like a typo?), can we at least lay that to rest? The issue isn't worth any more keystrokes, because I don't see the vast difference. Saying that someone caricaturized (in the same sense as normal verb "caricatured", I presume) you as a crying jew is a personal attack just the same as saying they called you that. In either case you — you! not Nishidani! — are calling up an antisemitic stereotype, and then you ascribe it to Nishidani. That's unconscionable. Don't do it again, that's all. Incidentally, you should be more careful of playing the "I'm an insider, you're an outsider" card, as in calling Nishidani's arguments "a misguided foreigner's perception". Speak to the arguments, not the individual, least of all to their ethnicity or nationality. And now I really do have to pay a little attention to my daytime work. Bishonen | talk 12:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC).

P. S. Even though you "CC'd" Nishidani, he hasn't weighed in here so far. I appreciate the forbearance, Nishidani, you're extremely welcome to keep it up. Bishonen | talk 12:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC).

I don't keep much up at my age, save my chin. I'm writing in small also because my wife is in the study and if she catches this, might contradict me. I dislike contradictions.;)Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen:, my explanation above is so that you will understand why Nishidani made a content-misjudgement based error (thinking that saying Palestinian support for attack on Israeli civilians is an allegation of antisemitism -- it is not) leading him to saying my intentions were to portray Palestinians as antisemitic. This happened only once (per "you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic"[75]). My mistake was taking too much personal offense at this. My mistake was due to the fact that it is a derogatory theme in pro-Palestinian caricatures. I never said this particular crying-Jew caricature was antisemitic, but I failed to clarify this well enough. Having this occur, now, a second time in the one month I've been contributing here (per: Some of your statements aove are bordering on racism, with your logic apparently going "he uses Palestinians as sources, Palestinians are all anti-semitic Hamas followers"10:53, 1 October 2014 - Fram) suggest I might be required to learn to embrace these misguided allegations and automatic bad faith -- my so called intention to make the Palestinians appear motivated only/mainly by antisemitism -- as acceptable conduct (why would Palestinians only have racial motives when there's a war going on for a century?). I hope with this further statement, my explanation above for what Nishidani misunderstood and took on the offensive to counter becomes clearer. I have learned that when presenting these instances of misconduct I must stress that I am not calling anyone antisemitic for doing so. It is a bigoted type cast in pro-Palestinian caricatures -- but doesn't mean it is antisemitic. Your bad faith is misplaced, as well as defense earlier in favor of someone having the incivility to ask if I was summoned to English Wikipedia by the Hebrew WIkipedia. I think it would show good faith if you follow my own correction and amend that statement. It would be nice if you also consider my explanation here and revoke your statement that I was calling Nishidani antisemitic. Not every pro-Palestinian cartoon, even ones portraying Jews in bad light, is antisemitic. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen: One of the people involved expressed displeasure, that my attempt wasn't clear enough and in his eyes could still appears to paint one side as evil. I have made an improvement suggestion, I'd like your input on it. Any further suggestions would be appreciated as well. Thanks. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

(no need to ping me on my own page.) I'd rather not get further drawn into this, or post on your page again. My warning stands, nothing you have said since has convinced me that it's not proper and urgent. I'll just say one thing about your latest suggestion: you wrote on your userpage that "These allegations show nearsightedness and bad faith". Fram in a response telescoped it into nearsighted bad faith, which of course comes to the same thing, and said it was a personal attack. It is. Accusations of bad faith are taken seriously here, indeed "good faith/bad faith" are important concepts in Wikipedia's internal discourse. (You accused me of bad faith above, which I ignored, because you clearly weren't well aware of what it means.) I've linked you to Wikipedia:Assume good faith before, but did you click on it?

Anyway. I see you reply to Fram's objection saying "[We're talking about] "situations where others jump to bad faith conclusions because they don't know the breadth of the material. That's not to say they have bad intentions. Most likely, not." You really don't know what bad faith means. People "jump to bad-faith conclusions" because they have bad intentions. Not because they don't know enough. That would be jumping to good-faith (but perhaps mistaken or misguided) conclusions. Bad faith is a serious accusation. You should stop using the term until you have figured out what it means. Click, man! (Btw you still don't answer the question I've asked twice. It's like getting blood out of a stone.) Bishonen | talk 09:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC).

• I'll have to contemplate your notes about what bad-faith means on wikipedia and try to improve future use. In the meantime, I will try to avoid using this term.
• As to your question, I guess I've missed it with all the words. I skimmed through your last comment. If I understand, you are asking what am I hoping to achieve with further posts. I hope to have a quick way of dissolving situations where editors with less than perfect knowledge on the topic matter (myself included) make bad-faith assumptions, followed by allegations towards me (i.e. allegations that I am doing something with intent outside the scope of the project). These allegations are misguided and a violation of WP:ARBPIA#Decorum. Editors should stick to content, not perceived intentions. This is the goal. I hope this is the question you meant to get a reply for.
• As a side, but very important note, I hope to get you to refactor your presumptuous accusation. I had explained my offense at Nishidani's allegation with a cartoon. You presumed a caricature of a "crying Jew" is antisemitic despite the context not being racially motivated (it is still an offensive caricature). Thus, you accused me on my page of calling him an antisemite. This certainly leaves an unjustified impression. What further can I do to allow for you to reconsider and retract that statement? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• You also "randomly" choose to illustrate a quote made by Nishidani with a picture of "A poster found inside the home of a wanted terrorist in Rafah." (file description)[76]. You later changed that section full of Nishidani quotes to a "The Classic Wiki-characters. Refers to no one in particular. Only archetypes." section, keeping the above quote and picture together. The more I look into this, the more I regret that I have started a discussion with you and not simply blocked you as a disruptive editor. You should really stop the "bad faith" allegations (which you used above only two lines after saying that you would avoid it), as the person displaying the most bad faith in all these recent discussions appears to be you. Fram (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: I was under the impression that you are involved in the ARBPIA topic area with your contribution on WP:RSN. Allow us to continue this discussion about userpage usage and my misguided breach of WP:POLEMIC on your talkpage (it distracts from the other topic and is irrelevant). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict), hello, Fram. Marciulionis, no, that wasn't the question, and I'm damned if I'll ask it a third time. You've worn me down on that point, congratulations. You've got a nerve to talk about losing my points "with all the words". Yes, I'm exceptionally long-winded, aren't I?
• "Bad faith" doesn't have a special, arcane meaning "on Wikipedia", it means exactly what it means elsewhere; I was merely making the point that it's an important, even central, concept in Wikipedia discourse.
• What you ask of me isn't going to happen, so you might as well stop bugging me about it. You might take a look at this page, especially the "Pestering" section: "Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. … If they persist, politely explain that you would love to help but you are rather busy.". I would love to help but I'm rather busy. I sympathize with Fram's temptation to block you as a disruptive editor; I feel it too. Bishonen | talk 12:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC).

Marciulionis, 12:02: "I'll have to contemplate your notes about what bad-faith means on wikipedia and try to improve future use. In the meantime, I will try to avoid using this term." [77] Marciulionis, 12:02, further in the same post: "I hope to have a quick way of dissolving situations where editors with less than perfect knowledge on the topic matter (myself included) make bad-faith assumptions,[...]" Marciulionis, 12:30, "editors with less than perfect knowledge on the topic matter (myself included) make bad-faith assumptions[...]"[78]

Trying to avoid using a term is hard to match with using it again in the same post, and in the very next post you make. Don't make promises you don't intend to keep anyway. Fram (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: Was there a problem with my use? (I never said 'never use it', I said 'try' meaning not to overuse it in error). Anyway, can you help me out? What was the question asked two times that I've missed? I'm only human and can make errors while reading as well. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You're beyond helping. I'm done with this. Fram (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen Was it "What does you header here, "Mislabeling issues", refer to?" -- I believe you mislabeled the cartoon (the cartoon's crying-Jew type-cast, though offensive, is not antisemitic), and subsequently mislabeled me. Best, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC) fix MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC).

After 10 years (see below) you have here an example of the difference between a dramatist and a playwright. MarciulionisHOF is not a playwright, but he's making much ado about nothing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Very true, and taking the performance to many more pages. Bishonen | talk 14:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC).

Thanks

Thanks for your comments, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'm rather depressed in that this week I found that the article on Chi-chi Nwanoku was deleted as a "none notable" person as no one could be bothered to dispute a PROD but would defend adding that link. Fortunately someone has seen fit to create a stub. WCM_email 22:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Wee Curry Monster. In a way I'm sorry the thread was closed so soon, it deserved more drama, IMO. ;-) But the practical problem had been fixed, so I guess I can't complain. (Not everybody loves drama the way I do.) About Chi-chi Nwanoku; yeah, I see it's a stub. Do you have a copy of the deleted article? If not, I can e-mail it to you if you'd like to add some of the material to the current page. Bishonen | talk 14:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC).

I didn't keep a copy, so I would appreciate that. Regards, WCM_email 16:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sent. Bishonen | talk 17:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC).

Research assistance available

The WP Library has granted me access to Cochrane, BMJ, OUP and HighBeam, if there is something from these resources that would be helpful drop a note on my talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, MrBill3. Bishonen | talk 13:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC).

You've been quoted

If your ears are burning, it's because you've been quoted (or, I would argue, mis-quoted) on WP:ANEW. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Collect_reported_by_User:MastCell_.28Result:_.29. This is a courtesy notification. MastCell ^Talk 19:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny that, I had actually noticed it, and started to type up my response, before I saw your post here. RexxS's post turned up on my watchlist and I went look, to have a mention of my name (without a ping) hit my eye — it took me a while to work out what it was about. It's not a misquote, I guess, as much as a misuse of a cherrypicked quote. I'm torn between indignation and admiration at the nerve of it. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC).

So I'm looking at [[79]] and totally just not seeing any reference to Bishonen. Am I missing something? NE Ent 23:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Try Ctrl-F. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC).

Well, ⌘ -F, cause I'm using a Mac. I before I asked and again after, still not seeing it??? (Case-insenstive search for "bish"). NE Ent 23:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably because you're looking at an old revision of the page, before the comment was made. (Why are you doing that?) Try looking at the current revision. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's very different. Never Mind! NE Ent 00:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ten years ago...

...do you remember the fun us chickens had solving the problems of the big guys? Here's a small & pocketable gift to remember the occasion: --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, thank you Francis, looks delicious! I did remember we had a nice chat, but the subject of it had gone down the memory hole, thanks for the link. I'm a little touched by the earnest way we assumed, at that time, that categories on Wikipedia could be made logical, and even that on the whole they already were, if only you and I straightened out a little kink in our own little corner… haha. I would not assume that today. Indeed I rarely meddle in the great Category Swamp, where you can so easily be sucked under and drown. P.S. I'll put it in Bishzilla's fridge, and please help yourself to a celebratory cake from her little selection! Bishonen | talk 08:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC).

Keep up the good work, and have some fun doing it. That's the meaning of this little celebration to me. All Wikipedia's swamps combined are still no larger than pocket-size. Sometimes takes the wit to make the swamp disappear in the pocket instead of the (wo)man in the swamp. But who am I kidding, where did I learn all that...? ;) --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Jaymasterjunkie

Somehow I think we're in for more of the same if the editor comes back after their block expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's hope not. But they seem quite impulsive — check out their last talkpage history items. And "vandals" — maybe I ought to warn them about personal attacks. Well, it's a new user. Bishonen | talk 23:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC).

@NeilN: Or at least, I thought it seemed naive enough to be new... it's David Beals, apparently. I'm not familiar with the puppeteer, but it's a big sockdrawer. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC).

Yes, saw that. I know we have a user with a thing for pictures of ceiling fans but didn't make the connection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Sweden dominates-the-headlines week

Also known as Nobel week. Additionally, thought of you when I saw signs for a Swedish beauty contest in our town. Jehochman ^Talk 19:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. All wälkommen to the Volvo beauty contest! Bishonen | talk 19:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC).

I may not write articles, but I still have some small inkling about how those who do feel

Wikipedia:How many Wikipedians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

• Original: [80]
• This morning: [81]
• Pruned and nursed back to some semblance of funny: [82]

As a fellow essay writer, I hope you can commiserate with me and make me feel better. This essay has become, after almost 3 years, and a multitude of "improvements", a steaming pile of crap. So I pruned the hell out of it, but expect to get a {{uw-own4im}} template on my talk page at any moment. I can only begin to imagine how someone who wrote 95% of an FA or GA - something that actually matters - must feel. I'd probably use bad words occasionally too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh My God! {{uw-own4im}} is a blue link! The end times are upon us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The end time didn't arrive since 2011 when it was created ;) - as some survived the WP:Great Dismal Swamp since 2012 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to say I never knew LIGHTBULB was your creation, Floq, even though several of my socks have edited it. (You want them to help you edit war to keep it clean? Say the word.) I think it was sort of doomed after the idiot addition of the "humour" template.[83] (oh dear, suppose somebody takes it seriously?). What's the moral? Well, as I realized when Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect" (yeah, it's a redlink, I AfD'd it), started to be edited largely, it is that you should never put your essays into Wikipedia space. Keep 'em safe in your userspace, like MastCell's Cynic's guide to Wikipedia or my own Optimist's guide. Crowdsourcing is all very delightful for articles — well, for some articles — but not so much for essays or even "essays". They're liable to get levelled right down. Well, unless someone defends 'em aggressively (oh! oh! WP:OWN! and boring too!). Bishonen | talk 22:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC).

P.S. Not sure what I can say to make you feel better. When Sitush asked for somebody to make him feel better I called him a cunt, but he left anyway.[84][85] :-( Bishonen | talk 22:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC).

Actually, I thought WP:WQA worked pretty well, just not in an obvious way the folks might (foolishly) expect it to. It worked when a couple ~50 edit editors could sling snark at each other for a few days, eventually figure out that no one was going to save them from themselves, and figure out how to get along -- without the discussion clogging up article talk or ANI or Jimbo's page or all the usual places such discussions talk place nowadays. NE Ent 23:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If you feel the need for further proof, this was a userspace essay that Malleus, Keeper76 and myself (with help from numerous others) knocked up back Before The Dawn Of Time. This was what happened to it once it was moved from userspace to WP:space. (This long-forgotten sub-page of it ought to form part of Wikipedia's user manual, IMO.) – iridescent 09:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I knew the first from Eric's talk, recently mentioned, but not the decoder, made my day ;) - I voted a support today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The correct answer to the question "How many Wikipedians would it take to screw in a lightbulb" is two, but they would have to be very small in order to fit inside a lightbulb. Thomas.W ^talk 11:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no inklings. I am inklingless. Inkless... Isinglass? I cry Inkle. KillerChihuahua 16:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Great page, Iridescent. There ought to be a link to it on the RFA page. Hello, KillerChihuahua, such long time! Great to see you here again! And Thomas.W, you win this bout. Or maybe all this sex talk scares us tender females away — I haven't decided. There's a response on your page. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC).

  I got my eyeballs cut open after they slit my throat, Bishy! KillerChihuahua 16:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• All of this is making me feel much better. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What did one Wikipedian say to the other? Go fuck yourself. Therefore, the answer is one NE Ent 02:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you

get my email about litigation? Sent on the 28th Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I did, Doug, and I do appreciate your concern for me, but I still can't make myself be scared. Maybe that simply shows I'm naive. Bishonen | talk 10:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

Nope, just an optimist. Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I went to the pub optimistically last weekend; I left misty optically. - 2.123.202.135 (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What is it with Manchester? :-) Bishonen | talk 11:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

I was researching Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru and, specifically, the events in Abergele in 1969. Our (dreadful) articles have it wrong: the guys were intending to plant a bomb on the rail tracks and to explode it as the royal train passed over. They'd been in Y Castell pub (seemingly, from my visit, still a stronghold of Welsh-speakers of the somewhat extreme variety) and were themselves misty optically. That's why the bomb exploded prematurely, as they were carrying it in a bag towards the tracks. Some people still call them the Abergele Martyrs, although not many, and a handful conduct an annual commemorative march through the town.

I'm off to hospital now and then will be slinking away once again. Still nothing from @Philippe (WMF): but I'll likely be without internet access for a while now anyway, unless I call on one of my siblings. - 2.123.202.135 (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_should_Wikimedia_do_to_protect_their_editors_against_real-life_threats.3F.
Message added 20:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 20:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you raised that, Tito, and I hope the WMF feels its responsibility. Sitush's problems are legal matters, obviously. I don't really have anything to add on the AN, but I hope Philippe does. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC).

They do a good job with lip service...I really hope the WMF makes me eat my words but they're rarely interested in assisting our UNPAID editors deal with sociopathic entitites.--MONGO 13:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You left me a message…

On my talk page you left a message about me sending you a message rather than someone else. You were perfectly correct. I did make that mistake,(can you see my embarrassed face?) I think I will be more careful with clicking my mouse from now on. Sometimes I just need to slow down. Thanks for reminding me of that.

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hehe. You should see how many times I've become red in the face over wikipedia mistakes. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC).

FYI

[86]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

"Crying is okay here"
Thank you, melliflous understanding encouraging sometimes tired user, for being a refuge in times of need, for "The proliferation stops here", for a torch, - repeating (sort of): you are an awesome Wikipedian (14 June 2007 (with a Swedish poem), 13 October 2012)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 634th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It really is quite touching

Oh look! After all these years, he still thinks about you. That really is very touching and sweet - he's an old softie inside. Giano (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Content he was thinking about you and Bish....toxic he meant me I think.--MONGO 16:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• No Mongo, when it comes to toxic, you are right at the back of the queue. Giano (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• That second bullet point is why this project will eventually fail, unless Wales is removed from any role in the governance of it, both behind the scenes (WMF-related, as he's shown that he's willing to manipulate WMF to do his bidding on-Wiki) and front of the project. He cares more for the MMORPG side of the project (which is destroying it) than he does for the actual content, which is its lifeblood. He needs to be deposed as "god-king." LHM^{ask me a question} 17:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sure you're right, but what does MMORPG stand for? Giano (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  My apologies. It's now wikilinked above. My point was regarding how some people treat this project as some sort of social role-playing game. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oh I'm far too old for that malarkey. When I was young, a set of dominoes was considered a status symbol. Giano (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• "You were lucky!". When I were a lad, we 'ad t'make do wi' a 'andful o' pebbles --RexxS (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  I come from a very poor family and had to make do with playing with, erm, myself. Not really. I used to turn wooden cotton reels into "tanks" with a matchstick, rubber band and a slice of an old candle. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• • I built plastic models of tanks and aircraft and the like (Airfix and similar), and then shot them to pieces with an air gun in the back garden. Those were the days. Thomas.W ^talk 20:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I dislike the annoying user with little or no content. We tolerate them more than the high-content but annoying editors. --DHeyward (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

When's the last time you had an RFC filed against you? I miss giving you cupcakes! Tex (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hope all is well with the Bishpack. The Texpack is doing great. Currently going through the joys of potty training. Ugh! Tex (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it that time already? My naughty little posse is fine too. Can you believe I haven't been RFC'd since 2009? I know I'm doing something wrong, but what? I must have gotten mellow without noticing. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC).

Another matter unconnected with cupcakes

Please restore my talkpage access. It was just removed by one of your shrill chickenshits who falsely determined I have no right to express opinions he doesnt like. It is hard for me to see how some people could be so insecure and miserable that they must try to control others personal expressions, if he cannot live in this world with the fact that people will have opinions regardless he should just take the easy way out. Til Eulenspiegel 71.127.138.13 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an extremely rude way of putting it, which makes it harder for me to oblige you. I have contacted the admin in question. But you may remember Drmies removed your tpa in September, and I spent some of my credibility reversing his action. It wasn't with any enthusiasm, as you can see from my edit summary here. You'd better try to be less confrontational on your page, or it'll happen a third time, and then you'll be on your own. Incidentally, please don't evade your block any more. The tpa issue isn't connected with that, but it wouldn't kill you to play nice in that respect. Appearances to the contrary, I don't particularly enjoy doing range blocks. They're blunt instruments. And I don't think I have to tell you that every time you do it, your chance of ever being unblocked decreases. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) The chickenshit comment rang a bell for me. Check the section about TE further up on your talkpage, Bish, and see what it says about Binghi Dad, an IP and this comment, and what you wrote about not believing that IP was TE. Thomas.W ^talk 20:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a striking similarity of wording, but the CU I asked back then called it unlikely. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC).

I can still read this whole page, referring to the comments on it, not to add to your suspicions... Thanx for letting me post to my talk page 71.127.138.13 (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Behave, TE, don't hurl insults at everyone and everything around you. I know you can do better than that. Thomas.W ^talk 21:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Tpa restored. I hope it works out well; it's something of an experiment. Bishonen | talk 21:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC).

India Against Corruption

Hi Bishonen. Could you fix the fully protected Sarbajit Roy redirect? The sub-section to which it is currently redirected, India Against Corruption#Divergence, needs to be changed to India Against Corruption#Internal split. And um, you and any admin (checkuser?) talk page stalkers might want to keep an eye on Talk:India Against Corruption and its new participant. So far, they are behaving better than their previous colleagues, but I've had to warn them twice now about their potentially disruptive off-topic comments (here and here). Hopefully, they'll get the hint. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect done. I'll take a look at the user a bit later. Bishonen | talk 10:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC).

This IP which just showed up at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence with a "'STATEMENT in behalf of "INDIA AGAINST CORRUPTION" also needs a very close check. Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Salvio just blocked it. Just 48 hours, because these IPs are highly dynamic. Bishonen | talk 10:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC).

• Back with another IP, doing this and this. Voceditenore (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • IP blocked, arbpage semied for a month and LTA page semied indefinitely: no need for new users to edit it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Pinging Salvio, Bishonen, etc... Yet another. I have removed this today but left the identical copy posted at User talk:Philippe (WMF). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

Hey. Thanks. I was completely thrown off and wondered, "Why did I get blocked for?? I didn't get any warnings about any article. Because of the Endemol page". Making a fool of myself, I sent a message to EdJohnston's page asking what did I do. Thanks once again. King Shadeed 09:11, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Haha, yes. It was quite deceptive, I was fooled at first, too, and had to check the History. I never noticed the datestamp with Ed's sig. Bishonen | talk 13:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC).

And much more rewarding when they copy/paste their own block notice. I see they are now at a 3 month block. :) Don't know if talk page access is removable or advised with IP as they deleted the block notice. --DHeyward (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nah. It's sometimes believed that removing current block notices is not allowed, but it is, see WP:REMOVED: it's only declined unblock request that must be left. I can see the logic: no need to force a blocked user to keep a badge of shame up on their page if they're anyways not going to request unblock. Compare also [87]. I suppose I might remove tpa for egregious illogic (=leaving Ed's expired block notice, removing my current one), but that would take some serious IAR. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC).

Yeah, somebody already reverted the block notice. I'm not that much of a busybody usually. My only thought was that it makes it easiery to cut and paste it in three months. Are you taking bets your 3 month block notice will be copy/pasted to someone elses talk page as their first return edit? --DHeyward (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

One will get you five. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC).

Essay

Hi Bishes all. Some time ago I read an essay about what 'with all due respect' means, and memory says it might have been (one of) you that wrote it. However memory isn't helping me find it. Any ideas? Or did I dream the whole thing?  pablo 11:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually just read further up your page. Shame. pablo 11:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you saw Floq's plaint about WP:LIGHTBULB? Yeah, the WADR thing has been deleted. We nominated it Ourselves, which I guess was the reason for most of the "deletes": people thought the creator ought to be able to get rid of it. IMO it had outlived what amusingness it might ever have had, and also it had seen some crappy editing that made it self-contradictory. The shortcut that was created for it, WP:WADR, now redirects to a suitable entry in Wikipedia:WikiSpeak, which will really do just as well — check it out. The experience has taught Us not to put Our sillinesses in Wikipedia space, but keep them in userspace, and I recommend Floq and everybody else to do the same. Just imagine what good-faith editing could do to MastCell's Cynic's Guide or Darwinbish's NPA template if they ventured out into Wikipedia space. Bishonen | talk 11:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC).

P.S. Btw, Pablo, I saw you on Wllm's page, inquiring about their projected essay. Did you see their suggestion just now about turning Jimbo's Wikimania speech into a Wikipedia essay? I hope it happens, and that Jimbo doesn't edit out the applause. Bishonen | talk 12:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC).

Bring your friends and watch Jimbo's speech with me! I think I've ordered enough popcorn!

Yeah I did see that - not sure of the point of turning it into an essay really, seeing as the wikisource version is linkable and contains applause ... In fact think it would be better with more description of what else is going on, (clears throat, adjusts lectern, curses softly at laptop which is still displaying slide 14 etc) so that those of us who couldn't make it can better visualise the whole experience.  pablo 12:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a video, in fact think I've seen it, but I don't remember where. Kind talkpage stalkers ahoy? Bishonen | talk 12:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC).

The new one is supposed to be here, but I haven't had a chance to look it over yet. It used to be here, but it looks like you have to sign in to something now in order to see it; this is probably the 7-hour version that you can't rewind easily if you want to hear some part of it again. —Neotarf (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a draft transcript in my userspace. —Neotarf (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I can hear Jimbo speaking about civility for 7 hours?? It's a dream come true! Let's all watch it together, I'll get the popcorn! Bishonen | talk 18:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at Elvey's talk page.
Message added 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm hoping for real two-way communication. {{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Very well, I've replied on your page, Elvey. I've really said my say, you know. You'll have to discuss content with the article's editors, because I'm wearing my admin hat with you and w r t the article in question. My warning stands; I'll sanction you if you continue making the editing experience unpleasant for others. Bishonen | talk 18:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC).

Neutrality on Wikipedia

Apologies if my previous post appeared as trolling. That was not my intention. You were quick to block me when I was insensitive to Palestinian militants, I thought it would only be fair to give you a chance to consider the following. (a) A comparison between a barely documented event with both sides disputing the circumstances -- and the extensively researched and documented holocaust. (b) wholly inaccurate "quotes" to make Israelis appear insidious, and other insulting behavior such as abuse of Yiddish.

On recent sketched ("journalistic comic-book") Palestinian allegations of "cold blooded massacre" (original, disputed events in 1956): "there is no intrinsic reason for them to be challenged as unhistorical, any more than one would challenge Vad yashem accounts of the Holocaust"

The comment I asked to be amended has a number of other insulting issues as well (misrepresented "quotes", insulting Israel, abuse of Yiddish). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You think I was quick to block you? That's not how I remember it. I thought I put up with your rehashing of personal attacks, your unresponsiveness to questions, and your pestering for what felt like forever, see for instance here on this very page, before I blocked you for the last straw (compare my quite full and detailed block notice, where I used that phrase). That last straw was the way you referred in a contemptuous, dehumanizing way to people who had recently been killed, combined with your uncomprehending change-the-subject response ("What are you talking about?") to Fram's criticism of your language, your wording in that instance.

Thank you for giving me what you call a "chance" for another round, but I won't take you up on it. My advice to you is to let it go. But if you can't, you'll have to try to find an admin who may be sympathetic to your issues. There's a list of admins here. Check if they have been recently active first, and I advise against nagging them the way you have nagged me and the admin who reviewed your unblock request. Remember how that admin got so irritated he removed your talkpage access and reset the block? Try to be concise and to not repeat yourself. It really works better. Bishonen | talk 23:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC).

I admit, your reply regarding my complaint on Nishidani's personal insult on me (and general conduct), struck me as though you did not understand and I re-explained a few times too many. I have full interest of starting anew and being fully cautious of others' sensitivities. I wish others will follow suit. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

p.s. I was about to clean up the insensitive talk page comment but had to leave the house. You were too quick for me with that block. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS editor

Worldedixor has resurfaced and is not editing, but is resuming his old activities. Some is in the removed comments on his Talk page here, some on the Talk page of the recent RfC/U he was taken to here, some on an A/NI concerning another editor here, and some on the ISIS Talk page. What can be done about this? I have pinged the admins on the RfC/U, but have not had a reply yet. No decision has been taken about taking him to AN/I to get a T/BAN, but I think our hand is being forced. --P123ct1 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to keep an eye out, and I noticed these troubling edits on their userpage — I don't know if you saw my comments. Bishonen | talk 02:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC).

My first link does not seem to work, now I check it. I was trying to link to the first blanked page in the "View history" on his Talk page. Yes, I did see your comments, which is what prompted me to contact you. The other links to the RfC/U and the AN/I show far worse examples. (There are seven(!) WP:PAs dotted throughout the AN/I. and are unforgivable, in my opinion, as they cannot be answered properly in that forum.) I do not expect them to abate either now they have started again. Or maybe they will if he has seen this exchange. My every move is being shadowed, as the AN/I comments show, and each time he has attempted to bring me down with smear tactics. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at it, P123. (Sorry, I find your username impossible to remember and hard to type, hope you don't mind if I use a manageable version.) Watch this space. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

Thanks. I don't mind P123 at all. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for having a word with Worldedixor, Bishonen. I appreciate it, especially as no admin involved in the RfC/U responded to my call for help. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel I should explain my cryptic "The worm has turned" remark to Dougweller, as it seems to have caused so much misunderstanding. During the difficulties that led ultimately to the RfC/U, I had exchanges with him about how to deal with the problem. During that time I steadfastly resisted taking Worldedixor to AN/I and never rose to the bait during the persistent, almost daily harassment on the ISIS Talk page. The AN/I was the first time I hit back, which is unlike me, and countered the attacks. I did so because this time my name was being dragged through the mud in front of a new set of co-editors who know nothing of the history here and I value my reputation. That is why I said to Dougweller, "The worm has turned". I have seen Gregkaye's acknowledgment of your mediation in this matter and I join him in what he said there. Thank you. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you changed your mind and decided that it was time that you countered his attacks. That's what I thought you meant. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller Exactly. I knew you would understand the remark. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(Thank you too, and gosh, I wonder if Darwinbish will be thanked for "mediation" next..!) It looks like I read "ANI" in your header on Dougweller's page, even though it clearly said "RFC/U". I should have told WE (actually with even more force) that it was perfectly proper to alert Dougweller to the RFC. If my remark was still on WE's page, I'd go back and correct myself. Bishonen | talk 09:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC).

mopping needed?

Can you please take a look at my last two edits and related edits by others? Perhaps semi-protect the articles; this edit warring with multiple new SPAs is tiresome. I guess I can keep reverting, since it's SPAs who won't discuss the changes, and it's been deemed vandalism by admin User:HJ Mitchell here. If not, what next DR step, given several users and articles are affected, do you suggest? I tried this and this. See History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#Islamic_Republic_.28since_1979.29 and/or here for background details. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It certainly looks reasonable to me to keep reverting that particular edit, but to play safe, you'd much better ask HJ Mitchell, who placed the vandalism block for the IP range. He must have studied those articles more deeply than me. Harronn can be indeffed if they continue to disrupt, but so far they have only edited briefly on October 20. DR wouldn't be my first choice, since the user/s involved seem/s quite unwilling to discuss anything. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the input. I issued a couple warnings to two new apparent SPAs over this. [removed already-addressed issue] I'll see if HJ Mitchell is available to mop, as you don't seem keen to. My fixes were undone by another new apparent SPA, but another user stepped in to fix things.--Elvey^(t•c) 00:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Long term disruptive editing by a SPA

I am sure that Sitush may have complained about this one, because this user has crossed the limits to some extent. On Nadar (caste), a SPA named User:Mayan302 is owning the article for a long time. Uselessly removes anything[] that he don't like.( e.g. [88] [89])

Sitush reverted him,[90] and he started to label it as false source, that line looks fake[91], etc. Information[92] is 100% correct,[93] But Mayan302 keeps calling it as fake, and tries claiming it to be an Oral tradition, though the source is not supporting this information.

Today he started calling my edits to be vandalism[94] [95] and told that :- Dont try to forcefully include your own point of view(original research). As per our above discussion there is not a single line in the source you have provided to support your claims. Please refrain from editing this article or provide valid refs.

When other editor told him to stop claiming these edits to be vandalism, he went ahead to defend that How can this not be vandalism.[96]

What can be done about this user? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This user is accusing me falsely.Sitush didnt remove it because it had a reference(something relevant to the article). However he did ask me to alter it and make it more according to the source. And so I did. Please go through the nadar caste talk page. And morever the contents of the book posted by Sitush on the talk page are the exact contents of the book. However this user was trying to post something which was not at all in the source. Thats why I had to revert his edits. He was also repeatedly taunting me by quoting wikipedia rules. I am a single purpose account and this user is discriminating me because of that. He didnt bother the page when Sitush was around.Mayan302 (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

He is also not willing to discuss anything. Sitush himself confirmed that its a myth in the talk page. Please check the source and the content he is trying to include. You will find out where the problem is coming from. He is forcefully trying to include the line that the nadars and izhavas of India came from Srilanka(or connected to Srilankan Nadars. I really dont understand). However this is not at all supported by the source he includedd. I also told him that I ll include the line if he provided another valid source. I may be a SPA but I have always followed the rules of Wikipedia. He reverted my edit for the 3rd time without discussing. Please look into this patiently. Thank you.Mayan302 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sitush agreed with the reference and he never talked about re-wording, you just couldn't understand what he has written. If I never discussed these,[97] why I had response from you after 40 days? [98] Bladesmulti (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't have a chance to look at this for several days. If it's at all urgent, please ask another admin. Bishonen | talk 19:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

Its not urgent. Its just one insignificant line. Mr.Blades has a tendency to hype things up. Its also not a very complicated problem to solve. All you have to do is compare the source:

copied from article talk(page)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Another category of skilled workers in increasing demand, who commuted between South India and Sri Lanka, was that of the coconut and palmyrah toddy tappers. These communities have not received the same attention as the two above-mentioned groups, but their case is extremely interesting because Indian and Sri Lankan myths of origin mirror each other. Those of the Nalavar in the north and the Durava in the south of the island connect them with Madurai princesses who would have brought them to the island when marrying Sri Lankan kings. Those of the Izhava in southern Kerala, of the Tiyan/Tevan in northern Kerala and of the Shanar/Nadar in southern Tamilnadu connect them with Sri Lanka in a similar way, adding that these migrants were disappointed with the treatment they received on the island and returned to India, bringing with them the first coconut trees. The very names of Izhava and of Tiyan are supposed to be derived respectively from Ilam, that is Ceylon, and from tivu, island. The same corpus of legends includes episodes relating to five artisan castes who deserted the land of the Chera king Cheraman Perumal to seek asylum in Sri Lanka, and were forcibly brought back. Among Sri Lankan craftsmen, many families of blacksmiths used to claim a South Indian origin dating from the fifteenth century. So did washermen and other service groups. Most of them have more recently dropped these claims in favour of a nondescript Sinhala origin 'from time immemorial'." ( this is the quotation from the book posted by Sitush on the talk page)

with the line bladesmulti just added to the article. Blades's line claims that the Izhava caste of kerala and nadar caste of tamilnad are connected to the srilakan nadars. This line first of all makes no sense and is also not according to the source. You can also check the talk page of the article. You ll understand what I am trying to say. If you cant solve this problem within a week, I ll try contacting some other admin. No probs. Thank you! Mayan302 (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, you don't have any competence, even if you are told thousands times a day that it was not copied from the source, you will still try to find 100% same wording without knowing about copyright infringements. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User: WCVB98swell making threats

Hey, it's me again. I was about to send another report to ANI about that user again. He made a threat on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Berenstain_Bears_(1985_TV_series)&action=history, telling someone to "kill" me. I think that user should get banned instead of getting blocked. King Shadeed 18:57, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

Hello, King Shadeed. It's not exactly a credible death threat, and I suppose he got very frustrated, but it's totally unacceptable all the same. I've blocked indefinitely. That's not the same as a ban, which a single admin can't do, but it means he won't get unblocked until and unless he writes a convincing unblock request. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC).

Kudos to you (barnstar)

		The Mediator Barnstar
		I really appreciate your recent attempt at intervention. The most I have been able to have done at this stage is drop hints and try to open doors. Wikipedia needs people like you. I was greatly encouraged to see your posts. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

? Me? Thank you very much. A mediation barnstar is a first, and not something I'd ever expect, as I don't regard myself as famous for my tact. (I was never one for hints. ;-)) Bishonen | talk 09:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC).

Of course you. P123ct1 is giving me a lot of support in my own present difficulties and its the least I can do to appreciate those helping him gain the space to be the Wikipedia editor that he wants. It's obviously important for people on Wikipedia to accept fellow editors just for what they are able to present on-line and I'm quite happy to big up your support in achieving that. Since responding to your mail I've chatted to our m8 and I know that your tactful intervention in his involvements makes a great difference. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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.

Please carefully read this information:

Dos this mean that people from India Pakistan And Afganistan cannot write articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongchillum (talk • contribs) 12:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No. It means I'm alerting you that admins may block or ban editors in those controversial areas if they violate our principles, our standards of behavior, or our policies. It doesn't matter what country contributors are from, it only matters that they edit constructively. (Nobody knows where logged-in users are from, in any case. I have no way of finding out where you live, unless you choose to write it on your userpage.) If they're new users, they're not expected to know about Wikipedia's policies right from the start, but it's important that they're prepared to listen to advice and information from experienced users. I hope you noticed the last sentence of the text on your page, it's very important: "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date." Please note that you can sign your posts on talkpages through one of the methods described here. Bishonen | talk 13:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC).

I do not think it's coincidence that this editor's user name is a combination of two admins - Bongwarrior and Chillum. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I do, Neil. Occam's razor suggests to me that the editor is more likely just proud to be a pothead. As are some admins, yes. Bishonen | talk 13:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC).

Huh. I had no idea chillum was an actual thing. The stuff you learn on here... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How naive is it possible to be ? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least he didn't name himself this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Far out, maaaaan. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "G-Spot-Tulips" and "pre-coolers"? Jeeez, it was a lot simpler back in the sixties and seventies... Thomas.W ^talk 14:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• To return to the OP for a moment, they have been indeffed by RegentsPark as a disruptive IAC meatfarm account. Noo! I wanted to do that! Bishonen | talk 14:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC).

Clarification motion

A case (Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for exercising common sense and blocking an obvious troll, despite the decree of somebody who likes to simultaneously be just another editor and more important than everyone else, and despite ANI's naive insistence on interpreting AGF as a suicide pact. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. You remember when Jimbo had to abjure the use of the block tool in 2009? It's clearly time he handed in the CheckUser flag, too.[99] Bishonen | talk 19:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC).

Request for comment on using secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing maintream assessment of global warming"

In the most recent AFD of a particular article, you made a comment that referenced "original research" or "WP:OR". I am sending this same message to every non-IP editor who metioned either character string in that AFD. Please consider participating in a poll discussion about adding secondary RSs to the listing criteria at that talk page. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

I just ran across something you wrote to a person in an unpleasant dispute (diff omitted to protect the allegedly guilty) that I thought was especially kind and humane. I liked your approach better than the template-and-block-them-all style, and I wanted to thank you for spending the extra time to write personal, thoughtful messages to people who are struggling. You are demonstrating that Wikipedia is still a place where civil discussions are possible. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

..? If you're sure you've got the right person, thank you very much, WhatamIdoing. Bishonen | talk 01:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

Form

Form's formed from form.  pablo 12:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right. I didn't know that, but it makes sense. Saying a user "has form" doesn't necessarily mean they have a pedigree, but they probably unseated a rider or fell at some point, and the punter is making a prediction about future performance w r t the same issues. I suppose it would be improper to take bets on the outcome? Bishonen | talk 14:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

Absolutely - could be fun though ... pablo 14:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese football league system

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, George. Bishonen | talk 20:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC).

Hi there

I am not sure if you can do anything but user Brian Everlasting is currently changing articles "History" to "Background" apparently on the basis that people can get offended by misreading History as "His Story". :) I find it very weird.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've certainly heard of the history/herstory duality, and I'm a little surprised the people responding at the pump seem so innocent of it. We have an article on the concept herstory. However, I share the incredulity generally expressed in the thread; I'm not sure whether the proposal is a troll or merely harebrained. However, the article edits surely matter more. If they should continue, after the reverts (I see NQ has done good work there) and the negative response at the Pump, somebody should speak to the user. Not necessarily an admin, you know, BabbaQ! Bishonen | talk 22:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC).

User:Til Eulenspiegel

Hello Bishonen, I am requesting an unblocking to editor Til Eulenspiegel. My reasons being, this user is a great editor, and sometimes Wikipedia can get to all of us causing frustration and confusion which leads to stupid edits. I'v been in those frustrating situations before and just recently as well. Til Eulenspiegel is a hardheaded editor, but a great lawyer when it comes to controversial topics and edits; and there are less editors editing towards biblical articles now because of some recent discussions like this [100], which causes editors to retire from Wikipedia. Please consider my request. --Thnx & Cheers-- JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't be done, sorry. I know Til is a good editor in many ways, and he edits important articles that don't generally get enough attention. And I also think we often focus too much here on what people say when they're frustrated and lose their temper. Nevertheless I've blocked him twice, in situations when I think any admin would have, but I've never liked having to do it. Subsequently, I've gone out on a limb for Til, first unblocking him without asking anybody else (24 August), then twice restoring his talkpage access (13 and 16 September) after two different admins had removed it.[101] When I argued with those admins, they both a little reluctantly deferred to me, which I appreciated; but that'll have to be it. The way it works is, I'm pretty much the last admin who can unblock Til now; I've worn out my credit as far as he's concerned, and I'm not altogether sure I even want to any more. :-(

I doubt any other admin would be willing to unblock unilaterally either. It's possible, theoretically, but he would certainly have to request unblock (see my 11 September block notice for how) first. Realistically, you'd better take it to WP:AN and seek consensus there for an unblock. That would be a proper and normal type of AN request, and you can certainly try it, but I'm sorry to have to tell you that consensus to unblock is a pretty remote chance, in view of his record and block log. Bishonen | talk 00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

I'm considering it. I believe the user's case can presented in a well matter as I know the editor wasn't blocked for vandalism or use of sock puppets. Anyway, why was Til blocked again? JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think that the best course would be for Til to stop editing even using IPs. If they could somehow contain themselves for a few months then there might just be a way back. They're knowledgeable but they have bumped with a lot of heads over a long time, and quite often those bumpings have worked against them. From my limited personal experience, that was the right outcome. In any event, and as Bish intimates, filing something at AN right now would most likely achieve nothing because there is a feeling that Til has exhausted WP:ROPE. - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I linked to Til's block log above, JudeccaXIII, it's all in there. Drmies blocked him for a week on 11 September for "creating toxic atmosphere on Talk:Amharic language". I extended Drmies' block to indefinite less than a day later, for block evasion. That means he had edited from dynamic IPs while his account was blocked. He had done the same in May, too. Most people refer to IPs that are used in such a way as "socks". If Til told you he didn't use socks, perhaps he meant he didn't create sock accounts. But there's not that much difference. Block evasion is taken pretty seriously, and the fact that he has done that repeatedly, using a number of IPs, unfortunately makes your job much harder. Bishonen | talk 02:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

Oh, I never discussed Til about the blockage or really discussed with Til at all in any discussion, perhaps one. So the editor did use sock puppets, I just guessed the editor wouldn't use socks by assumption the edits of Til were commonly well in biblical articles, I was wrong. Still, I believe the editor can come back, just not right now because the block is too recent. Thanks for the info Bishonen --Cheers-- JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, Til doesn't know about this discussion. I never informed the editor. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• What Til had to say, and the circumstances leading to the block, that was quite something. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

True. JudeccaxII, if Til ever logs in, which I would expect, he'll know of this discussion, since you linked his name above. Til, if you're reading this, Sitush gives you good advice, I agree with everything he says. Sitush, I believe Til has stopped, but it hasn't been long enough. Bishonen | talk 09:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

Rouge Admin

" Come on, these items are supposed to be links "

Hey, I had enough trouble figuring out how to make the posting, much less make it a link. May our Reptilian Overlords® (Who I, for one, welcome) spare my worthless life. 96.240.54.122 (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, all right, this once. Bishonen | talk 19:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC).

This is the third time around on the Freud page.

Hi Bishonen; Thanks for protecting the Sigmund Freud page. At least 3-4 editors have had a recurrent difficulty with disruptive editing from User:Allmancer in the last 3 months from his disruptive edits on 3 separate sections. We have already run an RfC for him on the latest Infobox dispute which was nearly unanimous (possible even snowball) to limit the number of names posted in the Infobox (it was over 44 names). If you are asking us to run another RfC to confirm the virtually unanimous opinion already found in the last RfC then let me know. This is the third incident with Allmancer from the last three months on seemingly trivial matters which show his difficulty with very rudimentary Freud material. In the first instance he caused the article to be locked by Admin on this edit [102] because he was misreading/misrepresenting material in Peter Gay's book on Freud. In a second instance, Allmancer began edit warring with User:MartinEvans on the Freud Talk page regarding Allmanacer's lack of understanding of Freud's book on Moses (Freud claims Moses is an Egyptian) which caused much lost editor time to multiple editors. Now User:Allmancer seems to be requesting a second RfC for a virtually unanimous result for limiting the size of the Infobox. All 3 of us will follow your advice on how to follow-up (MartinEvans, ImprovingWiki, and myself) and it would be helpful if all of us were not losing so much editing time because of these repeat problems with User:Allmanacer. Please advise and if needed I can provide further diffs for his disruptive edits. FelixRosch (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply with new header to give tps a shout: ahoy!

I have trouble following the discussion on the talkpage, FelixRosch. Where and when was the infobox RfC? I don't see it in the TOC of archives 10 or 9 (9 goes back to August 2012), and then I gave up looking. Perhaps there wasn't a really clear header for it. Please link. (I see people asking for such a link on talk, too. If it has been provided, I must be missing it in amongst the text.) And yes, please, some diffs for edits you claim to be disruptive would be useful, with context. I have plenty of difficulty with rudimentary Freud material myself. ;-) If one of my admin stalkers is at all at home with it, do feel free to help. Other stalkers too, of course, but it looks a bit like the situation might need admin tools. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, The Infobox RfC I had just mentioned had just gone into Archive after the bot removed the RfC template archived with "Supports" and "opposes" here: [103]. Second, the date of your fellow admin dealing with the first version of the disruptive editing from February regarding User:Allmanacer misreading/misrepresenting the Professor Peter Gay Freud book is on this diff [104]. The link to User:Allmanacer debate with MartinEvans is still at the very bottom of the Talk page there on "Judaism and sexuality" (currently the top-most section) at (Talk:Sigmund Freud). All three of us (MartinEvans, ImprovingWiki, and myself) will try to provide all the detailed Freud info you might need to gain rapid insight into this recurring issue of disruptive editing from User:Allmanacer which is taking up so much of all of our time since February. If I can provide further diffs or links then let me know and I'll try to do as much as I can to assist here. FelixRosch (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm being slow here, please ask another admin if you're getting impatient. I haven't forgotten it, but it's kind of work intensive, and I've got a lot on IRL. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC).

• I've finally taken a look, Felix, sorry it took so long. That's a pretty messy situation, and I don't see any clear consensus for any one alternative in the RfC. Having "influences/influenced" parameters in the Freud infobox at all seems to me a permanent open invitation to edit warring the details of it forever more, debating the sourcing, etc etc, and chewing up editor time and energies that could be spent more usefully. In fact, I was surprised the suggestion of User:Choor monster here to get rid of those parameters didn't gain more traction. Especially in view of the strong consensus here to remove the influence parameters from Template:Infobox, with many trenchant arguments ("attracts cruft" was particularly good, I thought). It seems counter-intuitive to the ignorant (me) to remove the parameters from the template, yet hang on to them for somebody as influential as Freud. There is really no listing the people Freud influenced, IMO. For instance, having 44 names is unhelpful, I agree with you there. If 44, then why not 88? On the other hand, reducing them to two or three becomes arbitrary, too.

I don't know how you or others feel about removing the parameters, but what I would suggest is a new RfC with more clear-cut alternatives: should we have the influence parameters in Freud's infobox or not? Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC).

• Hi Bishonen (Thanks for your input - wrote this just beore you last posted, so further comments to follow). What you will find with regard to User FelixRosch when you catch up with the archived RfC thread is: 1. The absence of “a formal neutrally worded notice” (WP:RFC) and instead a crude request to support/oppose on a question on 43 or 7 names in relation to which opposing viewpoint both editors cited clearly state they were misrepresented and no reference was made to the separate issue of the listing of influences. 2. No attempt at “addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise” (WP:CONSENSUS) or any engagement with editors who, in marked contrast, made sensible compromise suggestions eg use of the hide button, links to Category Pages in addressing concerns about length of the infobox content. 3. Contrary to WP:CLOSE these editors concerns and arguments regarding the representiveness of the chosen names and consistency of content with other comparable articles were ignored, as have questions put to him regarding the closing of the RfC. Instead an entirely fraudulent claim for “majority consensus” (a term nowhere to be found in WP:CONS) is made on the basis of fictitious edit by a non-existent editor called Goethe.

You may wish to note editors in favour of keeping the long-established (and hence consensus, crowd sourced content) are those with a long history of input into the Freud article. User FelixRosch has no history of contribution to the article apart from ongoing attempts to remove long-standing valid and valuable content in accord with his own POV. Given the failure of User FelixRosch to comply with/understand fundamental WP policy guidelines and his transparently fraudulent claims it should be obvious that his account of previous exchanges and criticism of my or anyone else’s editorial conduct cannot be taken seriously. Almanacer (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hello @Bishonen: The edit posted was by Goethean for adding Goethe, which shall likely daze User:Allmanacer for days. This is the diff and date for anyone who cares to look it up on the edit history page at Sigmund Freud:

(cur | prev) 16:55, 4 September 2014‎ Goethean (talk | contribs)‎ . . (151,345 bytes) (+48)‎ . . (+goethe, schopenhauer to influences. These are well-known, easily sourced, important influences.) (thank)

The accusations of User:Allmanacer are again lacking in reliability and he makes a repeated personal attack and disruption which needs to be addressed. FelixRosch (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for me ...

I'm guessing though that this was probably just an accident. Paul August ☎ 01:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, some accident. Train crash.[105][106] Bishonen | talk 01:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC).

Hmm ... looks like a bit of a problem. Paul August ☎ 01:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is IBAN Violation between User:The Rambling Man against User:Medeis. Thank you. v/r - TP 20:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Taça de Portugal

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, George. Could you please ask an admin who has a clue about these subjects, or apply at WP:RFPP? Bishonen | talk 13:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC).

Qizilbash123

Qizilbash123 has been engaged in sockpuppetry once again. Previously he had tried to evade 3rr by using an IP,[107] that led Magioladitis to protect My Stealthy Freedom.[108] Today, he edited with the IP.[109] These IPs are from same location. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

To be expected, I guess. Reverted and semi'd the article for 3 months. Thanks for alerting me. Bishonen | talk 13:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC).

Thanks too. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, look, OccultZone, they also messed with Stoning, just an hour after I removed the full protection. I've removed their tags and semi'd for 3 months. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, I am glad you protected it. But you reverted my latest edits, where I replaced dead links with live ones, and addressed comments on the talk page of Stoning article. After the revert, the article has this dead link. You also deleted the section on Islamic state, which some other editor added, which I think was fine and well supported. Please check, some of your revert might have been inadvertent.

FWIW, after noticing Qizilbash123's edit warring with multiple editors, I had posted a note on Qizilbash123's talk page to stop edit warring on October 27 2014. See here (Qizilbash123 deleted that note, see here). You blocked him on October 30 2014.

I urge you to check and if appropriate, replace the dead links with the working ones I added on November 3 and 4, as well as the section on Islamic state. RLoutfy (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I support removing the "bad-faith additions of disputed tags", if that is what you were trying to do. RLoutfy (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, how did that happen? I'm so sorry, thanks for alerting me. Yes, I only meant to remove the tags. I have reverted to your last edit and removed the tags manually, including an NPOV tag at the section "Iran" which apparently I had added myself, as a crowning idiocy. (? Presumably by reverting somebody who had removed it.) Inadvertent indeed. Could you please check that everything looks all right now? I do apologize. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC).

Looks good now. Thank you. RLoutfy (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Only 3

With regards to this edit. I was away from the machine and only received one alert which said "Worldedixor and 3 others left messages on your talk page" and as I had other messages on my talk page I did not notice them higher up the page (until just now because I have been out and there was an alert and a "You have new messages " from P123ct1 which was at the bottom of the bloated section). -- PBS (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the scenario where you would actually receive 45 alerts is unlikely, but if you had been sitting at the keyboard and been quick to continually reload the page… anyway, there were too many edits. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC).

An Email is coming your way

Just thought I'd give you the heads up. Your page is very exciting, it's one of the few things I can make time to keep up with lately! All the best, Risker (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted image file

Hello Bish. Could you please check if the now deleted File:UK SBA EEA.png is the same image as File:UK SBA EEZ.png. I would like to know, because if it is it might merit an SPI. Thomas.W ^talk 21:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not the same. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC).

Ok, thanks, then I'll just drop it. Thomas.W ^talk 22:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud

Please either unprotect or semi-protect the article and give the edit-warriors a chance to accept consensus. The basic cause of the edit war was an RFC on reducing the number of names in the infobox. The RFC had expired but was not closed. One editor shortened the infobox as per what he or she saw as consensus. Another editor restored the infobox because the RFC was not yet closed. Now that I have closed the RFC with consensus to shorten the infobox, lengthening the infobox is editing against consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Robert, that's sort of untimely, but you probably didn't read my advice above?[110] I don't think there was consensus, and I will not change the protection at this time. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for your verdict on the last RfC despite the strident claims to the contrary. I assume we now proceed according to WP:CONS and restore the original pre-RfC content? I'm in need of further guidance though on the new RfC you set up. Is it an appropriate topic for the Freud Talk Page, should not deliberation on parameters be first aired on the Infobox Project page, as was the case previously (thanks for the link - interesting debate)? Note by the way that that debate, as I read it, and the decision to suspend the parameters applies to the Person infobox template which does not apply in the case of the Freud article - this links to the Philosopher or Scholar template. Unfortunately your initiation statement for the new RfC fails to make this clear and in other respects lacks the requisite "neutrality" WP:RFC. In general I would say, as someone who edits regularly in this area, that "eruptions of conflict" goes with the territory for the Freud article but most have, until the recent dispute, been resolved through a collaborative, consensus building approach. I would add that historically there have been no major conflicts about the Infobox content currently in dispute which is consistent with that applying to other major intellectual figures just as controversial as Freud (and for which the same Infobox template applies). Almanacer (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't assume that. You would restore the long list version yet again, while the issue remains contentious? There is no consensus about the appropriate length of the list, or if there is (as Robert thinks), it's consensus for the short version. You'll most likely be blocked for disruption and renewed edit warring if you reinstate your preferred version. Please leave it alone. And please put what you have to say about it on the Freud talkpage, not here. I really don't think the distinctions between types of infoboxes are a big deal as regards the RfC I started: it puts one simple question, and is certainly a lot "cleaner" than the previous RfC, which ran into the sands and was lost. Please specify how my statement "lacks the requisite neutrality", because I don't see it. And if there's something I haven't made clear, why don't you clarify it in a comment, instead of coming here to quibble? I see you haven't so far expressed any kind of opinion on the question asked in the RfC. (Nor have I: I merely put the question.) Do you have one? Bishonen | talk 11:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC).

What you have basically said in initiating the RfC is look at the Infobox Project Page discussion/decision to remove the parameters in question in the Person Template and then make a decision about the Freud article. I don’t think that is a neutral way of framing the RfC because it omits reference to the fact that the Freud article is linked to a different Template (Philosopher/Scholar) where the parameters remain in place, a point overlooked by User:Choor monster whom you choose to cite. Nor is this a quibble. In the latter case, and unlike the Person Template (which includes actors, celebs etc), there is a well established corpus of scholarly opinion available to determine the appropriateness of the listings. I’ll post on the RfC when you respond to my question: if the parameters of the Person Template are determined on the Infobox Project Page, should this not also be the case for all other Templates, including that applying to the Freud article? On this we have a different understanding of WP policy. This is also the case with regard to “a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal” WP:NOCONSENSUS and the fact that content undisputed over a period of years in a well-watched article (the longer listings) constitutes consensus content WP:CONS. Almanacer (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Having taken a look at the Guidelines for Administrators conduct it seems to me WP:INVOLVED now applies. Remarks like "went off the rails" about contributions you evidently disagree with and unwarranted speculation about "endemic conflict" lack neutrality. User:FelixRosch certainly thinks you're on board.Almanacer (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Bishonen has behaved neutrally. Making accusations like those above is not helpful. You could take the matter to ANI if you really believe that Bishonen has not been neutral, but the chances are that any discussion there won't arouse much interest and will peter out without result. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. signature

It's understandable: you saw what you recognised as behaviour that annoys you and couldn't resist. Please don't mind the rest of my response to you there; it's 'cause I knew he'd jump on the opportunity to play the victim card (which we don't seem to have avoided, anyway). Right, yeah, I'll show myself out... 213.7.147.34 (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Redirects outside mainspace

Hi Bish, I know that you know but I don't know what you know. Do redirects work the same way outside mainspace as within it? Can I create WP:LTA/IAC and redirect it to Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm? My gut feeling is that it would not be a problem but I screw up enough without risking something like this. And my opening here is a very vague reference to a song by The Kursaal Flyers - da-daah! - the short-lived Brit 70s band featuring a wide-boy with "elephant trunk" hair. Those were the days! - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that works, is a good idea, and is done; examples: WP:UNID (LTA), WP:Jagged 85 cleanup (other). I was going to do that yesterday but I couldn't convince myself of what a good name would be. I was thinking of WP:LTA-IAC but I suppose the slash would be good, although technically that would make "IAC" as subpage of WP:LTA ... hmmm, that might be seen as an advantage, and this shows several precedents. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, lots of precedent, so I've gone ahead and created the slash version for you. I wish it was a little catchier, but it's very logical. People do that indeed. You know, very zany and out-of-control people even use WP shortcuts to redirect to userspace sometimes. There was WP:AN/S to your very own noticeboard, for instance… well, that one ended up deleted, but not without a fight… anyway, there are shortcuts like WP:CGTW and WP:OGTW and nobody questions them. (Not yet, but perhaps I've beaned them now.) Bishonen | talk 09:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC).

Great. Thanks, both. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're still around, you might care to block and revoke TP access for this person. I know that's what Salvio will do when he turns up. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sock of blocked user

Hi. You indef.blocked User:ENT 70. The user is now back as User:96.51.75.106, not really a case of sock as such as the user even admits it (and it's WP:DUCK) as the user sometimes discussed as ENT70, sometimes as the IP), looks more like not knowing that's the block is for the person, not the account.Jeppiz (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeppiz. The IP is supposedly dynamic, but apparently not very, since they've been using it for a while. I've blocked it for a couple of weeks and put a polite note on User talk:ENT 70. Whether or not they knew they're not allowed to edit at all, there are no sanctions left: they're already indeffed without talkpage access. You did right to remove the posts. (What an annoying character. They not only don't sign, making the stuff harder to locate, but actually remove the SineBot-added sig. Now I'm pissed.) Bishonen | talk 16:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC).

Your comments at User talk:Worldedixor

More than he deserves and better written than I could ever do. I'm afraid I may be the admin who showed him too much leniency with respect to Doug and P123ct1, but he wears out one's patience with his passive-aggressive, long-winded, disingenuous style. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm also impressed by your response, Bish. I think he's had enough - if he continues in the same vein it will be time to take his talk page privileges away from him. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it wasn't you in particular, Bbb23, it was me as well. I do think it's right that admins put up with more, considering the power balance is in their favour, so it takes a lot before I'll block someone for abusing an admin. Oh, yes, Doug, his talkpage privileges are precarious now, I agree. I'm glad neither of you think I was too sharp — I was pretty aggravated. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC).

• Bishonen Hi, I've recently placed some intervention followed by some commentary, which didn't go the way I expected, at User talk:Worldedixor. However its been suggested that as "RfC/U was very badly constructed and was not generally supported,.. the analysis of it is unnecessary" and that my "wall of text does not help Worldedixor (as uninvolved administrators will not appreciate having to read it)". I have not agreed with the collapse of other contents in the past and am unsure of the most appropriate way forward. I'm certainly happy to either to collapse the commentary content myself or let you do it if you see fit. I strongly feel that, for all of Worldedixor's clear faults and recently heightened drama there has been a whole heap of misrepresentation which I don't think should be the way of things here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, GregKaye, I would probably understand you better if I was more familiar with the RFC and with your own editing, and Technophant's, and everybody else's who's involved in conflict with WE. You kind of seem to assume I am. I've read through your long post on WE's page several times, and your post here, and I'm still not sure who you think has perpetrated misinformation — Worldedixor? other people? who? — and who suggested your wall of text didn't help — and where? (Do you know how to use diffs? See Simple diff and link guide.) OK… I've found it on your page (but it really is a bit research-intensive to read you. :-( Diffs are good.) Aha, PBS. Yes, he suggests you should blank or collapse your "Article talk page abuses" section. I totally agree. Bull's eye. Reviewing admins won't be helped by it, they'll feel slowed down and frustrated by having to read it and, well, you know, research it… and Worldedixor won't be helped by being further encouraged to see himself as a great spirit encountering opposition from mediocre minds, meaning anybody who contradicts him. Compare the motto on his userpage. (Such encouragement is kind of what I take away from your long post, sorry if I'm misunderstanding it.) It's my personal opinion that he's too much that way inclined already. I don't want to seem unwelcoming here, but I'd really prefer to be drop this now. The ball is in Worldedixor's court, and if he posts another unblock request, it'll be in another uninvolved admin's court. There's not much either you or I can do. Oh, and I'd much rather you did the blanking/collapsing yourself — not me — both you and I would look better for it. (I fixed your redlink to his page above.) Bishonen | talk 21:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen Thank you I have added the collapse (if that's not too much of an oxymoron) and have informed PBS of this action and have also invited comment on the text that I added. Knowing that you probably want to leave the subject I won't invite the same from you but am open. Thanks for your involvements. If anything I hope that my clarification of wrongs may help Worldedixor to fact up to the genuine issues beyond any views he may have had of being persecuted. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

YGM

Sent you a mail re: revdel'ing something. - Sitush (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Replied. I can't do that without the user's agreement, they'd only get worse. Bishonen | talk 22:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

User: WCVB98swell

Hey. The user is back using IP address 24.222.82.111. I caught him removing the conversation we had about him recently on my talk page and I undid his edit. King Shadeed 14:21, November 12, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, messing with your talkpage made it really obvious. I've blocked the IP for a couple of weeks, as it is dynamic but not very dynamic. Bishonen | talk 23:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Thank you. King Shadeed 18:51, November 12, 2014 (UTC)

Heya

Hi Bish - you've been very good in the past about checking out users who are harassing me. Mind taking a look at Padresfan94? It's obviously (duck) someone's sockpuppet or meatpuppet based on the behavior - basically only editing in order to support a particular side in pre-existing content disputes, and following me around - but I'm not sure whose. The stalking me is getting annoying. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Pity nobody blocked or topic banned them for the slow edit war on Crisis pregnancy center a couple of weeks ago; it's a little late for that now. There's not much I can do at the moment, and your recent reverts on Care Net only make it more difficult. I agree there's a cheesy sock smell, but they can't be checkusered without a concrete suspicion of a particular sockmaster. Please let me know if you're able to think of somebody. Bishonen | talk 23:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Checkuserblock monapisser

Hello, You or Ponyo (not sure of which) blocked this user it seems for sockpuppetry. I was just wondering if this was done thru an SPI. It seems another account may have been involved as well, that's if of course that I wasn't mistaken in interpretation of your comments on her talk page in thinking that this was for sockpuppetry.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Still visible. (I had emailed OS an hour back but...) Abecedare (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A-ok. Abecedare (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That was Ponyo, -Serialjoepsycho-. I just happened to notice it in the block log, and was so pleased, I suppose, that I put it on the user's page as well as into the SPI. Yes, there was an SPI, this one. Bishonen | talk 06:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Abecedare, amazing stuff. I can only revdel, OS may be desirable too. Bishonen | talk 06:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Till date I was convinced that it was all game-playing for personal bemusement, but the latest was nearing, ahem, medical territory.

OS will hopefully act on the email, or we can ping Ponyo when they resume editing. Abecedare (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I e-mailed Ponyo right away. And I'm now convinced the territory is IAC territory, just as Sitush suggested much earlier. There were certain characteristic features. Anyway, sorry I was rather inefficient there. If I'd stopped to think, I would have first revoked tpa (they were amplifying the conspiracy theories even as I looked at it), then blanked, then revdel'd. Instead, I did it in the opposite order, and revdel is much slower than the other two. Not intrinsically, but I fumbled around because I don't have much practice with it. Bishonen | talk 07:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Oh you spoiled kids!

When I had the admin bit, we didn't have the revdel option. We needed to delete the page and then slectively restore older versions ... or something like that (memory goes with age). Nowadays you have it all so easy. Just click and its gone. That is why you take it for granted. And never learn to do things properly. Well, in my days... hacking cough interruption. :-) Abecedare (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I used to have the delete + selective restore down pat, I was pretty fast with that, in the old days! [Cackling laugh] Click and it's gone is easier, I suppose… but it's more worrying, I need to stare at it and scratch my head for a while. You know, like the "Buy with one click" option. Easy is the new hard. :-) Bishonen | talk 07:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Ok thanks. I was just wondering if it mentioned the possible link to MehulWB. Seems it did.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

↑ for you.

😀 for me (does , my very first emoji, look embarassed enough?). Abecedare (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Very nice arrow, can you tell me how to produce it on a keyboard? I tried the ^ and then to slide the pipe character, "|", in under it, but it wouldn't work. OK, I see you used a template — kind of hard to remember, though. Your smiley, on the other hand, doesn't look very expressive on my screen. Apparently I don't have support for the character(s) involved. :-( I hope it's blushing, lol. Bishonen | talk 17:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

Wild Strawberries (film)

I'm watching a movie! Mmmm, Fragaria vesca... Drmies (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• A really, really impressive movie--even if interrupted by screaming children, a suspected burglar, and more children. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

Well I shall clearly die of boredom or old age waiting for you to respond on my page with an answer - where please is the link to this year's Arbcom nominations/fools that want to submit their names? Giano (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates. Hope you'll write a voter guide, if you don't actually stand. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No. I won't be doing either. Mentally, I have rather dismissed the Arbcom as a verbose and pointless bunch of Foundation toadies. When one puts them to the back of one's mind it's surprising how little the Arbcom impinges in the project - which incidentally is really run by yet another cowboy outfit known as the Foundation. On the odd occasion I do glance at Arb cases these days, they appear to be just trillions of repetitious, badly written words written by the same exceedingly dull people, but I suppose it's better than letting those same boring individuals write pages and bore the backsides off the general public. I can't help but wonder what sort of person it is who has the time and inclination to read all that waffle and bullshit, let alone give up their supposedly valuable time to adjudicate on it. Giano (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you thank you thank you. I'm so tired of dealing with random "Lionheart's" popping up all over... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I'm more and more coming round to thinking the most important admin task is to protect users like you from the pests. Though I feel a bit like I'm cleaning out the Augean stables with a teaspoon when I block them one by one for a while. There's something wrong with the system! Somebody should tell that person about the overlinking, too.. more stuff for them to not listen to. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

Here have a tablespoon. I mean it. Otherwise I may be forced to grab a ladle of mine own. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

Hehe, nice link. No, it won't happen, what a horrible idea; do it yourself! But how did you make a page like that, and form a link to it? I hope one doesn't have to fashion an URL such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia%3AArbitration+Committee+Elections+December+2010%2FCandidates%2FPreloader&editintro=Wikipedia%3AArbitration+Committee+Elections+December+2014%2FCandidates%2FEditintro&summary=&nosummary=&prefix=&minor=&title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration+Committee+Elections+December+2014%2FCandidates%2FBishonen&create=Click+here+to+create+a+candidate+profile. by hand? Bishonen | talk 01:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

I put my name "Bishonen" into the box on the "how to apply" page and pressed apply, then copied the URL. I was of course hoping that it wouldn't save the application automatically, well... part hoping. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

About the language thing ...

I almost posted something earlier today, but declined because it seemed cruel to possibly suck someone into the GGTF arbcom case drama vortex ... (I had been doing really well avoiding until I followed a link on Drmies talk page, darn him.) Anyway, since you're in now ...

I trust / hope this statement of yours [111], referencing an "inferior sense of cultural nuance in the English language" was self-deprecating irony, right? NE Ent 00:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm out again, I've removed my comment (and have apologised to Brad on his page for wrong-footing his). Anyway, that was the point-of-view, or "focus", thing, in lit crit terminology: "You condescend to [that which you construct as] my inferior sense of cultural nuance in the English language." (POV in the literary sense.) But thank you, I appreciate it. :-) Bishonen | talk 01:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

Simple edit

Is this edit allowed to state a source is in a different language: [112]? per WP:RSUE??? I don't know of any Wikipolicy that shows so, but is this also allowed as a style for articles? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, why not? It's helpful. I'm not sure why you wanted to remove it. I would say the relevant policy is "What is not forbidden is allowed", or Use common sense, or "Do it if it's helpful". Well, no, I just made those up, but I'm sure you see what I mean. WP:RSUE isn't relevant, as this isn't about a source in a different language, it's just a translation of a word.

The parenthesis you removed isn't absolutely necessary, I suppose, since it's followed by a link to our article Q source, which, as User:A Georgian says in their edit summary, contains the translation of Quelle = "source". But it's helpful to the non-German-speaking reader. Please leave it. (Btw, please use edit summaries, so people can know why you performed an edit — a revert, in this case. I'm sure you had a reason, but I don't know what it was, and the person reverting you couldn't know either.) Bishonen | talk 20:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

I just wasn't sure if that was allowed as manual of style for Wikipedia articles. I usually revert then discuss, but I wasn't so certain. Cheers — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Good job!

Dougweller's blaming you for conning convincing him to run for Arbcom. Good job! (but I thought you liked him) NE Ent 00:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you? Bwahahahahaha. Bishonen | talk 01:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

Could an admin (talk page stalker) please block Bishonen's account -- it's obviously been compromised by Darwinbish NE Ent 02:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WT:Civility#Banned words list? I'm not allowed to say what I think of the list of candidates this year. In case this discussion is not a hoax, I will at least be able to smile while voting. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Check it out Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2014/Candidates#Dougweller NE Ent 03:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Room for some more candidates - is Bishzilla busy at the moment/for the next 2 years? pablo 08:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes busy. Roarr!!! Still strictly busy recuperating from tremendous efforts involved in 2008 campaign. No more arbcom. 'Zillas not made for hard work! bishzilla _ROARR!! 11:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

2008? God, where has the time gone. We are all getting old!!! Tex (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)