User talk:Bishonen

Oh thank God for that

You are slightly returned to us. Even half a woman is better than know woman at all. Perhaps you can now talk some sense into the sisterhood here! Giano (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It feels good to be so promptly welcomed! But, my god, sweetheart, it was largely sisterhood-related issues that got me so sour I left. Them and Sandstein. [/me leaves again, this time for good.] Jk, but seriously, no. Bishonen | talk 21:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

Fear not Mrs Bishonen, I have decided to join the sisterhood of Gender Gap myself. Once I've advised them to discarded their dungarees, perm their hair and put on pretty frocks, they'll find themselves high earning husbands and be as happy as can be. Is there a page where we can sign up, I'm having problems finding it by myself. Oh yes, we need to find poor Mr Sandstein a young lady - that's what he needs. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

High-earning husbands, Lady? Are you perchance married to Chris? - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh Mr Sitush, you are amusing, but it is true that darling Christopher did have a thing about my very svelte figure sheathed in my best diamante encrusted crimson evening gown. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Good grief. I seem to have wandered into le salon mesdames. Could someone point me to the smoking room and have the footman bring me a brandy and cigar? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you'd be very happy in the Victorian drawing-room on this page. The ambience is snug to a fault, with a smoke-emitting dragon and a richly aromatic Bigfoot in residence. There is no ventilation bar the catflap, and cuban cigars are always on offer. See talkpage. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

And because of that Bigfoots also lack stealth!--MONGO 19:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Vulgarity is not the same as wit Mongo! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

FGM

Hi Bish, I wanted to thank you again for helping to keep FGM and the talk page stable. The article made TFA yesterday, and I honestly don't think that would have happened if you hadn't found a way to keep things calm. All the best, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I missed it on the front page! [Goes to check it out.] Looks great. The credit for that beautiful article is all yours, Slim. Yes, you succeeded in making it beautiful despite the subject. Bishonen | talk 14:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

Thank you, Bish, I appreciate that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 05:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back

I am glad to see you back, Bishonen. Wikipedia needs you. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks P, that's nice to hear. Bishonen | talk 14:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

Ditto. Hello my dear Bishyfishymywishy. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And hello to you, drmiesiepie. Thinking of changing my name to DarwinDish! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 23:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

Well, you are a tasty bite, even if you're not Danish. Which reminds me, today I was asked in class where I was from. "Dutchland" was proposed. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Bish! Welcome back Remember that your talk page is still semi'd! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, froglegs, I thought I'd just leave your semi to run its course. I'm not around that much, and my little friend is an annoyance to the stalkers. Bishonen | talk 22:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

Recent block

Hi Bishonen. For info this edit removes your block template from their talkpage. I'm 99% sure you're not meant to remove a block message (can't find the policy right now). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's fine, thanks, Lugnuts, it's the 1% that's got it right: blocked users don't have to keep up the notice as a mark of shame. The only thing they're not supposed to remove is declined unblock requests plus a couple of odds and ends which don't often come up. In this case, I suppose the user may have regretted his own silly comment, and have chosen to remove the whole issue. That's his right. Compare WP:REMOVED. Bishonen | talk 19:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

デニッシュ戦争! ! !

Post-battle carnage from initial skirmish of the First Wiki-Dano-Swedish Danish War of 2015

It's the Scandinavian grudge match we've all been waiting for... Sharpen your kanelstænger kanellängder and lets get ready to settle once and for all who the Supreme Lords of Scandinavian Pastry Trivia truly are.

FIKA FIIIGHT!!!

Peter ^Isotalo 23:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the article should be illustrated with a fair-use image of Princess Leia with a Danish on each ear.[1] Actually I think the phrase was in Spaceballs first. No? Princess Leia in a gold bikini with a Danish on each ear, every teenage boy's dream? Bishonen | talk 23:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

Or, no… not Spaceballs so much. I was conflating stuff. There was a bit from Friends in there.[2] Man, they have huge Danishes in America! Bishonen | talk 23:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

And yet no problems with obesity, at least if Friends is to be believed. MastCell ^Talk 00:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

'Thass 'Merka!

Peter ^Isotalo 00:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Btw, "on each ear"? You sure have chaste images of boydreams. Everyone knows fikabröd belongs on da buzom.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Hail Columbia, Fuck Yeah!"

Ok I see you're in it for the fun of it Peter, and you to Bishonen. I was slightly suspecting that, just from the issue you picked, the lack of insight on the subject and the general rudeness of your comments. Your comments on the specific page and issue cannot be taken seriously from now on.

In addition, I have to say, that this is a really bad administration of your WP-contribution over all. Not only are you wasting peoples time on an issue you don't even care about, you are at the same time making fun of it. I see no other option than labeling your actions as "Wikipedia terrorism" and any further engagement from you on this issue, cannot be taken seriously.

When I find the time, I will report this. Wikipedia should not be a platform for time-wasting pranks and people who are here to contribute in a constructive manner, should not be wasting any time on incidents like this or find themselves ridiculed. RhinoMind (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@RhinoMind:: actual terrorists kill and torture real, innocent people every day. People bemused by the "controversy" over a pastry are not engaging in "Wikipedia terrorism", and saying they are makes you look like someone who has lost their grip on reality. You should remove that slur, and apologize, before people choose to no longer take anything you say seriously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, everyone calm down. The exchange here is ironic banter. It's a common occurence here on Bishonens talkpage. @RhinoMind:, I apologize if this seemed like I was engaging in provocation for the fun of it. That was not my intention. This was merely a commentary on the irony of two Scandinavians debating the merits of pastry. It was just a way to make fun of my own participation in a heated debate about something relatively innoccouos. Take it as merely fooling around. And please see this as seperate from discussion about article content.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No I will not do any of that at all. I even find your comment rude and without any proper empathy for those who are hurt by actions such as this unacceptable behaviour. However, I will gladly discuss with you, what defines "Wikipedia terrorism". It is actions that attacks good, honest constructive Wikipedia contributors. Often for no reason at all, call them "innocent victims" if you like. It is actions that deliberately scares off good, honest constructive Wikipedia contributors. And it is actions that works "behind the stage", using Wikipedia's own rules and guidelines to make the damage. It is often committed by Wikipedians who knows the ropes of Wikipedia very well. In this case extremely well. As said I will gladly discuss this further with you, you are most welcome. RhinoMind (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question

You posed a question as to a possible sock master to Alesgeriy on AN/I, but it was closed before I could find the name. Judging from Alesgeriy's broken English and pro-Turkish bent, it could be EMr_KnG. I'll let you be the judge. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That looks likely enough. Pinging Dougweller, who blocked their sock Erim Turukku in November. Compare this ANI discussion, Doug; what do you think? Thank you, Mr Bear. Bishonen | talk 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

I'll look tomorrow, took a quick look today but it has to be decided on behavioral grounds as CU is stale. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Doug. I wasn't asking you for the sake of your magic CU powers, but because because you blocked Erim Turukku (on behavioral grounds, not for socking) in November 2014, so if you've got the time, maybe you could look to see if Alesgeriy strikes you as the same person. If you haven't, which I would certainly understand, I think I might as well indef them myself. Even if they're not 100% sure a sock of EMr KnG (who is globally blocked, btw), they're definitely a sock of somebody, and somebody not readily distinguishable from EMr KnG / Erim Turukku. Bishonen | talk 00:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC).

I've looked. Sock, yes. Whose? Not sure. Not easily distinguishable, not clearly identical. I'm not much help. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That's all right, I'll be the Abusive Admin, I know you can't. It must be so dull to be an arb, poor Doug. Say goodbye to all the fun scandal instigation! Bishonen | talk 16:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC).

(Adding.) Alesgeiry hasn't edited after the 72-hour block, so maybe the account has been abandoned. Kansas Bear, have you happened to notice a new user editing similar articles, who might be their latest identity? Especially, an account created on or after 9 February? Bishonen | talk 17:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC).

Well, this IP has added back exactly the same categories(Babur, Selim I, Mehmed the Conqueror) Erim Turukku was pushing before his block. The same IP has also been edit warring on Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century and List of Turkic dynasties and countries, apparently using a few incarnations, 31.200.14.171, 31.200.12.36, 31.200.8.227, et.al. The more interesting question, is this IP actually user:Mehmeett21, logged out? Both the IP and Mehmeet21 have the same interest(s) and share the same POV. Have we stumbled upon another sock of Erim Turukku? Perhaps an Admin should be asking Mehmeett that question? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What is also a tell-tale POV is the addition to the Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century, of the Hunnic Empire, Xiongnu and Hephthalite Empire. A POV which Erim Turukku and EMr_KnG both shared. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. (But terribly complicated, groan.) I have full-protected Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century for a week because of the edit warring. The IPs 188.158.xx are accusing Mehmeet21 of being the person behind the IPs in the 31.200.0.0/19 range. I'm not sure, as I've seen Mehmeet21 reverting some of those IPs, for instance here. Do you have any comment on that, User:Kansas Bear? I can't say I'm well-informed about the topic. Do the IPs and Mehmeet really have the same POV? And Doug, could you check Mehmeet21 against that IP range, please? I think the indications are strong enough to warrant it. It would feel quite good to block the fortunately not very big 31.200.0.0/19 range if it turns out to be warranted. Those IPs are supposedly static, but he keeps jumping to new ones. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

Not warranted. Anything's possible as CU can't determine if it's the same person in 2 different locations using 2 different computers, but CU shows no relationship. Thinking about it now, I probably should have said I wasn't going to do it, because if there was, I couldn't make the link. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, but if you found a connection you could have blocked, even if not publish the link, couldn't you? I know that's even more hypothetical. Anyway, I've told all of them, however many they really are, to try to come to consensus on the talkpage. Yeah, that always works with nationalist warriors. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

(which I think you are supposed to do after 8 indents). I guess I could have blocked, I haven't made a CU block before (ie one giving that as a reason)> Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In response to Bishonen's question, both the IP and Mehmeet knew about the Xiongu being listed under some obscure article/template as Mongolian.[3][4] Both were intent on having Huns, Xiongnu and Hephthalites listed as Turkic while blantantly ignoring the multiple theories concerning their origins.[5][6] In this case it may just be the same POV not the same person. Mehmeet is in Sweden, I believe.

What is very clear, is that user:Madyas is definitely the IP. Same POV pushing and oddly, the same category pushing as Erim Turukku. Here Madyas has added Hunnic to the template of Turkic topics and template:Turkic peoples. Sorry multiple windows open! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed a move edit summary of Mehmeett's in Swedish, in fact — made me rub my eyes. I won't ping any more, poor Doug, but if you see this and would like to CU Madyas and the IPs, go ahead. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

They also both insist on Tuoba states as Turkic despite it being disputed, see this edit by Madyas and this edit by the ip and this by Mehmeett.Rajmaan (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That's quite striking, Rajmaan. I'll sleep on it. You too, Doug? Two of those three are very recent, not sure you saw them when you looked. Do you think it might be reasonable to block both the accounts and the 31.200.xx range per WP:DUCK, as obviously coordinated, whether or not there's actual socking? Answer by e-mail if you like. Bishonen | talk 01:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

AFD not deleted

Hi, you closed this as delete but probably forgot to delete the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

My god, yes. Apparently I was so impressed by my feat of closing an AfD (a first for me) that I went straight into self-congratulation mode instead of finishing the job. Thank you very much, TopGun. Bishonen | talk 07:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC).

Haha.. :D No problem! --lTopGunl (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Amazing that you don't know the difference between New York Times and New Yorker (or have any idea what the article said) and yet you were "closing" a discussion. Could you be less full of yourself. Go ahead have me blocked. TyrionLatif (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, the New Yorker, was it? Even less reason to be impressed by that reference, then. If you want to be blocked, you'd better tell me your main account and I'll oblige. (If by now you can even remember your "main" account.) It's hardly worth my trouble to block yet another trolling throwaway sock. Bishonen | talk 12:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

Please protect this too

List of Turkic dynasties and countries --188.159.144.219 (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have time. It looks a little complicated. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

• Hello again. It's actually a little too complicated for me. I was hoping I would be able to determine consensus and close the RfC, but it doesn't seem very decisive. I've posted a note on the talkpage, just to warn people that I will protect if there's any more edit warring. Bishonen | talk 19:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

Hi. Thanks for your attention. Please full-protect that article. My revision is the last accepted revision before endless edit warring. --188.158.116.74 (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Active sanction removal

Well, I stand corrected on the matter of removing active sanctions from talk pages. Since I was sure that had once been a guideline, I had to track down the debate here. Anyhow, thanks for the edification. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it comes up every now and then, and at any given time, at least half the people seem to think that policy is as you thought. It's surely a good thing, though, IMO, that people don't have to wear a block notice as a mark of shame, as long as they don't intend to appeal but just to wait it out. It's logical, too: not all admins post a block notice all of the time, so why, randomly, hold the ones that do get posted so sacrosanct? Bishonen | talk 19:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) @Cyphoidbomb: A very recent example here. Because the user blanked the decline and some discussion but did not re-appeal the block, the removal is OK as far as I'm concerned. I assume they're letting their block expire or whatever. They could also have removed the block notice as far as I'm concerned. So long as they don't try to re-appeal, because that would be equivalent to admin shopping. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Ms. Bishonen - I hope you are well. I see from your talk banner, that you've had a wee bout with the yuckies. Hopefully the twins are taking good care of you and getting you back to your ever-cheerful self. *Hugs* from Ched. :-) — Ched :  ?  22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh god, the twins! I'd forgotten those uncontrollable socks! Thanks Ched, now I feel worse than ever! Bishonen | talk 06:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

User:Mehmeett21's massive sock puppetry

• Mehmeett21 (talk · contribs)
• Madyas (talk · contribs)
• And a bunch of dynamic IP addresses (most recent 31.200.xxx.xxx)

Someone report this user on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. He should be banned from this topic (any Turkic, Euroasian, and related historical articles). --188.158.116.74 (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

See this section higher up on the page. Note that User:Dougweller is a checkuser. Bishonen | talk 06:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for protecting an unreliable/false revision!

You did very well! Please revert his edit. --14.52.61.218 (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That may well not have been the best revision to protect on. Administrators don't pick and choose when they protect for edit warring, unless there's obvious vandalism; they're actually not allowed to take sides in a content dispute. It's a pity people on both sides ignored my warning. One way of getting more knowledgeable eyes on the article might be to post on the Neutral point of view noticeboard. If that generates convincing arguments, and thereby a consensus (which doesn't necessarily mean a large majority) I'll certainly unprotect early, and block anybody who edit wars against consensus. Note that a CheckUser, Dougweller, found, above on this page, that that there's no technical connection between Mehmeett21 and the 31.200.xx IPs.[7] Dougweller hasn't replied to socking concerns about Madyas, below in the same thread. He's probably extremely busy (being an arbitrator) — you might get another CU by opening an SPI. Sorry, I realize it's complicated. I'll also keep an eye on the talkpage and see if anybody gives good reason for me to either block or revert. So far nobody has even tried. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

I am quite a bit busier than I expected to be, as I have ended up being the only drafter on one of the current cases. I hope to get a chance to deal with this and stuff on my talk page, but I don't know when. Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)