User talk:Bishonen

This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia 3 times. And the last admin blocked by Jimbo. The LAST. Don't trifle with her.

Userbox barnstar

Awarded by DHeyward

10:19, 2 September 2015‎

only back

for a few things. i pretty much gave up on wiki. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC

I kinda feel that he is following me around. IMHO. Even nominated one of my articles for deletion out of nowhere. [1] CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Gabbygate

Hi. I noticed your comments on Gabby Merger's Talk page, so I thought I would also draw your attention to this discussion, starting from here. Though I have frequently disagreed with Gabby in the past, she sought to draw me into her dispute with Jeppiz, continued the 'discussion' after I clearly indicated I was not interested in continuing, and then finished with a 'reminder' about my 'typical hasty arrogance', my "horrendous attitude", my "cold attitude" and how my "brain and biases won't allow" me to be 'nice' except "Maybe only with fellow anti-JWs, or anti-Bible types, and atheists perhaps". If you think any of my comments in the discussion were not appropriate, please let me know. This is not a specific request for admin action.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Your typical hasty arrogance? Hmm. I'll take a look. Gabby knows now, or should know, that she's not allowed to attack people. Bishonen | talk 14:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

If you get particularly bored, you could also review the discussion now archived at User_talk:Jeffro77/Archive2015b#edits (and that's without the four time I had to prune it at the end[2][3][4][5]).--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine, thanks — the recent stuff will do me. I have posted a final warning on Gabby's page. In an attempt to fix the {{hat}} business, I tried to add a {{hab}} to close the hat, but that only made everything worse, presumably because there are other hats on the page. Groan. I don't really feel like spending the best years of my life straightening it out, especially considering I don't even know what kind of hatting she was trying to achieve, and may merely disoblige her if I try to help. So now my final warning post is invisible on the page along with everything else ... I hope she reads it through the history. I suppose my kind talkpage stalkers wouldn't like to help? But please note I don't guarantee you'll get any thanks from the user. Bishonen | talk 15:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

PS, John Carter took care of it. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

Thanks. Yeah, there was one {{hat}} nested inside another. I think she saw a 'hatted' section on my Talk page and decided to do the same, but maybe didn't realise you have to {{hab}} them. I had some trouble following Gabby's reationale of deleting two large seemingly arbitrary blocks of discussion and then hatting other large chunks, but I shall leave that for her to sort out. After the recent rollercoaster of, essentially, 'I don't like you, but I want your opinion, and I still don't like you', I'm a bit worn out trying to work with her.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you shouldn't try. That's definitely my advice. I understand you may edit the same pages and their article talkpages, but if I were you I really wouldn't encourage her to come to your page any more, or post on hers. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

I've deliberately stayed out of any contact with the user for days, hoping it would lead to tensions cooling down. Unfortunately the user continues making their WP activity mostly about me by the discussion this afternoon at Jeffro77's talk page. [6]. Their continued posting at Jeffro77's talk page after Jeffo77 has told them repeatedly to stay away follows the same pattern. Jeppiz (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I know. I just warned her to leave him alone. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

Feedback

Hi Bish I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on my ANI report [7] that I feel was not dealt with properly and was closed unfairly. I took alot of abuse on that ANI that I feel was wrong and unacceptable. I'm not asking you to comment on ANI, I'm asking for feedback on what you think and how you feel on it because I really do not understand it at all. Thank you. Caden ^cool 18:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A thorough review of the history of that section, and the comments related to it elsewhere, would probably be reasonable if you are to do so. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Bish is a trusted admin who is fair and does her job properly. You have no need to worry. BTW could you please stop following me around John and stop commenting on my ANI report? I do not like it. Caden ^cool 18:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Caden, it's too complicated for me, and basically I agree with Sarah here. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

Its ok Bish, I no longer care anymore. I feel like quitting for good. Thanks anyway. Caden ^cool 23:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand it's no fun, Caden. I hope you cheer up in a bit. Bishonen | talk 08:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

(watching:] Caden, read in the spirale of justice wisdom from 1510, and don't expect it to change, certainly not in the WP:Great Dismal Swamp. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Well Bish its very hard to do that when the same crap from yesterday has continued in to today. And Gerda thanks for that link. It was interesting. Caden ^cool 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Which link? Or both? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

ps: for an educated cry you may quote my latest cantata, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It was the first link Gerda. Caden ^cool 20:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You may be interested in the DYK hook on the talk, which I kept on my talk. Every time I look at your talk, I think you look like that pictured person ;) - I have a cat instead - also crying out, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for steering me in the right direction re Benjamin Genocchio. Penelope1114 (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Neat barnstar! Thank you! Bishonen | talk 15:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

Thank you

Thank you very much Bishonen. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Question for you

Bishonen, why would my revision to Benjamin Genocchio be reverted when the content is factual, reliably referenced and an improvement to the stub that previously existed? Other editors could improve upon those statements which could be more encyclopedic in tone while leaving a more informative article in place. Really appreciate your time and thoughts here. Penelope1114 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a lot to ask of other editors that they follow you around and tweak your additions on the page itself. And so, instead, they revert. I can understand that. I mean, you realize they're not being paid for their work. Like several other people, I've been urging you to follow best practice and propose changes on the talkpage, and then discuss them there. I haven't seen you respond to this suggestion, so I'll try to demonstrate with an example why the necessary discussion can't be carried out via edit summaries (and absolutely not via reverts back and forth); it needs to be hammered out on talk.

Here's one point: it's not only a matter of style, but of proportion. In how great detail should facts and opinions be covered? As an example, I'm concerned about the section you called "International focus and art criticism".[8] I don't doubt that Genocchio has said that his art evaluation process begins with his belief that “artwork can channel the spiritual, challenge the mind and stimulate the senses,” or that “making art is one of the final arenas where there’s true freedom of expression". He's said it in interviews, these are quotes. But should they be reported in his Wikipedia bio? Not in my opinion. Also, when you describe these views, you often do it as it were from inside Genocchio's head — "Genocchio’s art evaluation process begins with his belief that" — "When Genocchio critiques a work of art, he considers", etc. As opposed to "Genocchio has said that his art evaluation process begins with his belief that “artwork can channel the spiritual, challenge the mind and stimulate the senses,” "Genocchgio has decribed.." etc. The sources are reliable, for statements that Genocchio has made in them, but interviews in, say The Weekend Australian, a lifestyle magazine, don't exactly tend to show the notability of such self-descriptions. In my opinion. I would remove the second and third paragraph in that section altogether. (As well as change the "meaningless-variation" artsy word "penned" in the first.) Please present your overhaul a section at a time on the talkpage. Also, it's better to put more general discussion on the talkpage too. I mean, you are absolutely welcome on my page, but the question you have asked me would actually go better on article talk. For more eyes. I think I'll go there now and put a link to our interchange. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. I proposed a few updates to be made to the introductory paragraph of Genocchio's article. One editor has replied with a very good alternate suggestion. What would the best next step be? Thanks so much. Penelope1114 (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Penelope, BMK may not have realized you were asking for somebody else to make the changes. I suggest you ask him to please make the change he proposes — point out that you don't want to, because of COI — and also prompt him (and others) to assess your other suggestions. For the next time you propose changes: if you use the {{request edit}} template — click and take a look at it — people will know where they are from the start. Just paste {{Request edit}} above your request. Using the template will also add your request to the Category:Requested edits, which is useful, because some editors patrol that category, and will be drawn to the page to assess your proposed edit. (So I'm told, at least.) Bishonen | talk 10:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC).

Thanks so much Bishonen. BMK went ahead and made the edits as I believe you saw which is great. Last question for a while, I promise... Should I propose changes first and begin a discussion and then use the {{request edit}} you speak of above to request that the edit actually be made after a consensus has been reached on the talk page or do I use the template from the get-go? I think you are saying to use it when I propose a change right away but I'd just like to confirm. Thank you again in advance for helping me become a better contributor. Penelope1114 (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

(May I? I've got Bishonen's talk page on my watch list.) If the article talk page is active, it's probably enough to just propose the changes there and leave it up to the regulars to discuss and decide. If there's little or no recent activity on the talk page, you might as well use {{request edit}} when you post your proposed changes. The point is to try to minimise your use of the volunteers who patrol the {{request edit}} category - they've got a lot on their plate and will likely be less familiar with the topic than the talk page regulars. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony. I think it's probably good for the regulars too if Penelope uses the template right away — then they'll see at a glance what it is. Also Talk:Benjamin Genocchio isn't a particularly lively page. A request doesn't become any more formal because you use the template, Penelope — it can be discussed afterwards. Once there's a consensus, you don't have to use any formalities to ask for your changes to be added; somebody who was part of the consensus will surely just add them. Consensus may be a bit of a highfalutin term for such a low-traffic page anyway — the changes will be added if there aren't any objections. Thanks for your help, BMK. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC).

ugghhh

Hey Bish - how the hell ya doin? Miss talkin to ya. How's the kids? Little ankle biter still got those sharp teeth? How's the honorable monster? You talked to Floz? . he ok? I saw Giano poked his head in a while back - but I was so busy that I didn't talk to him myself. Anyway - just wanted to drop by and say hey. hugs. — Ched :  ?  05:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cheddie! Florence is good in himself, just pissed off with Wikipedia. I'm thinking of sending the anklebiter to visit some editors I've been, uh, "interacting" with recently. Or Bishzilla, but she tends to be too mellow for my purposes these days. Bishonen | talk 12:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC).

Discretionary sanctions alert

Hi Bishonen. I wonder: is user:Joshua Jonathan being investigated on the same grounds?

I mean, I am denouncing harassment coming from this user only to I find that is me who is being investigated. All of a sudden editors appear on his support even using awkward statements and being so hasty, taking decisions in very little time, when the issue at stake is a complicated one. Mauna22 (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The DSA is well-known to me. Actually, I considered myself to post it at your talkpage. I think you should familiarize yourself with Wiki-policies, instead of abusing terms like WP:HARASSMENT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Investigated? What makes you think you're being investigated? Perhaps you didn't notice the line at the top of my discretionary sanctions alert: This message ... does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Italics and bolding in the original. But what I see on your page after you got the alert forces me to warn you: the more you assume bad faith, and the more you follow the lead of User:Dseer, who I have just blocked for the personal attacks on your page, the more likely you are to be sanctioned, up to and including a topic ban or an indefinite block. As for Joshua Jonathan, he's well aware of the discretionary sanctions in the area in question. Your talk, here and on WP:ANI, of "harassment" by him is absurd. Please click on the policy links in this message, you will find them informative. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC).

Hi! I didn´t mean harassment towards me myself but rather to the article at stake.

"What makes you think you're being investigated?" This [9]

As for User:Dseer commentaries I understand I cannot/should not erase them. Not even my own user talk page. Mauna22 (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

1. You protested, with reference to my discretionary sanctions alert, against being investigated. It turns out you're referring to a checkuser investigation (not performed by me) of your account, mentioned at a sockpuppet investigation that's nothing to do with me. Ask Bbb23 about the investigation of your account, if you want to ask somebody. The reason seems clear to me from the SPI, but if it's confusing to you, you should ask. I've no idea why you bring that here.
2. Only people are capable of being harassed, not objects such as articles. Look up the word, or, as Joshua Jonathan has already suggested, read the harassment policy.
3. Your understanding about removing comments is mistaken. You may remove any posts you like from your own talkpage, see WP:REMOVED. But I haven't been blaming you for Dseer's comments, or suggesting you ought to remove them — have I? No, and I'm not now. I was warning you against following his lead. That was because you explicitly expressed appreciation of his words,[10] with reference to a post that included the word "Nazi" (thrown at specific editors). He has been blocked for that post. I'm glad to hear you now sounding as if you've had second thoughts about throwing in your lot with Dseer. I'm sorry you got such poor advice from him; that wasn't your fault. Bishonen | talk 12:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC).

Whatever mate, whatever... Mauna22 (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

? How old are you..? No, don't tell me, I don't really want to know. But why reply at all if that's the best you've got? Silence is golden. Bishonen | talk 14:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC).

Obvious from this unproductive dialogue why I am retiring my user account after 10 years and why I warned Mauna about consequences. If we responded that way we would be sanctioned so it makes the point for me; thanks. Exactly why I abandon my account unapologetic and unmoved by being "lucky" there were not more severe sanctions for blowing the whistle. I knew the consequences going in. Silence here IS golden. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source academically anyway. Goodbye. Dseer (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Protection in the comments section

I noticed that you protected Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20151007/Feature, which seemed to have been after an IP address pinged you. I don't agree with your reasoning of it being because of sock puppetry. If that's the case then shouldn't there be a case to see if they're all sock puppets? GamerPro64 15:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. The discussion was hardly out of hand, and as far as I know there have been no specific allegations backed by evidence against anyone. We shouldn't forbid IP editors from contributing just because a topic is semi-controversial, especially on a relatively backwoods page that is specifically there for discussion of the subject. To put a finer point on it, there's not really anything to disrupt. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I've been taking a while to answer, but I had to think. There are some disruptive IPs, but I regret throwing out the baby (meaning 97.103.154.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) with the bathwater. I've unprotected. Thanks for your input. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for responding and unprotecting the comments. GamerPro64 19:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Tired of Harassment

Deteriorating copyvio discussion. Open a new thread if you must. Bishonen | talk 07:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This and this are pure acts of vindictiveness and mean-spiritness. I will not joust with him. The fact that he even approaches me or has anything to do with my actions (under the guise of protecting the encyclopedia) is pure crap. As I say on my User page: "I don't vibrate at that frequency". Buster Seven Talk 06:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC) This too. I think this is called stalking. I'm at a loss....! Why does he even care what I'm doing? Buster Seven Talk 06:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC) I just noticed [dex.php?title=Talk:Arthur_Herschel_Lidov_(artist)&diff=prev&oldid=685944242 this and this. All Articles I created and I am still working on. If it were anyone besides Collect, else I could collaborate and work out the problem, if there is one. But this is ridiculous. I refuse to be a passenger on Collects "flights of fancy". I'd rather leave. Buster Seven Talk 07:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Buster, I'm afraid Collect is right about Rainey Bennett. Nearly the whole paragraph "Education" is lifted word-for-word from the source. That's not "a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline", see WP:COPYVIO. You have to rewrite that paragraph from scratch using your own words. Further, you have used very specific expressions from other sources in other places in the article, such as "modernist-leaning" and "whirlwind exhibition". Those are brief quotations, but they show such "substantial linguistic similarity in creative language"[11] that you must credit them as direct quotes from the sources, with quotation marks and naming the source in the text, if you want to use them. Of course that would get pretty cumbersome, so it's better IMO to simply not use those "creative" expression. There are other similar issues wrt other sources, so please consider these things carefully when you rewrite the article, and stay away from the language of the sources. Good luck. I also think Collect's note on Talk:Richard Haines is reasonable. Look at the similarities, where this extract is practically identical with text in the Marion Times article: "Amongst his many murals was one of the more colorful in Iowa Farming, which he painted for the Cresco, Iowa post office in 1937. In it, he harkened back to his days in Marion and produced a scene depicting the farm and two generations of family that had lived there. It shows horses, cows, pigs, chickens, and family members performing chores as his mother reads a letter just delivered by the postal service." Also it's not attributed: you haven't given the newspaper article as a source. That needs to be put right, too. (I realize the newspaper may in its turn have been ripping off some other source, that you have cited. But whatever the source, somebody surely owns the copyright, and you can't use the text without rewriting it.) I know there's history between you and Collect, but no, I wouldn't call that stalking. The "User contributions" button is there for a reason. Once somebody has spotted a copyright violation, it's reasonable for them take a look at the author's other articles — because it may be suspected that the author is not well aware of how much text they're allowed to quote or semi-quote, and how it's supposed be attributed. P.S. I got an edit conflict, and haven't looked at your latest addition. But you can probably work it out yourself, considering what I have said about the rest. I have to go now. Bishonen | talk 07:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC). Was watching Stan and Ollie, and when I finished, you'd said what I was going to say, only nicer, and more comprehensively. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 08:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC) I tried to finally create some article on a subject I enjoy. I may have made some errors but....Collect is a stalker and a trouble maker. You know it and I know it. I Quit. Buster Seven Talk 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Please take a break and come back refreshed, Buster. You're a valuable editor, and I'm sure you know your contributions are appreciated. As for Stan and Ollie, Roxy, it's certainly a concern if they hypnotize people so much they're unable to post here. ;-) There's an animated gif of Bishzilla radiating her atomic deathray (or possibly throwing up, it's a bit hard to tell); perhaps I should put that in the edit notice instead. I like to frighten people. Bishonen | talk 09:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC). If there is any "stalking" it is shown by a vast array of posts on the ArbCom case against an editor whose last "interaction" was a vote on an RfA - which failed. I arrived at the pages here as a result of their connection to Philately - so any claim of "stalking" is not only silly, it is a personal affront. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Whirlwhind exhibition" is hardly a particularly unique phrasing -- here's [12] an example from 1992. NE Ent 22:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Try looking at [13] and tell me that an editor writing almost an entire article from an uncited article is proper ... or that such turns of phrase as "His parents, Fred and Hattie, were pioneer farmers at the turn of the century and Richard began sketching scenes of cows and the countryside as a child. ", and "Amongst these is one of the most colorful of murals in Iowa, which he painted for the Cresco Post Office in 1937. In it, he harkened back to his days in Marion and produced a scene depicting the farm and two generations of family that had lived there. It shows a joyous site of horses, cows, pigs, and chickens, as family members perform chores and his mother reads a letter just delivered by the postal service." etc. would strike you as normal edits on Wikipedia where the same wording is found in a source ... Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC) NE Ent, I explained the situation and the policy to Buster, who I'm sure will understand it when he's less upset. How about you, did you look at the texts and the sources in question (easy to find for an experienced editor if he takes the time), and do you genuinely disagree with me? Or do you just genuinely think trollish nitpicking is helpful? Collect, I agree with you, and you needn't rise to purely silly comments. I'm going to close this thread now. Bishonen | talk 07:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC). I did not look at the texts and I do not disagree with you -- based on prior interaction, if you said it was a copyvio, the probability that you're correct is sufficiently high I don't consider it a good use of my time to independently evaluate the situation; if I disagreed with your viewpoint, I'd state so explicitly and I'd be much more likely to being discussing it on the article talk page than here. It was merely meant as an observation on language, nothing more. NE Ent 14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock

Hello, Bish. Would you mind taking care of Arsalan Kiani (talk · contribs · count)? It's an obvious sock of someone, making unsourced edits promoting Punjabi on multiple articles related to Pakistan, and pasting lots of totally frivolous warnings on my user page in retalation for being reverted, clearly showing that they're not a new user (I don't know who the master is yet, though, since there are several masters doing similar things). They have received up to and including a level-4 for unsourced POV, and have been reported to AIV, but nothing has happened there for a while. Thomas.W ^talk 09:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

At first I'd have said NAB, but then I thought Kmrhistory, then I got confused...—SpacemanSpiff 09:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward LanguageXpert. Thomas.W ^talk 09:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

LX is Punjabi dialects, a bit different, if Materialscientist is online now he'd probably be able to pick the tells of Kmr. —SpacemanSpiff 09:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I've taken care of AK for now. I'll take a look later. The editing is so, hm, special, that it ought to be possible to relate it to a master. This, for example. Have either of you guys seen your suspects doing anything like that? And Space, could you ask Materialscientist, please? I'm on my way out. Bishonen | talk 09:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC).

Arsalan Kiani edits through Opera Mini, which is a kind of proxy, thus CU data are inconclusive. Kmrhistory didn't use Opera Mini (in the past). Materialscientist (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• On second thoughts, why worry about whose sock he is, when he's so eminently WP:NOTHERE under his own steam? I've amended the block accordingly. And now I am going out. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC).

Your weekend leisure reading

First this, and then this. I think that you will find each enjoyable in its way. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL, the first was great with my Saturday breakfast — where's my Beluga, though? And who's the "Seal" character referred to, besides being a well-known expert on the international hospitality industry? Seal (musician)? As for our article, how could you have the heart to remove the entire elegance of an enchanting past? (As you and I know, sometimes it just feels good to have a block button.) Were you tempted to add the Guardian feature as a reference? Seriously, it's perfectly informative. It could replace this, for instance. Bishonen | talk 07:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC).

Perhaps "Seal", whoever he or she is, is to international hospitality what Paris Hilton is to music. ¶ I know, I know, I removed from the article all that was beautiful. This gave me the sads; perhaps I'll recover and, as you suggest, replace crap sources with good ones. -- Hoary (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hoary, if it's leisure reading that you're looking for, may I suggest The Adventures of Odin Singh in the Land of the Blue Eyed Blondes? —SpacemanSpiff 13:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy intercourse. Incidentally, although a couple of the blogs I follow refer to Florida as variations on "America's flaccid appendage", it wasn't till I saw a map of Jutland in this context that I noticed how the peninsula, er, jutted. -- Hoary (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Problems

Hi Bishonen. I just wan't to apologize for putting a problem in your plate, but this IP (who's hard to track since he/she keeps changing IP addresses) there is a dispute between me an the IP in the article of Pound sterling as seen in the edit history, the IP didn't agree with me at first, and he was right, but now that I point out to a given source by the IP that the new edit doesn't have anything in regards to a misleading data (something about a 40% data), he thinks I'm morphing the source to my POV and posted a complain here in the Administrator notice board. I tried looking for third parties, but none respond. (N0n3up (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

Never mind, it's all good now.... Pretend this doesn't exist.. like it's invisible. (N0n3up (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

OK. See also the top of this page: I'm not doing ANI at this time. Bishonen | talk 06:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC).

I never said anything about getting involved in the ANI, just a third party. But like I said, pretend this doesn't exist... please... sorry.. bye. (N0n3up (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

File:Nell Gwyn.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nell Gwyn.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 14:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The next day…...

In Dec of 2014, Editor Carptrash and I created List of United States post office murals and started to fill it with info and images (when available). While creating the list and doing research, etc. we realized that we were by-passing a lot of interesting information that might come in handy for future articles about the muralists. So, later that same month we created User:Buster7/The List - Women Artists and User:Buster7/The List - Men Artists and used them as a file drawer of sorts for names and information and sources and whatever was interesting. Most of it was via cut-n-paste in a random, quick, rather loose system of fact gathering from varied sources. Over time I created about 7-8 articles using one of the two Lists as my starting point. Just the other day I decided to start creating more muralist articles and made a personal vow to do one a day.

I regretfully admit that I should have been more careful and concerned to paraphrase and use my own words. But I was eager to create content. I kind of knew I was stretching the copyright issue and plagiarism but I figured the articles were about remote individuals; they would be “out of the way” , unseen, and I could get them into namespace and edit them as time allowed. I didn't expect much traffic (if any) at the articles so I thought I would create them, with what I had, and I could fine tune them later.

And then, behold, surprise of all surprises, an old nemesis shows up and dis-credits my content creation. I won’t get into the long history that he and I have but I challenge any editor to compare our general history everywhere on WP. Compare our talk pages over the last 6-7 years. See how many complaints come my way compared to his. I stay out of trouble: he searches it out.

Somewhere, twice, you say that he was right. O! How it pains me to admit that that may be correct, technically. But, what could have been a warm cuddly moment of olive branch entwining and a future of peaceful co-existence was sacrificed for a never-before seen and rarely used template; used against a veteran editor of long and exemplary service to the encyclopedia and the WP community. That would be me. I won’t stay retired. I love WP too much. Also, my wife has started to add jobs to the honey-do list now that I have extra hours in the day. Buster Seven Talk 14:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you find yourself drawn (and pushed, by your wife) back, Buster7. As you probably recollect, I'm aware of the long history, and I hope I've been supportive when that was called for. But I won't play favorites, and I don't think Collect did anything improper in this context. Best regards to Buster3.5. Bishonen | talk 15:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC).

Being named a person of interest here I think I will weigh in. My guidelines are, if I cut-and-paste then I just use quotes and reference where it came from. One thing I am always trying to do with articles is to use a variety of sources anyway, so I don't view this as being a problem. We need those articles so don't despair. Carptrash (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Annotating block logs

Check recent block history of the notorious bad guy User:ThisIsaTest, to see how you could have squeezed a permanent link to an Arbcom decision into a block log entry. It uses the Special:Permalink/123456 notation. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Oakey

Can you do me a favour and correct the move from Jonathan Oakey to JayJay Oakey. It was a copy paste rather than a proper move and the edit history was lost.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, a little later today, after I've been to get the groceries. It'll involve the dreaded history merge, since there has been a little further editing at the new location, so I need to gird up my loins first. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC).

Never to get in the way of a good loin gird - no rush. The speedy deletion of the new article was declined because of the article history and if further action is to be taken the history will be important.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't seem to remember this trick very well.. I made a bit of a meal of it, and misspelled the name in several ways. But finally the history goes back to 2010. Now let's take a look at the talkpage… Bishonen | talk 11:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC).

I was watching the change. I have had days like that too - thanks for the effort.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't seem able to stop the talkpage redirecting to itself. It's funny in a way, but not... a good thing. Talkpage stalkers please help!! Bishonen | talk 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC).

Sorry, now we're both doing it — I'll stop! I'll leave it completely to you. Just let me know if you need some version deleted. Bishonen | talk 11:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC).

Yes I should have left it alone. In any case the talk page is not that important. Let me deal with that and I will send you any deletion requests.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm on mobile so won't do tool stuff but you have to undelete oakLey and move to oakey (talk pages).—SpacemanSpiff 11:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Good job - it all looks good. Thanks.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will not. I've lost my nerve. And I thought that was what I did before? Oh well, one more time on the roundabouts, it's not as if I've got any more face to lose. Why do they give the admin tools to these fumblers? Bishonen | talk 11:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC).

Look at the history of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar. It so happened that Abecedare and I came across the same set of disruptive moves at around the same time and edit-conflicted in moving this article back and in the process deleted the article and its entire history and made it a redirect to itself. Luckily Bgwhite or his bot figured it out and got me to fix it. Talk pages are ok to mess with after that. —SpacemanSpiff 13:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry I put you through that. I would suggest deleting Talk:JayJay Oakley to tie everything into a pretty knot. A little latter today I will start concentrating on the article. Thanks again.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

more plagiarism noted

Talk:Paul Theodore Arlt demonstrates what appears to be specific and deliberate plagiarism - using a Washington Post source in the first place, grabbing more than 150 words from it, and then not citing it at all. [14] is the initial edit. There is a pattern here - but I was perfectly happy to be cordial until the editor then accused me of "plagiarism" for quoting his post about being a sleuth seeking information about me personally, as though it were the same problem as this plagiarism (far worse than a mere copyright violation) of taking a source, quoting it extensively, and then not citing it whatsoever. With warm regards, and noting you will see others also note that using 150+ words from a source which you used in the first place, and then did not cite as required by Wikipedia policies and US law is a major problem for an editor. Collect (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, [15] is the initial edit of the article while it was under construction @ User:Buster7/Paul Arlt. Yes, it was a direct copy and paste from the Washington Post Obit which I then chiseled down during construction. It was a starting point. Yes, its quite possible I may have inadvertently used some few of the many thousands of words available in the Obit and then forgot to state it as a reference. Buster Seven Talk 14:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact, though, you quite specifically removed all mention of your primary source.[16] I believe that is the essence of the offence. At this point, I am becoming unwilling to accept "accident" or "inadvertently" or "some few" words where your edit summary was simply "copy edit." The more I look, the worse the offence appears. Collect (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you stop looking. You see a devil behind every tree. My mistake is how I construct articles. My method creates pitfalls that I tumble into. Buster Seven Talk 15:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)