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

Hamster-powered barnstar created for this user by User:Penyulap 24 June 2013

Tweeting

Tell me Mrs Bishonen, do you tweet? I have been inundated with requests to do so, but having opened an account, can't understand the mechanics of of all! How does one begin to share one's opinion and then follow the many who will doubtless agree with me? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand it either, I had to give up. The mystery is that editing Wikipedia, pretty much the only thing on the Internet that I can manage, is supposed to be quite baffling, while everybody except you and me can handle these modern inventions such as facebook and twitter. Could there be something about being wellbred ladies that prevents us? Would a kind talkpage stalker like to link us to some very basic instructions? Bishonen | talk 21:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC).

I'm a wellbred gentleman, and I can't figure it out, either. Of course, I may differ slightly in the sense that I don't want to figure it out. Notwithstanding, I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Lady Catherine, for your posts to Bishonen's Talk page lately. They are a pleasure to read and often are the only thing that brightens up my Wikipedia days. Also, many congratulations on your article!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The secret to Twitter is that it is all about who you follow. Follow interesting people in fields you are curious about like museum curators, scientists, musicians, journalists, comedians, etc. If you find someone who has similar interests to yours, go to see who they follow to see if there are other interesting individuals that you never knew about. And some of these folk might follow you back.

Many new users use Twitter to broadcast their opinions to the world and are disappointed when no one pays attention to them. But unless you have something to offer the world (often, it's humor, news or insights about life), no one is going to seek you out. Find people who interest you, respond to their Tweets that you find amusing and it's likely, if they aren't some huge celebrity, that they will respond back. And that's how connections are made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC) (been on Twitter for 8 years now)

My dear Liz (surely not just "Liz" but Dame Liz or Countess Liz -- do give us the means to properly address you), it is concerning that you question whether Lady Catherine indeed has "something to offer the world." And the idea that she should "follow" disreputable sorts such as comedians and journalists is not on. I trust that in future you shall choose your words more carefully. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I am just "Liz" and I don't defer to the aristocracy (even faux aristocrats). They can adapt to the modern world or stay in their estates, clutching their pearls and ranting about how democracy has destroyed the world. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty simple—you just click the box promising your firstborn and all privacy rights (ha ha, this is the internet! privacy!), then plan what to say. Johnuniq (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Well it's all quite extraordinary. My dear nephew signed me in and three people immediately requested that I follow them - one Erik Moeller and someone else called Philippe Beaudette all Wikipedians; now isn't that interesting - how did they know I was there? Anyway, I had a look at what they were tweeting, and it was frightfully dull, so I don't think I will bother to follow them. Now there's somebody called Holly Willoughby begging me to follow her - poor dear, looks like she's lost the three bears. I must say this doesn't look to be the brightest place. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Your nephew seems to have provided your Wikipedia username (I would never let them have mine), so it's no wonder they found you. Now my own Twitter account, long dormant and very secret, has finally found something brighter to do: follow you! Though I really don't know how that works. I mean, I believe I am following Barack Obama, and have been for some time, but what has come of it..? Nothing much. And one keeps having to log in, which is very boring. As soon as one has been absent for a few years, one is again logged out. Yawn. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC).

• I'm sorry, are we being judged on the quality of our posts to Bishonen's talk page? Must they be "a pleasure to read"? Must one first present one's calling card to Bishonen's footman? I'm dreadfully sorry that I so ignobly stumbled into this venue without observing the proper protocol. I will immediately forthwith retire to my winter residence and await the proper amount of time, and proper invitation, before venturing into these premises anytime soon. Yours, etc., Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm afraid this place does tend to be a little exclusive, at least when Lady Catherine is visiting. But all walks of society are welcome in Bishzilla's pocket! Bishonen | talk 00:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC).

These talkpages are a pleasure to follow. What else do we need, except from daily hugs from our loved ones? But alas, I don't even have a smartphone. When my phone falls down and is broken, I go to a shop and ask for the cheapest phone they've got - and I mean really cheapest. Ah, what a nice quiet life! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't know at all! It all seems very complicated, how will Mr Cameron know I'm advising him if no one tells him. I need to know how to post on his page. As for that young man above - you young people today spend far too much time fiddling about with these wretched phones. My grandchildren constantly have them to hand, even daring to look at them when they are being address by me! Then, when I call them, they never answer. "Oh it's on silent Granny" - Oh is it indeed! For a generation in a constant state of communication, there seems to be precious little dialogue. Now back to Mr Cameron how do I to get his attention - some one has to tell the poor man where he's going wrong - and then there's that dreadful American Trump man, I don't care for him at all. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Mr Cameron cares about what you, me or anyone else thinks. Like all elected place office holders he's only interested in the power his position gives him, and will do anything, and promise anything, to get re-elected. Thomas.W ^talk 11:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I took a close look at Twitter a year or so ago and found it to be a total waste of time. Everyone has an opinion about just about everything, but very few have an opinion that matters to me, so the signal to noise ratio is about 0.001:99.999. And finding the very few tweets that matter is near impossible, making Twitter totally unusable. Thomas.W ^talk 11:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Protection

I move protected your user and user talk pages. If you prefer it different, I'm sure you can fix it! Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I was just thinking I should do that, after I revdel'd those moves. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 03:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC).

Rick Ross article - again

(I originally placed thin on your Uset page by mistake. Moving it here. Sorry. Jbh^Talk 13:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that SFarny is likely not there to genuinely work to improve the article or the related Scientology/CAN articles. I recognize I may be being over sensitive to a different POV but their aggregate edits and behavior make me think that is less likely than not. Is this something blatant enough that you can handle under DS, should it go to AE or an I simply being over sensitive? Jbh^Talk 13:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The current bit that a 501(c)(3) corporation is not an "educational nonprofit corporation" just because SFarney says that is a lie is getting past the Monty Python level, to be sure. Collect (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have warned Sfarney twice on his page, stating the second time that if there's another transparent attempt to make Ross look bad, I'll topic ban him. I will, too. While I agree with you about the "chicken shit tactic", Jbhunley, it hardly rises to such an attempt. I also agree that there's a cumulative effect of ill will, but that's a bit subtle, and I doubt such an argument would fare well on AE. Take it there if you disagree, of course (I won't be offended or anything). Bishonen | talk 15:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC).

Thanks for the input. I will not go to AE now, you seem to have a good eye on the situation. They lost my AGF but it is true they have not done anything egregous since your last warning. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 16:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That attack you removed today

That edit summary might draw unnecessary attention to what you removed. Just a thought ¯\_(ツ)_/¯-- John Reaves 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got a point. Still, if nobody has noticed it for four years, why would they care now? Hmmm. Do you think I should revdel it? It's easily done. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC).

Certainly wouldn't hurt. -- John Reaves 21:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed in the result. I have faith in you. Bishonen | talk 17:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC).

Hi

Everytime I happen to stumble upon user Libstar and user James500 edits they are at kindergarten level, attacking each other and baiting each other to continue bickering. It takes one glance at their talk pages to see how they are disrupting each others Wiki-lives :) Especially Libstar who has been an editor here for years should know better. Anyway, just letting you know. Regards,BabbaQ (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Channar revolt

Hey Bishonen. I am here to talk about the recent edits made by Rabtman to the Channar revolt article. He has added refs to support his claims. However I doubt the validity of these refs. Rabtman is primarily here to glorify Nair relevant articles(please go through his history). He has inlcuded lines like the nadars were untouchacbles etc. Now this is a very complicated topic. According to Hardgrave and Templeman, leading anthropologists on this topic, the nadars were not untouchables. Some nadars were historically land lords. So the term Nadar today refers to all these different Nadars subcastes. The former status of all these Nadar subcastes were different from each other. So this is something we have to discuss. Most of the lines seem to glorify the Nair community(most of his edits to). I didnt revert his edits. I didnt do anything. Because I am tired of all this. My account is currently used by wife as I am very busy nowadays. Admins do not usually intervene to edit nadar pages. But I have done my best to keep the page as neutral as possible. I actually started editing because a long time ago the page was heavily attacked anti-nadar groups. I think that trend is coming back now. Please go through the recent made by rabtman to the chanar revolt article. He claims that the Nair women were allowed to cover their upper body. This topic has always baffled me. According to the Nair wiki article, the nairs didnt cover their upper bodies(men and women). I would be obliged if you would go through the recent edits made by rabtman to the chanar revolt article. Most of the lines he included do not make sense. I am pretty thorough with this topic. I am willing to help you by providing you whatever info I can(I have the Hardgrave and Templeman book with me). And since Sitush(one of the few who can understand this topic) away, I dont have many options. If you are busy please recommend me some other editor who might be interested to edit these pages. I just want these articles to be maintained by neutral editors(Like the Nair article). Thank you for your time.Mayan302 (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sounding the alert, Mayan302. My impression is that Rabt man's additions are too detailed and also unacceptably close to Channa's wording. But yes, it's a very complicated topic — too complicated for me, I'm afraid. We all miss Sitush indeed. Perhaps you could appeal to Joshua Jonathan? Note, please ask your wife to create an account of her own, as one account is for one person. See WP:ROLE. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC).

So, my role as a mediator seems to be growing. It's a mixed blessing... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually I just instruct to do things. She just follows my orders and her opinion is actually mine. I will talk to Mr. Johnathan.Mayan302 (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Joshua Jonathan, please don't feel it's necessarily your duty to mediate. Try, by all means, but if somebody's actually disruptive (whether with good intentions or not), call on an admin and explain the situation. For instance me. Bishonen | talk 17:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC).

P.S. to Mayan302 and Joshua Jonathan: I have alerted Rabt man to the existence of discretionary sanctions for India-, Pakistan-, and Afghanistan-related pages. Nobody has done that before (somewhat to my surprise) as far as I can see, and he should be aware of them. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC).

Of course I'll look into it. May take some time, though. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!Mayan302 (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Before you all begin to gang up on me, I would encourage you to look at Mayan302's revision history (all of it).Rabt man (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This was all obviously very well co-ordinated, and I must commend Mayan302 for that. Very well done. I am getting tired of being hounded by all of you, and I am sure you are all happy to revert every single edit I made. When I had tried to remove blatant POV from the Nair article, I was constantly attacked or when I had actually begun to have more experience in this wiki and say why, I was ignored. When I tried to edit these other articles and expand upon them, this SPA goes to almost every editor I have had trouble with in the past and tell them to revert me. Although the neutral editors (Sitush, Bishonen, Joshua Johnathan?) may not be the most willing to hear, I have one last thing to say to you all. There are many different types of people who are working with you that have added horrible POV statements which reflected far from the truth, or have used this as a medium to glorify their caste. The sources itself were terrible (there are syrian christian glorification authors in the Nair article, saying various statements brought about by various editors). The most stupid reasons were given to harass the Nair article, and there was even a legend which said that the Nairs are descended from Dogs. This was later disproved, and recognized as complete nonsense but many more stupid things exist in these caste based articles. Some of you have even exceeded 3RR, and put false edit summaries without even reading the diffs. And this is supposedly ok.

You have enforced this POV unknowingly. My examples of editors include Mayan302, Cartick, the sockpuppets of Kondotty Sultan, Achayan, etc. Look at their revision history. What you say is glorification of the Nair caste was given through citations, and what you think of as glorification is the truth. A ton of statements which were the truth (truth reflected by citations, not only by common knowledge), but yet supposedly offensive to others does not mean glorification. People will resort to sock-puppeting etc as they will not know how to prove their point which they see as obvious.

As being some of the so-called neutral editors of caste-based articles you have to realize that you could stop all the other SPA's, socks,etc if you all stop claiming ownership of the articles, listen to what the common IP's and editors have to say, and stop bullying others. I understand you are more experienced with wikipedia than I am, but you are unknowingly screwing it up as much as the vandals are by supporting the ones who are truly out to destroy the identities of other castes. I am not one of them. I am not here for a pro-Nair glorification agenda. I had removed obvious nonsense (or at least proposed to), and added reliable citations for those statements which were the truth.

I am tired of you all taking sides and harassing those you do not agree with. Reflect upon what you have done as well, before attacking other editors. Realize that you are being manipulated into attacking other castes, or possibly doing it so on purpose. I don't know, I do not care, but you are enforcing wrongs, and letting them slip in. Rabt man (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have responded on your page. Bishonen | talk 16:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC).

It appears you have blocked TMobile customers

Hi Bishonen Today when I was out I tried to check my watchlist on my phone, not something I normally do. Up came a message that says you have blocked the 172.56.32.xxx ip range. This is a range belonging to TMobile a major cell phone carrier. When will this block end? AlbinoFerret 02:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it, AlbinoFerret. I didn't block a very big part of TMobile, though! I blocked the 172.56.32.0/22 range, theoretically 1024 IPs, for one month, on 29 January 2016. There was a lot of disruptive block evasion by an indeffed user coming from it. I've had to do that several times over the past few years wrt the same individual, and this is actually the first time anybody has complained. (Well, excepting the individual, they have been pretty annoyed.) I do realize that new users, who don't know how to complain, may also have been affected. Still, it's been some pretty bad disruption. If I leave the block in place, it'll expire on 29 February. What do you say, how much does the range block incommode you? If a lot, I'll lift it. Bishonen | talk 14:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC).

I was more interested in finding when it was going to end. Leave it be if its going to expire in a month. I dont normally edit from my phone, and I was just checking my watchlist because I was bored where I was at. Its a minor inconvenience for me and if it stops disruption that inconveniences more people its worth it. I figured it had to be for something bad to block a major cell phone provider. AlbinoFerret 16:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting -- I regularly block part of the same range. Different troublemaker, I believe, but a particularly nasty one. I only remember one complaint, at least from that part of the range (half the size of the /22). Antandrus (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think it's the same, Antandrus? Mine is, uh, known as TE. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC).

I just looked up the history of TE -- did not previously know this person -- so that's a strong negative, very different malefactor indeed. Mine is the guy who does this. He's such a magnificent comedian it's almost a shame to shut him down. Antandrus (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, right, that edit was followed by one of my faster reverts. I did hesitate; I like the "antbrain" theme. :-) Bishonen | talk 17:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC).

Profile101 appears to be socking

Hi Bishonen. I think User Eeditflyover is a sock of Profile101. The user edits exactly like him. Can you please take a look at this. I would open an SPI, however I don't have much time to do this nowadays. Thanks. Class455fan1 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Right. I guess it's harder for Profile to disguise themselves than for most editors. Blocked per WP:DUCK. Good catch, Class455fan1, thanks. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC).

Hi Bish, I left a message on his page explaining to him not to block evade again, but he doesnt want to listen to me. Can you please explain it to him. Thanks. Class455fan1 (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Class455fan1, but you see how it is. He doesn't understand — he's so far from understanding that it's pointless to try any more explaining. Now I see the sock says he's not "the main user from" Profile101, because he has a different e-mail... so he should be unblocked... Now come on, please stop editing Wikipedia till after your exams! If you want another self-requested block, just let me know. Bishonen | talk 09:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC).

My exams start from May 17. The ones which I have just done were mock exams (and three real ones), so I will ask for a three month block on April 1 maybe. Till then, I'll edit. Its funny how he still claims he is not a sock when it's pretty obvious he is! Class455fan1 (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't understand the meaning of the word. How would he be able to give the e-mail addy of Profile101 if they weren't the same person? Bishonen | talk 10:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC).

Vandal Protection

Hello, how are you? Sorry to disturb, but there seems to be an edit war going on at Sallekhana. It was subject to protection as well some months earlier as IP's were vandalising it spamming with the word Suicide. Please see [1] and Talk:Sallekhana. Can you please help? Thanks! -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Bernie Sanders, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Even if you're an admin. You still can't change someone's comments just because you don't find it respectful. Many people call him Bernie.It's not like he's posting that in the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe you just sent me that template. I've seen you be unreasonable before, but this is something special. Are you trying to make me "involved" w r t you, and thereby unable to topic ban you, by being ridiculous on my page? It's not going to work. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC).

not at all, I just reverted your edit. Are you saying that an admin is above getting warned? Your revert deserved it. I would have done it for anyone. You're not above the rules. Why are you threatening to topic ban me?Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course I'm not threatening to topic ban you. I wouldn't dream of topic banning you over being offensive on my page, or over reverting me. Admins are used to nonsense. But I did warn you recently that I would topic ban you from the Arab-Israeli pages if you persisted in your uncollegial editing habits.[2][3] That warning stands. And it's the only possible reason I can think of for you to come to my page and make such a fool of yourself. Not only admins, but all experienced users, are "above" being welcomed to Wikipedia and told how they can learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia, as I have already told you. I warned you just a week ago about abuse of warning templates.[4] And here you are with with Template:uw-tpv1. Amazing. Now do yourself a favour, go away. Don't post again. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC).

Sir Joseph's post is complete nonsense. If someone starts a talk page discussion with an inappropriate heading, it is perfectly reasonable for another editor to fix it. Other editors may disagree about what heading should be used, but no competent editor would post a ridiculous warning regarding such a disagreement. My suggestion would be to actually read WP:TPO which includes "no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate...". Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

POV edits

An anon editor is trying to add POV lines to the Nadar(caste) article by using an unreliable source. I have already reverted his edits many times. I am not sure what I should do next. Could you please look into this issue when you are free. Please advice me what I should do next. Thank you Mayan302 (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mayan302: at the moment you should do nothing but discuss the issue, and use notifications like this one. You've broken WP:3RR there, with 4 recverts within 24 hours. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Joshua. Thank you. But I am not sure if this anon is willing to discuss things here.Mayan302 (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

And now I see there's a new user (ho hum, cough cough, I seem to have something in my throat) talking about the issue on your page, Mayan302. I will warn them sharply — once I've had breakfast — and semi the article if it turns out to be necessary. But note that even while you're defending the article against socks and POV-pushers, you need to be very careful of 3RR, Mayan, or you may be blocked yourself. Our rules don't always favour the good guys I'm afraid. You did right to notify me. Bishonen | talk 10:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC).

Ok. I can understand. Thank you. Are you from Japan? Just curious?Mayan302 (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No… or I wouldn't have been having breakfast, I guess! I'm from, and in, northern Europe. It's just a name. (I'm not a beautiful young boy either. :-) ) Bishonen | talk 11:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC).

Oh. Yeah I know that part. :)

Ah, but you're always beautiful to me, Chère. --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, right. I identify with the snowman up top, xe looks much like me. You have mail, RexxS. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC).

You know very well that the snowman looks nothing like you. (It does look a bit like me though.) You have reply mail. --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

WAIT! ... someone actually knows what Bishonen looks like? That little curiosity has been eating at me for years. :-) — Ched :  ?  19:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Impact

Impact

Thank you for your impact
in giving a flower, writing Teh Guide, in pocketing and drawing!

Someone asked for images? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sock of User:Ibkib

Hi Bishonen
At this ANI closure I was asked to report to you if further problems arose at Abdulaziz Al-Babtain
This morning a 61kB addition - even longer than the previously removed material - was made by a new SPA User:Ibrahimaldawoud. Could I ask you to take some action - possibly a block and semi-protection? - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Arjayay. The new account behaves rather differently from Ibkib, in that he has responded to you — something Ibkib never did — so I'm assuming good faith. Of course he still has a COI, and I've written some explanations to him. Diannaa has semi'd the article. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC).

MORE FUN

Mine is bigger smaller than yours!

Pageviews for User:Bishonen	Pageviews for User talk:Bishonen

Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

UAA Talk

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention#Removal_of_pending_report_and_re-reporting_of_redundant_reports.3F regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Note Bishonen: this is likely not about you but I thought you might be interested. Horseless Headman (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC).

Thank you, Horseless, but it's above my head, all of it. I've weighed in anyway, just to demonstrate that Yomangani's Gabby template wasn't placed in error on my userpage. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC).

Hello, yes the situation was confusing because the Helper Bot (that removes blocked usernames from the UAA list) apparently only has one edit summary for its edits, always the same, even if it removes the same username for the 2nd time. Anyways. Haha, your weighing in indeed in agreement with your template. Or is it a self-fulfilling prophecy ;-) ? Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC).

No idea, Darwinbish put it there.[5] Can't think what she was referring to. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC).

SPI Help

Hi,

Hope all's well. Sadly, something seems to have broken for me on this SPI, and I'd really appreciate any help fixing it. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 16:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It contains some quite unexpected code. Fixing is beyond me, sorry. I think you should remove it and start over. Bishonen | talk 16:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC).

This has happened before for me for some reason, but I think that I've fixed it for now. Thank you anyways. GAB^Hello! 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Procedural irregularity

I have been on WP for 10 years, been involved in hundreds of deletion discussions and seen dozens of relistings. I have never seen an admin too impatient to wait out a relist on an AFD with 2 deletes and 1 keep. I have never ever seen a relist of this sort overruled as a delete. 2 to 1! Do you always regard 2 to 1 as a consensus? It is as if you are more desperate than any other admin to see one of my pages deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• I presume you know I am talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruise (film) unless you regularly overrule relistings.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Tony, I realize you probably have more experience of AfD than me, but I wouldn't say I "overruled" the relister. As I told them, they ought to have given admins more than a few hours after the regular 7 day mark to assess consensus (something that is normally the function of an admin at that board) before relisting, and before deciding off their own (non-admin) bat that consensus wasn't clear. IMO it was clear. There were three well-argued delete (counting the nominator, naturally — why would they be excluded?) and one keep (yours). The people who said to delete explained their rationales fully, as did you, and they replied conscientiously and with very good arguments (again, IMO) to your arguments. You yourself seemed quite impressed with this one. As of course you know, having been involved in so many deletion discussions, consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. Bishonen | talk 23:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC).

P.S. Have we met? Is there any reason I'd be more desperate than any other admin to see one of your pages deleted? "Desperate"? Really? Bishonen | talk 23:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) Probably not the end of the world. REFUND is cheap and easy, especially when some more sources eventually turn up. TIND. --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I expected a deletion rather than a relisting, but once relisted, it should be allowed to run the additional time (week or so). Whether or not the relist was the best decision, the debate should have remained open. You analyzed the decision as if there had not been an existing decision. However, at the time of your decision to delete, the question was whether relist was unreasonable. Your job was not to assess the consensus anew, but rather whether the relist was unreasonable. There was little reason to shut the discussion down, given that it had been relisted. I don't know if we have met. I probably participate in about 200 deletion discussions a year as a discussant by my estimation. This is a fairly modest number compared to the XFD regs, but over time these numbers add up. I don't know how many you close or if we have crossed paths. However, overruling a relist is a very different thing than closing an open unevaluated discussion if you ask me. If this article had a good chance to be kept, the argument would be more worthwhile. If I were you, I would spend my time on discussions in need of immediate attention rather than recent relistings. A discussion one day into a relist period is a way lower priority than the many deletion discussions that are past their full discussion period. It was well on its way to an uncontroversial deletion. If the film actually is released in theatres or on VOD with additional sources noting so, the article can be restored.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You take my question too literally, so let me put it more bluntly: Where do you think you get off accusing me — a user that to the best of my knowledge you have never had the most distant contact with — of being "desperate" to see specifically your pages deleted? As for your opinion that a non-admin gets to make the decision to relist, and this decision is then binding for all admins who didn't happen to be around for the 3-hour window between the full seven days and the relisting, why not take it to WP:DRV to see if people agree with you. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC).

There is little reason for a DRV, but all I am saying is that admins who spend their time reevaluating relist decisions are doing about the least productive work an admin can do. I have never heard of an admin wasting their time re-evaluating relists. Thus, I question the motives of an admin who does so. I have been on both sides of relists and have never seen anyone overturn a relist as an immediate delete. Desperate or overzealous are words I consider relevant. It is highly irregular for an admin to be doing that. When any XFD is listed if only three responses that are not in agreement are rendered it is not inappropriate to relist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of GeForce 1000 series

I just saw that GeForce 1000 series has been deleted. I understand the reasoning for the decision for but I'd prefer to have it moved to the Draft namespace instead of deleted so that it can be revived when naming is known (and notability is reached, which is just a matter of months since release is expected Q2, or at most Q3). It would be appreciated if you made it happen. Thanks for your time.

Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I think I may have subconsciously decided to forget about that option because I wasn't sure how. But of course I'll have a go, how hard can it be? Bishonen | talk 14:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC).

Done. Learn something new every day! Bishonen | talk 14:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC).

Thanks! I think moving to the Draft namespace is occasionally preferred over deletion but in those cases often overlooked (especially in cases of WP:CRYSTAL). Glad I can be of use by reminding of the option. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Duff House Royal Golf Club

Greetings. This article is up at AfC. I see that you deleted an earlier version of it (twice!). Can you please take a look at it in its current form? Seems to be well sourced, and while positive, I think it does not rise to the level of advertising. If you agree, could you allow it to be approved? Thanks for your time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Would be nice if I left you a link, wouldn't it? Draft:Duff House Royal Golf Club. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not completely happy about the sourcing, but I'll be happy to leave these things to the AfC regulars. I've unprotected the article and left a comment. I do realize that the sourcing Robert complained about belonged to an earlier version, even if I sound as if I don't... and I certainly don't object to it being created, if you guys are cool with it. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC).

Thanks. I think it just barely passes (and I mean barely), but the editor has been making a good faith effort to improve, so I wanted to move it to the mainspace and help him improve it. There are some good sources out there in books. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Good thinking, I'm glad to hear it. This user has been trying hard for a long time; first he had to wait to get his name changed, while his original promotional name was blocked, and I took it to ANI for assistance. (I didn't quite want to tell him "Oh never mind, just abandon that account and create a new one", when he was being so proper...) There was a good ANI discussion about how bad it is that the system keeps good-faith newbies waiting for stuff like that. Some changes were proposed, and I hope implemented... afraid I lost sight of it, because when it's about name change, I don't understand above half of what I'm told. But, anyway, this user got help quickly after that. Thanks for helping him. Bishonen | talk 15:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC).

Adding a template into another template

Hey. Happy New Year to ya. Question. How do you add a template into another template? Such as This. And by the way? Nice crazy image of Laurel & Hardy! King Shadeed 19:11, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

I'm very touched to be approached as an expert on templates! Finally recognition! However… all I know is they sometimes, but not always, spit up when you try to add one inside another, and then you have to perform some magic. Pinging User:RexxS. Meanwhile, please say here which template you wish to add inside that one, King Shadeed. Yes, the boys are hypnotic, aren't they? I've been told people sometimes never get round to posting here because they get stuck staring entranced at the dance. Bishonen | talk 09:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC).

That's a navigation template, commonly called a navbox when horizontal, King Shadeed. So there are fixed procedures to include what we call "child" navboxes inside the main navbox. In simplest terms, you use the |list1=, |list2=, etc. parameters in the main template to make new rows, which can either be (1) lists (like Rupert Murdoch and Chase Carey), where you add the |group1=, etc. parameter to make a row heading like "Corporate directors"; or (2) a child navbox (like {{Fox Entertainment Group|child}} which is the value of |list2=. You can find detailed instructions at the documentation page for Template:Navbox. HTH, --RexxS (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Rex. What are the not as simple terms? No, no, never mind. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC).

I already linked the not-as-simple terms (in case somebody missed it). Of course, an expert on templates like yourself will probably find the 39 kB of text there pretty straightforward. I apologise for not thinking. --RexxS (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much gentlemen. King Shadeed 18:40, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

There were no gentlemen involved, KS (just a lady and her dinosaur), but you're welcome! anyway. --T-RexxS (rawr) 01:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Self Requested block in a week required

Hi Bishonen. Due to preparations for my upcoming GCSE exams in May, I would like to be blocked from editing from Monday 29 February until 15:30 UK Time on Friday June 17 (this is the date of my last exam). I want to keep on editing until the first week of the new month (which begins on Feb 29th). This should give me plenty of time to prepare for these exams. During the next week, closer to the time, i will place notices on my user and talk page saying that I will be away. Also, if its possible, can I also have a block template placed on my talk page reading this? (I do apologise if i break any guidelines by doing this, I don't intend to.). Im not sure if you can edit the template if you block using TW:

You have been blocked from editing until 15:30, 17/06/16 so that you can focus on preparing for your exams. Your talk page and email access have also been revoked. Once your exams are finished, you are welcome to resume editing Wikipedia.

(and anything else if you want to add anything) And an Edit Summary reading this when placing the template on my page (if you can)

(You have been blocked temporarily from editing Wikipedia so that you can prepare for your exams (TW))

Sorry if this seems silly, but i would like it, so that people know i cannot edit my talk if they leave a message there. Also, it actually seems quite funny, as its an unusual template. Also, can you do me a favour while I am blocked, which is that if something appears on my talk page which is not from a bot, if allowed to, please can you check it, and if possible, answer it? I will ask Anna Frodesiak to do the same nearer the time.

I'd also just let you know in advance, as you were wondering once when I will stop editing Wikipedia for my exams. Well, next Monday, I will be. I will remind you on this thread on the night before the block, in case you forget. Thanks, and have a nice day ! Class455fan1 (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on this page best I can. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, sure, no problem at all, Class455fan1. I don't let Twinkle near my self-requested blocks in any case — they're lovingly hand-crafted from all natural materials. Bishonen | talk 10:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC).

Hi Bish! Just to remind you, you can block me anytime tonight from 19:00 UK time onwards. If you can, please place the template above my talk after you block (you can modify and sign it if you feel like it). I received my exam timetable on Friday, and the last one is definitely on June 17 and ends at 15:30, so you can set that as the expiry time. Hope you are well! Thanks. Class455fan1 (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I might run into technical trouble if I tried to do an "X days and Y hours" block, Class455fan1 — not sure the system would swallow it — so I'll simply block you tonight for 110 days, OK? That's until 19:00, June 17 if I've counted the weeks right. I hope you can find some form of celebration other than Wikipedia for those extra hours after your last exam. Why not party with your mates? Bishonen | talk 15:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC).

Thats exactly what i plan to do. Have a party with my mates. I may perform a couple of edits the next day maybe. Yes, a block for 110 days will be cool, just put that in the template. After all, I need a break from this place! I just asked Siri how long it is, and you are correct. It is 110 days. I will make my last edit soon before the block. Class455fan1 (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, can I ask you something? Out of interest, which country do you come from? Class455fan1 (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

One of the ones in northern Europe, with the igloos. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC).

Im guessing somewhere in Scandinavia, or Iceland. I thought you were Japanese, as you have something on your talk page saying "How to pronounce my name in Japanese". I didnt mean to be personal. Thanks for fixing my move error! God, i seriously do need a break from here! Class455fan1 (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it'll do you a world of good! No, I'm not Japanese indeed, and actually not even a manga/anime fan. I only put the pronunciation aid on my page so I could look it up in case I needed to pronounce my name… mostly, anyway. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC).

Ok Bish, Its time to block me! Please watch over my talk page while I'm away and please use the template and edit summary when you block. Thank you for everything and see you in June! Class455fan1 (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have been blocked! Bishonen | talk 19:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC).

Rcrox editing while logged out.

Hi Bish, I'm not requesting your intervention yet, but I did want to point out (I'm sure you got my ping) that user Rcrox restored the same content I was disputing at Rocky Rajesh, which was the impetus for the page protection I requested. Obviously he has been regularly editing while logged out, since everywhere he's been in the last month [6][7][8][9] contain edits just before his by IPs in the 112.134.* range, the same range that the "Extra Fighter" content came from. I've dropped him a clear note on his talk page and will stall him out for little bit before requesting anything of ya. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I saw your ping and took care of it before looking here. :-) Wrong order maybe… but I really thought it was time for a block. And everything considered, a longer protection may have to be the next thing, sigh. You know, I think sometimes these people are scared to discuss because their English isn't good. In such cases I sympathize, but in the long run complete unresponsiveness just won't work on a collaborative project. Bishonen | talk 09:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC).

Hi B, dude's back. Might I request more page protection? Also, maybe a greater sprinkling of blocks? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You know, I did look at that edit, but without comprehension — the subject is so remote from my areas of expertise that I have trouble identifying vandalism. I was hoping you'd tell me. :-) Also, it didn't seem Rcrox would need to edit logged out, as his block had expired. But WP:CIR can of course take all sorts of shapes. Semi'd for two weeks. But blocks.. why? What blocks? If he logs in to override the semi and insert the same crap, then I'll block, certainly. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC). Adding: what about the IP's other edits? I've started stupidly at them too. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

Hey again, your point is correct about the IP blocks--semi-protection would prevent them from editing. I wasn't thinking. The matter isn't about vandalism, but it is about edit-warring and sockpuppetry now. My original question was about whether or not this content belongs in the article. I don't happen to know what "Extra fighter" means and Rcrox hasn't bothered to explain. Does it mean that the guy worked as an extra in these films? If so, why do we care about that? I don't know. That seems like something to be hashed out via discussion. Also, where are the sources? I doubt that extras would ever receive credit, although maybe it's possible for stunt crews. So anyway, the point of all this is to foster discussion, which he has ignored again in favor of reinstating the content. I have left him another urging to participate in discussion, so I suppose I'll leave the content in the article for a couple of days--maybe it'll make him feel better--and if he doesn't respond, come back to you. Yay. Exciting. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Crowing

Full of myself today: I blocked a [personal attack removed] account the same minute it was created.[10][11] This has been something of a personal ambition of mine, and today it happened. I admit it was pure luck, but so what? Celebrating with a slice of banoffee pie. Dear talkpage stalker, have some pie and feel free to post examples below of something slick you did, don't be shy! Also awards and congratulations to meeee! Bishonen | talk 16:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC).

Congrats! Now if you did it one minute before an attack - now that would indeed be a great feat! Collect (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you read Signpost lately? That user would be elected to ArbCom next year. --DHeyward (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Now, now, DH. Yes, I saw it; indeed I protected the relevant talkpage for a couple of hours and blocked a couple of socks. Damn you, Collect, yes, I suppose that'll have to be my new ambition now. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC).

There was a time, eight or nine years ago (I must have been bored) when I used to watch the new user log for a certain troll who had a distinct style of account naming. It was fun to banhammer his sockpuppets before they had a chance to edit even once. That was years ago ... these days I have promises to keep, and miles to go before etc. etc. Pie was good! Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

AN Notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Don't worry. You are not being reported, only cited as a respected administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• That sounds appropriate. I think Bish's portrait should be on that page. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This one? I'll get it incorporated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header immediately. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Andrei Kobyakov

There is no dispute. It is just bad communication.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

And I am an administrator anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter, of course I know you're an admin. It doesn't make any difference, because you wouldn't edit an article that's protected due to editing dispute, when you're one of the disputants — would you? It would be more than your head's worth — people get desysopped over stuff like that. But yes, I see it's a communication issue. I just think it should be worked out on article talk, not on your respective user talkpages, where anything can and will be removed at a whim. Also there's always a chance of more eyes, on article talk. And also moreover, it's kind of depressing to see an edit war without a single post on article talk. Please give me a ping if you reckon it's been solved before the two days are up. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC).

No, obviously I am not going to edit it. There is just not a single fact that we currently disagree on, this is a behavioral problem. The user just does not seem to understand how Wikipedia works (of which the 3RRN report was one of the indications). Normally, they should be shown the direction of the Teahouse, but here we have a late evening, and I do not have the energy to explain them every single detail of the policies. This is in any case not a talk page discussion material.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, well, he's on the talkpage now. Would you consider explaining to him that, and why, he cant copypaste from the Belarus wikipedia without any references, even if that doesn't have to do with the edit war? After a good night's sleep? Don't let Wikipedia keep you awake. I'm always doing that, and it's pretty stupid. (I've told him the AN3 report was a poor idea.) Bishonen | talk 21:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC). (Adding: not that he seems even a little impressed. Sigh.) Bishonen | talk 21:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC).)

He already said I am not welcome at his talk page, so it would be best if someone else would do it. Thanks, I will need to go to bed reasonably soon, we have 22:24 here at the moment, and I need to be in the office around 8:00.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I meant, explain on article talk, now that he's there. Precisely to avoid all that stuff about not being welcome, posts being removed, bla bla. Oh, forget it. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen:I would like to chime in and say that Ymblanter has a history of talking down on other editors because he is an administrator and he thinks that he can get away with whatever arbitrary reverts he makes, including in cases where there is nothing at fault stylistically or procedurally. It is a clear case of following WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, which he obviously denies and refuses to discuss, instead issuing threats of administrative sanctions. If he does it, its considered administration, if we do it, its "disruptive".--Damianmx (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Now you got it, Bish. Happy editing, see you tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. It's late here too, in fact you and I are in the same timezone. Bishonen | talk 22:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) ... it is so very very late, That we may call it early by and by. Fortunately, dinosaurs don't sleep, so I've dropped a note on the article talk page. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've dropped a note too, as the talkpage seems to be at risk of spinning out of control despite your efforts, RexxS. God, is this one of those nationalist disputes? Bishonen | talk 22:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC).

Stands a good chance. Be prepared for trouble in any article that goes anything like "... born in <insert country A>, but lived all his adult life in <insert country B> ..." --RexxS (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999 - well, who'd have thought it? --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI

As you do your wonderful work of cleaning up a mess, be aware that there were a couple of compromises made at the article talk and the user talk. The "University" has to be addressed due to the PR surrounding it. [12] (Tuition was almost as much as I paid to go to law school back then, just saying...) Montanabw^(talk) 00:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I admit I didn't read the whole of the talkpage, Montanabw — it was unexpectedly long and repetitious. I see you've restored the bit about how the school was approved by the Colorado Department of Higher Education; it's sourced, indeed — I just thought it was trivial. But maybe it's a fact of more significance that is apparent to me, as a non-American. Anyway, what really struck me, as sort of the common reader who can't tell a horse's head from its ass, was the way sources were used in some places. When I looked up the sources, several of them didn't say anything like what the article text had led me to believe they would. Can't change the sources to fit the article; gotta change the article. :-) And I have, in a few places. If there are objections, I'll come to the talkpage, but so far I think I've been able to give my rationales in the edit summaries. Bishonen | talk 15:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC).

(tps aside) -- I'm not so sure most of us Americans can tell a horse's head from its ass either, as any brief study of election year American politics will show... (whoops, did I say that?) Antandrus (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I fully expected jokes, but I didn't see DT coming — well done, Antandrus. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC).

MONGO eats candy...avoids both horse ass and head, so no need to know difference since not on MONGO menu.--MONGO 16:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL! What we say out here in the west (because we do know horses, at least in the rural areas) is that someone "doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground." Take that any way you want...(grin) ( =:-O )Montanabw^(talk) 03:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

thought MONGO punch horse head? — Ched :  ?  03:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bish, per this, you were right; wondering if we could put it back in as a supportive comment, with a "both praised and criticized" comment. (You aren't following talk, but the one COI editor thinks we are only saying bad things, so maybe saying something like this would balance things in a harmless fashion...) Montanabw^(talk) 20:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, that we could maybe put that guy in as a supporter (he's less saccarine than some of the other well-wishers that have footnotes) — indeed, I tried to write up something, but found it very awkward. You do it. You understand these people. I don't really care for appearing on an article talkpage I never edited, chatting foolishly in a way intended for usertalk — but I suppose it can't be helped. There's not really a natural point at which to slice off the convo, it needs its context, and the move is needed. So that's fine. Since I've been addressed, I'm thinking of saying something in response, because the fact is the article never did say "offers education online". I put it through the wringer. It's such a small point, though. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC).

OK. Feel free to upgrade the wringer to an agitator! (The thing in the center of the machine that gets out all the dirt!) I'll handle (or not handle) the talk page; I'm about done with talking there. Anything I change that doesn't work, just fix as you see fit. Montanabw^(talk) 23:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I've felt obliged to mention this section at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Disruptive Editing and Ownership Behavior where JackieLL07 has made a complaint about Montanabw, who has been offline for two days and unable to defend herself. --RexxS (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross at the dispute resolution noticeboard

For your information, the Rick Alan Ross article has had a thread filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. As I wrote this, I see that you are aware, and I see that you have warned Sfarney previously. I see that he has been formally alerted to two sets of discretionary sanctions. (Rick Alan Ross is a BLP, and he sometimes is involved with Scientology.) What I am stating at the talk page is nothing but the basic policy on DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I'm aware of it because I was pinged by Jbhunley, but I'm not a party — I don't edit the article, nor its talkpage, I just watch it in an admin capacity. I'm concerned with conduct rather than content, so it's highly unlikely I'll be commenting at DRN. Bishonen | talk 22:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC).

I wasn't expecting you to participate. At DRN we will try to keep the discussion focused on content, and, in this case, also on policy compliance. (The policy is of course BLP.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Because you topic-banned the filing party, the case has been dismissed. That is that. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Suppression question

Hello! I noticed you had requested suppression on a certain user and his actions. I was wondering, if information gets surprised, is it completely erased from the Wikipedia servers? 165.230.224.231 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Note that only a few select users, so-called oversighters, can suppress edits. Suppression is only done in very specific situations, usually to protect privacy. It's easy to confuse suppression with ordinary deletion, which can be done by all admins, and which only removes the material out of sight; it remains in the database, and can be "undeleted" if the need should arise. Bishonen | talk 15:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC).

Actually, no it's not; oversighters can still view suppressed edits, so they still exist on the servers, albeit visible to only a relative handful of people. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Really? Well, I'm glad to hear it, I'll remember. I've always been told that it's gone. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC).

Well, I think there was a time where that was more or less the case--if you wanted to unsuppress a thing, you had to get a developer to dig it out of some database or something. But the system has changed now, i believe, and it's not that way anymore. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I may have screwed up while moving a page.

Hello again Bish, I moved the page Central line to Central line (London Underground) following a consensus on the talk page, however, it was also planned to move Central line (disambiguation) to Central line, however it wouldn't let me. Please could you delete the redirect Central line and move Central line (disambiguation) there? Sorry to bother you again. Class455fan1 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. They're good moves, and it's not your fault that only admins can move over an existing page. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC).

1RR

Hi Bish. This is probably going to be a stupid question since I already asked it, but if 1RR doesn't apply to IP's, where can I find this rule written since I can't find this anywhere in WP:EW. (N0n3up (talk) 05:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) When 1RR is in force on an article, it is almost inevitably due to discretionary sanctions. To be applicable to an editor, it has to be a reasonable assumption that the editor is aware of the discretionary sanctions - usually no action is taken for a breach unless the editor has previously been formally notified. Unfortunately, it is difficult to ensure that the editor behind a dynamic IP has ever seen any such notification. This may well be the reason why you've been told that "1RR doesn't apply to IP's". 'Shonen may know more. --RexxS (talk) 07:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No, 'shonen knows less, but RexxS is completely logical as always. I hardly suppose it's a rule, as such, it's more that it's hard to hold an IP to a discretionary sanction. Theoretically the rule applies, no doubt, and with a static IP it would be possible to first alert them and then act against them. I'd be surprised if that ever happened in practice, though. If somebody edits a controversial article from an IP, I would say they're likely enough to be doing it to avoid scrutiny. (Bad 'shonen! Assume good faith regardless of circumstances!) It's a problem, certainly, if an account in conflict with an IP is held to 1RR while the IP is not. Did that happen to you, N0n3up? Bishonen | talk 08:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

No it didn't happen to me. But I was actually referring to a registered user on a 1RR reverting an IP, not an IP on a 1RR. Just wanted to make sure. (N0n3up (talk) 09:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC))

Unexplained Ban

Hi, I didn't understand why I got banned from editing the Muhammad article; I just explained what I did on [13]. I want to appeal the ban: That's why I'm starting the first step (to ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision) here. Can you tell me what's the basement of this ban? Ttt74 (talk) 13:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

What, again? Ttt74, I'm becoming rather concerned about your failure to take in what you're told. Is this a language issue, or lack of care? I told you on ANI that the option of asking the enforcing administrator to reconsider was done, and you should try one of the others (WP:AE or WP:AN or WP:ARCA), as outlined here. You replied. And then you come here, as if I had never spoken. I repeat, I will not lift the ban myself. Go to the next step. Nor will I explain yet again the basis of the ban. I have already done that over and over, on your own page and on ANI. Other people have tried too.

Moreover, you have already violated your topic ban. Please take my warning about that on your page very seriously. I'm willing to assume once that you didn't understand what a topic ban meant, but there's a limit to how long you can get away with that. Read the ban notice properly, click on the links I gave you. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

Hello

Pls put me through Mercy Benjamin (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Er.. sorry, I don't understand your request, Mercy. Please explain what it is you want. You're not blocked, if that's what you think. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

Multi-editor AE requests

In reference to your comment at the Arbitration request page, AE has indeed handled multi-editor requests before. In fact, I've had the experience of filing such a request. It was entitled "Dicklyon and Darkfrog24", in case you'd like to search the archives for it. RGloucester — ☎ 17:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, right, here it is. Thanks very much, RGloucester, that's interesting. Not least because it's a recent case and it got quite ample admin input despite being about a staggeringly dull subject area. ("Only on Wikipedia could someone be "topic-banned from quotation marks".") That one was about two editors at loggerheads. You don't happen to have experience of an AE case about two (or more) editors accused of illegitimate coordination of edits, I suppose? Or do you, dear talkpage stalkers? Bishonen | talk 18:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC).

No, I do not. I imagine that's because there is no way to provide evidence of this sort of off-Wikipedia co-ordination. As I said in my statement, I consider such accusations baseless, and even the filer said that he could not provide direct evidence of co-ordination. If there is to be a case or an AE request, I would suggest that it focus on the on-Wikipedia behaviour of the editors in question, which is something verifiable. Anything else doesn't make any sense, and is an unfair way of allowing PoV warriors to take down a selection of editors they dislike, as Marek himself has said. RGloucester — ☎ 19:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Misleading username of Talbot0

I reported User:Talbot0 because his name may mislead people into believing that this user is a bot, due to the inclusion of "bot" at the end of his/her username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanlu121 (talk • contribs)

Oh! I never thought of that. I thought you might be thinking of the car! But it really is a person's name, so I think I'll remove the report, if you don't mind, User:Ethanlu121. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC).

What I wonder is why a user who created his account and started editing only a few days ago has already begun reporting usernames, tag-bombing articles and so on. How about trying to write something instead? --Hegvald (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lane99 again

Just a heads up. Lane99 is at it again on Jimbo's talk page. Don't know that it needs to be shut down. He is showing his true hand and making a fool of himself. Dewanifacts (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I won't touch those static IPs — no point anyway — you see how he jumps between them. Let Jimbo clean up his page if he wants. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

Userpage question

Hi Bishonen. I saw that you deleted User:Hassan A. Tajideen per WP:U5 and I have a question about Wikipedia procedure in such cases. I did try to warn the user about U5 with posts on their user talk and at the Teahouse, but I'm not sure if they saw them. Would it have been better for me to simply gone ahead and tagged the page with db-u5 instead?

The reason I'm asking is because I came across User:PhiladelphiaInjustice which also seems a bit inappropriate. It's not really a FAKEARTICLE, but it does seem rather bloggish per USERTALKBLOG. Anyway, just curious as to whether posting such concerns on the editor's user talk is appropriate in such cases or whether it falls under the leeway granted to more experienced editors.

Any clarification you can provide on either of the above would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Marchjuly, I've seen you around doing good work. So Hassan A. Tajideen both tried to post a bio article, and posted to the Teahouse? I didn't know that, as he posted from his IP to the Teahouse, and from another account, User:Hassan tajideen, to his bio: I only saw his contribs as User:Hassan A. Tajideen. (That information was all in your post on his page, of course, but I read it too fast.) I'm sure he simply didn't realize he ought to stick to one account, but the effect was a little unfortunate. I would have had more compunction about deleting his userpage (tagged for speedy by Theroadislong) if I'd known he'd been trying for so long (since 2012!). Well, I would surely have deleted it eventually, but I'd have tried to talk with him first. And that's what you did: tried to talk with him. I think you did the right thing under the circumstances, and I hope he has seen at least one of your posts — if he has, he should have a better grasp of why his bio/userpage keeps getting deleted. The rest of us, Theroadislong and me, didn't actually do anything wrong either, and the outcome was inevitable, but you were kinder.

PhiladelphiaInjustice is a different case. Yes, they're an experienced user who rates some leeway with their pages, but that's a ridiculous userpage. "Although Wikipedia contributors must maintain neutrality when editing articles, I see no problem with me posting opinions on this obscure talk page that nobody will read" — well, I do, rather. (And what makes him think it's a talkpage?) If I were you, I'd write to him as well, linking to WP:USER and specifically perhaps WP:UP#GOALS. I guess it's not a U5, since that criterion talks about "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages", and he has edited substantially. It would be more a WP:MfD case. But, pragmatically, you know, I think it would also be OK to look away. There's nothing offensive on his page, and none of us have a duty to get into an unpleasant tussle with a user about a not-huge problem. Bishonen | talk 09:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC).

Thank you for the reply. I didn't catch that Hassan A. Tajideen had another registered account or had been trying to get his bio posted since 2012. I was pretty sure they were the Teahouse IP, but just figured they forgot to log in when they posted there. As for the other userpage, I'm not sure what I'm going to do, but you might be right in that it's not worth making a mountain out of such a mole hill since it's not offensive and in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure if I want to start playing the role of userpage cop. Anyway, thanks again for the feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Planning to close an AE appeal

Please see my proposed closure here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hug Bishonen!

	Hug Bishonen!
	And be friendly toward each other! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Time difference

The block notice told me a different story for the expiration because of the time difference in my settings/preferences. When I looked at it, I thought there were at least 6 hours left. If I had realized it was only minutes, I wouldn't have said anything or bothered you and Coffee. Your comment, "I can't make myself care" was priceless and appropriate. Thanks for today's first laugh! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha. :-) I got caught up in the time differences too, I thought it was an hour and a couple of minutes. Coffee had it right. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC).

Govind Kumar Singh

The Singh article probably needs some semi - it is obvious that the sock/neat effort has returned. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hooray, Sitush is back! Yeah, that's obvious all right, but there hasn't been anything since I blocked the latest sock a couple of hours ago, so I'll hold off with semi for a while. Hmmm... our friend is probably asleep right now, though. I'll try to keep an eye on the article. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC).

• Sitush, you have been blocked for violating 3RR![14] I see RegentsPark has semi'd the article for three months. Deleting it might be still more to the purpose, but it's probably useless to try. Fine sources, aren't they? According to this "Exclusive Interview" on www.schoolofstyling.com (which now redirects to intelliname.com, a domain selling outfit offering Strategic Domain Names and Tactical Branding Solutions for Entrepreneurs, Ad Agencies, Web Developers, Venture Capitalists, Marketing Groups, and Inspired Individuals — I'm quoting), Singh "is a genius" (again I'm quoting). At least he admits it. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC).

I don't see a block. Did you change your mind? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Replace the "!" after "3RR" with an irony mark. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, then, according to Computer lingo, it should be Sitush = !Blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really acquainted with computer lingo. I was merely responding somewhat playfully to Sitush's edit summary here, that I linked to, Liz. I wouldn't post a block notice here on my own page. Sorry it was confusing. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC).

I'd never heard of (which is ironic itself) the irony mark but I am intrigued that the inverted exclamation was suggested as such a mark because Spanish does in fact use both that and the inverted "?" to guide the reader into the purpose of a sentence, which I've always thought rather clever. As for what I did, well, I did it and I don't give a stuff. I am pleased that at least thus far no admin has thought fit to block me because it does suggest at least a degree of common sense in application of the brightline rule. But I'd accept the block if it happened. It is no secret that I am increasingly disenchanted here (it feels like Sisyphus or whoever it was pushing the rock up the hill) and it is probably no secret that I've got some major real life problems going on. Neither of these things gives me the right to subvert the rules, of course. I just do not care that much at the moment.

I'm an honourable bloke but not slavish, which perhaps in part explains why I'm banned from Jimbo's talk page and think so little of him. Independence of thought is, or at least was, almost a defining prerequisite for kids being accepted at Oxbridge and, believe me, it doesn't go away. I was interviewed by a panel that included Hugh Trevor-Roper and vehemently disagreed with him; Wales is nothing by comparison. And when I say I disagreed with T-R I mean I called him a fool, to his face.

Bish knows some of what is going on but not all of it because there have been developments since we last spoke. I haven't been around much and it is unlikely that I will be for the foreseeable future. My brain, such as it is, is mashed and I need to back off. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Monica Lewinsky Rodham Clinton block

I had opened an SPI just as you were blocking this user (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monica Samille Lewinsky) as there seems to be a related stream of these. I assume they may still want to keep track of this, so I've left the SPI alive. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Political silly season in the US. <* waves at venerable Bish family *> — Ched :  ?  17:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Uncle Milty. I'm sure I blocked an earlier one, too. Checking … ah yes. There was Monica Lewinsky Clinton, created 17 February, in case you want to add it to the SPI. Sounds like it might be the first, doesn't it? That one requested unblock, with a wide-eyed "Who, me offensive?" question. Even though I hadn't provided a block template — I prefer not to, with obvious cases, because it's dignifying them too much, and also because I prefer not to have them in my contribs list. So it's sort of striking that they nevertheless knew how to request unblock. Experienced troll I presume. [Waves at User:Chedzilla. ] Bishonen | talk 18:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC).

Well, CU apparently found another 14, including yours. Okay then. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, and even a Trump one, I see. I've blocked me a crapload of those. Bishonen | talk 19:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC).

An unpleasant fellow

Bish, could you take a look at this unpleasant fellow and his pomps and works, and ...er... Draft. Best,Voceditenore (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Here I thought you might have something tricky for me, and it was so simple. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC).

You're a brick! Too bad he's copyrighted or I'd give you the Speeeeeeedy Gonzalez barnstar. Voceditenore (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Komati caste

WiseWik has been battling at Komati caste and some other places for a while now. Someone issued a sanctions warning some time ago and they've just been ridiculously bold again at that article, given their knowledge of and indeed participation in recent discussions at its talk page. I'm wondering whether a short topic ban might be in order. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll ping @Philg88:, since they issued the original sanctions notice. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've warned them. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC).

• Thanks for the ping Sitush but Bishonen seems to have it ably under control. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 22:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You are biased against editors

Hi Bishonen,

Let user Sitush first go through the references first they are the same references cited based on which the other part of the article are accepted. The edits are all referenced please check and if you find these aren't from the references cited please discuss and revert.

Threatening to block editors reverting edits putting biased posts aren't honorary for editors. Lets not go by Idol worship. Sometimes you might have contributed a great article sometimes not what matters in an edit is not who has contributed what but whats the contribution of the editor.

I refuse to remove the edits with out discussing this or letting Wikipedia know why they shouldnt be mentioned in the article?

--WiseWik (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Responded on your page. Bishonen | talk 21:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) Content discussions belong on the talk page of the article. Please read my warning about personal attacks, and seriously consider if you are best to revise the heading of this section to remove the word "biased". --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) and while you are at it, you might want to rethink your User page, which I think transgresses in a similar way, and should not be having a go at named individuals. As a general rule: shouting at people, and rabbiting on about how terrible they are, is not an effective way to get on with working happily here. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, RexxS and DBaK. I've removed the personal attacks on the userpage and topic banned the user for one month. Bishonen | talk 21:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC).

Admin process for WP:MEAT?

@Bish: What is the process for dealing with strange, repetitive WP:MEAT behavior in Sikhism-related sections and article. The latest instance is here.

The editor involved is @Jujhar.pannu, not an active editor, appears occasionally for a few days with a burst of edits. @Jujhar.pannu recent appearances, somehow, are unusually well timed with @Js82 sock accounts. @Jujhar.pannu is well aware of wikipedia rules given the numerous repetitive warnings he has recently posted on my talk page.

The probable cause is this: @Jujhar.pannu alleges that "@Kigman fs", a newly opened and then blocked @Js82 sock-account, expressed "concern about the quotes being represented inaccurately", but I don't see "@Kigman fs" ever express this concern. They appeared together, between 22:59, 11 March 2016‎ and 01:03, 12 March 2016, as evidenced here. Both engage in edit warring together, with @Js82-sock including the snide remarks we have seen for last 6+ months.

The previous instance occurred in the Sikhism article, between 18:14, 9 January 2016 and 21:14, 9 January 2016‎ where @Jujhar.pannu and @Pinsi281 (another @Js82 sock and blocked) appeared together, same team-editwarring behavior. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with your concerns. I've warned Jujhar.pannu about mendacity, and restored the last good version of the article from before Kigman fs appeared. Is this article under discretionary sanctions? It seems to me it should be. Anyway, if DS are not in force, then ANI will have to be used to get a topic ban, should that prove necessary. --RexxS (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'll take a look, but it'll have to be tomorrow, sorry. If it's more urgent, please ask another admin. Thank you, RexxS, it'll be interesting to see what the user says to you. Certainly the article is under discretionary sanctions. I've posted a DS alert on the user, that's as much as I can manage today. (I'm running a temperature. Nothing's making sense to me, least of all Indian religions.) Bishonen | talk 21:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC).

• Thanks, you two. @Bish: take plenty of rest, this can wait and @RexxS is on it now. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I appreciate your patience, Ms Sarah Welch. Man, that situation would be hard to follow even if it wasn't about religion, with all the socks and red herrings and what looks like deliberate vagueness and foot-shuffling on Juhar.pannu's part. I've warned him he either needs to explain himself properly, or leave the article alone from now on. Bishonen | talk 17:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC).

TBAN

Ah hah! You finally coughed up the goods.[15] I'm trying to rewrite the WP:TBAN policy to be more reasonable.[16] First revert implied I was too sub-human to do so, I guess.[17] (I immediately reverted, because, LOL what??) I think my rewrite is pretty reasonable though. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I linked to WP:TBAN on Sir Joseph's page six times in four posts in February and March, here, here (twice in the one post), here (also twice), and here ("Please click on WP:TBAN and read what "topic banned" means", etc etc) before I decided I'd have to actually quote it. Didn't stop you flaunting your ignorance on the same page, or stop you giving Sir Joseph hair-raisingly bad advice: "FWIW, I've gone ahead and reverted Coffee's attempt to silence you on the WP:AE page. As far as I'm concerned, and what with the inability of other editors above to provide the policy rationale I requested, you should feel free to edit there and ignore such Stalinesque attempts to prevent it."[18] Your inability to click on links, you mean. Don't you know about links? And now that you have become aware of the policy you're rewriting it. Most impressive. I'd appreciate it if you would kindly stay away from my page, I find your jaunty pride in ignorance jarring. Stalin 09:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC).

• Coughed up the goods? How rude--and it's microagression towards those who have a cold. FWIW, it is abundantly clear to editors of good faith that one doesn't need to name something in order to break one's topic ban of something, but go ahead and badger on. Good luck rewriting what was already clear. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Get well soon :) -- Kendrick7^talk 02:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Help with discretionary sanctions

What ho! I've seen you doling out discretionary sanctions warnings, so you might be able to help. Bosnian pyramid claims surely falls under the Pseudoscience sanctions (apart from the widely discredited pseudo-archaeology, there's guff about wanting to "break a cloud of negative energy, allowing the Earth to receive cosmic energy from the centre of the galaxy"). The article and talk page have been assaulted by various supporters of this idiocy of late and I've semi-protected the page, but autoconfirmed editors are "removing bias" too. I want to start alerting contributors to the discretionary sanctions. So, my questions...

• Can you direct me to the standard DS warning template for Pseudoscience? (I keep following links hoping that I'll be directed to it, but it's as if I'm in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike)
• Where do we log notifications and actions? (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Enforcement log is well out of date)
• What's the best place to ask for a DS enforcement?

I won't be able to enact any bans, blocks, or whatever myself as I've been engaged in content and talk page discussion enough to make me involved, but at least I'll have put the DS basis in place so I can ask for an enforcer if necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• The alert for pseudoscience and fringe science is {{subst:alert|ps}}. I know exactly what you mean about the maze of twisty little passages! You keep meeting yourself, and the magus Zoroaster and all. I've saved my sanity by keeping links and notes re DS alerts and sanctions whenever I come across them on my page User:Bishonen/Useful warnings, the top two headings in the TOC. My notes aren't written in a way to be the best order for others, but only so I can understand them myself; you may want to copy them on to a page of your own and make them clear for you. And please ask if it's mysterious anywhere.

• The notifications are self-logging, you'll see how when you try to save, and they "expire" after a year. Log all Arbitration enforcement sanctions in this central log. But as soon as you've posted the alert you're allright, as it contains links to that log and everything else. (Try not to have anything to do with community sanctions. They're harder to log. I had to ask RexxS for help last time.)

• Theoretically, you ask for sanctions at WP:AE, and there's a fucking discussion and it takes the best years of your life and too few admins weigh in. Discretionary sanctions are supposed to make adminning simpler, and as long as you stay uninvolved, they do, but when you're involved, it's hell. I've usually been able to avoid editing Indian pages, controversial bios, and indeed pseudoscience, so I place the sanctions myself in clear cases. And then the users can appeal on AE, which is proper and usually not as much of a mess as when you have to request sanctions. Am I saying something between the lines? Yes: try asking me, rather than AE, for sanctions if disruption persists after users have been alerted. Have fun. Bishonen | talk 14:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC).

That's great. And I appreciate the offer of help - many thanks ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I love breaking clouds of negative energy. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC).

...ah, I was wondering what caused that blast of cosmic energy from the centre of the galaxy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That was probably just my tummy rumbling. How are you, Boing!? (love that juxtaposition) - wonderful to see you back and in harness again. I've made a start for you by putting the {{Ds/talk notice|ps|long}} on Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims and the {{Ds/alert|ps}} on Guy.shrimpton's talk page. That should move things along a bit. --RexxS (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks for your help. (Perhaps what I need when I'm being asked a question is an interrobang - Boing‽) And yep, I'm fine thanks - I see you're as busy as ever. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

More from Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs)?

User:Ian.thomson already blocked the IP for 48 hours, and I can't really think of any longer-term solution, but don't these posts look kinda familiar?

Sub in a misunderstanding of what "historical revisionism" and "New Age" are for a misunderstanding of what "myths" are and it's a dead-ringer...

(I've been accused of "canvassing" a lot recently, so I need to clarify in the same edit: in this case the suspicious IP and I were in essential agreement as to the article content; I just don't think banned long-term abusers should be allowed continue attacking people while logged out.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dcasey98

who you just blocked, is back as User:Bellatrix2017, same edit-warring. Reported to AN3, also opened SPI. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose it was because it was so blatant — no real attempt to hide — that Vanjagenije only blocked them for another three days. User:Betty Logan seemed to assume 2601:243:400:ae4e:c198:4a6b:8a8f:4c13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was also the same person, and I was little surprised not to see it on the SPI. Not that there's any point in listing IPs, as CU's won't comment on them... anyway, I see the IP has been blocked for 3 months. Bishonen | talk 11:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC).

tick-a-lick?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCMZGPcRSOQ — Ched :  ?  10:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

I've notified TheBIHLover of pseudoscience discretionary sanctions at User talk:TheBIHLover and I have also made this comment to them, and I just want to let you know in case you think sanctions might be needed. This is a supporter of the Bosnian pyramid claims and has a YouTube channel supporting woo-woo nonsense. Today they have started again at Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims#Heading, pushing the same nonsense they did in December. It was firmly rejected back then and wasted a lot of people's time, but they have kicked off again with exactly the same thing, pushing exactly the same unacceptable sourcepos, and refusing to accept Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. I believe such disruption of article talk pages is covered by sanctions, but as I said above I will not be able to impose any myself. Anyway, sanctions notification given and I'll let you know if the disruption continues. Thanks again for your offer of help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

When you have a moment to spare, would you cast your eye over Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims, please (I doubt you need to repad all of it). TheBIHLover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has certainly exhausted my patience and probably those of the other editors there. He's been notified of DS and the talk page has the DS warning. I've warned him I would seek DS enforcement on the grounds of WP:Tendentious editing, which is an essay but effectively sums up the problem, but he's continued his tirades. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking, Boing! and RexxS, and I'll try to help provided Boing uploads a YouTube video in which he shows measurements of the ion-flux field around a human anus using his electro-capacitative trombone which he invented hemself. Without that, you can forget it. Bishonen | talk 16:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC).

Reading... I've alerted Crovata to the discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe science. RexxS, I see you mention recruting meatpuppets for spamming the article via Facebook.[19]. Do you have links to anything like that? Bishonen | talk 17:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC).

Ah yes, I'll have to wait until I have some curry and beer to get the flux flowing! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not unknown to topic ban an SPA for persistent disruption of an article talkpage, even if they aren't editing the article itself. I've done it, but only in extreme situations, where somebody was virtually rendering the talkpage unusable for its purpose (=improving the article). This doesn't look that extreme to me. Unless you can give me some diffs showing that their comments now are actually re-runs of stuff that they've already said, and never got any traction for? That would be pretty disruptive. Anyway, I've asked TheBIHLover a couple of questions. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC).

He has definitely been trying again to get some of the same sources included in the article that he had rejected in December. I'll see if I can find some difs later - I might not have time until tomorrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, what there is there in abundance is a serious IDHT problem with being told about the requirement for reliable sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, looking over the talk page again, I don't think it's a case where specific diffs are going to do it - you really need to read the whole thing from top to bottom to see a major case of IDHT tendentiousness. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I just this moment realized I hadn't saved my post to his page. I had it in a text editor, fortunately; posted now. Top to bottom? Man, that sucks. I'll look back in the history, anyway. Bishonen | talk 19:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC).

As it hapens, I've just archived very old stuff and there was a big gap between it and our friend's arrival, so at least there isn't anything relevant before what's currently on the page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• RexxS, how about the facebook thing, see above? Bishonen | talk 19:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC).

Sorry I wasn't clearer. My initial comment was a pointed explanation of the sort of reasons why the page would be semi-protected, and the "Facebook, etc," was an example - aimed as a "shot-across-the-bows", if you like. In this specific case, TheBiHLover operates a YouTube channel, https://www.youtube.com/user/TheBIHLover , which is the focal point of his offsite activity - and also the source for most of the videos he keeps insisting prove his claims. He seems to mainly record the videos and do the interviews at the site himself. If you search through the article talk page for "--82.2.20.63" you'll see the comments of someone complaining about the offsite behaviour of TBiHL and his supporters. Although I'm fairly sure that it's happening, there's no concrete evidence that he's been recruiting. Otherwise he'd have been at ANI a long time ago. My problem is not with his offsite activities, but his behaviour on the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I've read the December thread top to bottom. I'll warn him to stop violating WP:REHASH. Still, you know, you guys aren't obliged to keep replying to him. Why don't you just collapse the repetitious threads with a header referring to the December consensus? Bishonen | talk 20:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC).

Yeah, fair point, but would it be better from someone not currently taking part in the discussion? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope you're not looking at me. It's much better I don't touch that talkpage. Anyway, I think it would be perfectly OK for you to do it, in your quality as the editor who has already amply responded to all his points and explained sourcing policy to him (in December). Bishonen | talk 20:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC).

Nah, I just thought it might be better not to be me, but you might be right. I'll think about it tomorrow - there's important rugby to watch now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I've had a go at hatting it, so we'll see how long that lasts - I think I've summed it up accurately. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, just read this section of the talk page and I'm amazed of all these desperate claims. I can't understand who them are. As you maybe can see, I'm right now alone, discussing the issue about the Bosnian pyramid article. I'm not doing any vandalism whatsoever. I have never asked publicly, on my pages, to *attack* the Bosnian pyramid articles. The claims that I'm recruiting people is also absurd. TheBIHLover (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I'm not the one calling people idiots and using ad hominem. TheBIHLover (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is now locked by the administrators, without any answers for the articles that has been places as references without *academic reviews.* So they can place articles that are not supporting the Bosnian pyramids, but not those that support them? I have give five different articles, from five different news-stations. Can someone give me a clear answer for why you wont use them? TheBIHLover (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

We have, many many times, but you refuse to listen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Copy and paste it here, so I can read it again. I have been discussing with five different persons today, it is not always easy to hold the track on everything. TheBIHLover (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No, if you won't pay any attention to months of explanation on the talk page, I'm not going to try again. I'm off to bed, goodnight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Months? I told about the Turkish article today. I doubt that there is any good explanations for why Wikipedia is using that Turkish article and not the articles I have given that are Croatian and Bosnian. TheBIHLover (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sources are evaluated in relation to the content they’re being used to support. Here it’s about the ‘name-dropping’ of Zahi Hawass; as part of the publicity surrounding the site, not a topic of academic discourse, I guess it’s the sort of thing any reasonably reputable media source can be considered reliable in reporting. This piece is not being cited on the quality of the survey itself, or for any of the main archæological or geological questions.—Odysseus1479 23:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can't see any reason to not use the links I gave the administrators. I can send them once again, it's no problem for me to do that. TheBIHLover (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You might have included a new source in your latest list, but the *reason* your sources are not acceptable is still the same as it has been ever since you started pushing the pyramid nonsense back in December. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion should really only be taking place at the article talk page. Jeh (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• He's surely pushed it beyond all reasonable doubt now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yeah. Perhaps he didn't understand my warning. Or else he thinks he might as well incur the ban, as stop voluntarily; I guess the effect is the same from his point of view. Topic banned for three months. Bishonen | talk 12:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC).

  Thanks - see you again in June, perhaps ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by topic ban? I can still discuss in the talk page, since I tested it right now? TheBIHLover (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

She means that you are not allowed to discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia for three months. If you do so you can be physically stopped by having your account blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

User:FirstIbangthedrumthenIbagyourmum

Hello, since you're the blocking admin of FirstIbangthedrumthenIbagyourmum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), can you please make the block a soft block, where account creation is allowed and autoblock is disabled, so that the user can create a new account with an appropriate username, if they choose to contribute constructively. Also, please note that I honestly don't support this blocked user. Thanks, Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather not. A hard block doesn't mean the user can never again create an account. It simply means the IP is blocked for about 24 hours; then the person can create a new account from the same IP. They already can, in other words; they just weren't able to do it immediately after the block. Do you think 24 hours off is too much for people who troll Wikipedia by creating offensive usernames? I don't. If you don't support that particular user, I'm not sure I understand why you speak for them. Bishonen | talk 16:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC).

Hi

Hi bro I didn't get,can u please eloberate. Truth should trump (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I've explained on your own page. Please don't assume everybody's your bro. Bishonen | talk 20:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC).

Restore the Original article of "Dreams Beyond Grades"

Dear Bishonen,

As i got though many news articles about this Novel i made the page on wikipedia with all proper sources. And the novel itself is written by a eminent personality of India so i made this article. And the sad part is some people out here trying to defame the author so keep trying their best to defame his and his good creations. Unfortunately i saw the deletion request from you. Please see the source and try to restore it. Its a humble request from a wiki contributor from India. So that i will be grateful to you.

• The article Dreams Beyond Grades has not been deleted. I proposed it for deletion, but my proposal has already been removed by User:Fashiongrade2016 (a friend of yours, perhaps?), and deletion of the article is instead being discussed here. You can join in the discussion and make a statement. Note that if you expect to be taken seriously, you should state there what your connection is to the "eminent personality of India" Sujit Meher. I presume there is some reason that promotion of him and his book is your only interest on Wikipedia?
• The reason I suggested the article for deletion is that the book is not notable per Wikipedia's notability policy for books. (Click on that link and read.) The trouble with the sources is that they're highly promotional. And the trouble with the way you wrote the article is that you lifted a lot of copyrighted text straight from the sources, which you're not allowed to do. See Wikipedia:Copyright. That text has been removed as a copyright violation, and that's the reason the article is so short now. Don't put the old text back, please. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC).

Blocked user disscusion

The user Trollyomama123 is warned as a disruptive username and you blocked him. Thank you for blocking him indef as a vandalism-only account, I hope he's not returning as a sock.KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. The combination of the name and the edits did it for me — I wouldn't have done it for the name alone. I've seen you around warning several dubious usernames, KGirlTrucker87. Good work. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC).

Mutual Live Page Deletion

Need help understanding why my recent Mutual Live page was deleted? Before it told me I did not have enough content, so I created an entire page with references, full paragraphs, photos, etc. Please Help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutuallive (talk • contribs) 22:59, 24 March 2016

Please carefully read the messages at User talk:Mutuallive. I have not seen the article that was deleted, but there is a claim on that talk page that the article did not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant. Also, there appears to be a conflict of interest. Millions of things exist, but only some are considered sufficiently "notable" to warrant an article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Isn't this username also problematic? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Hi, User:Mutuallive. As you wrote when you contested the first deletion, it's an "up and coming rock band". It's not notable yet. Please see the notability criteria for bands. Your article is well-written, and when the band fulfills at least one of the listed criteria, such as for instance "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" or "has released two or more albums on a major record label", you can create it again.

Yes, Boing!, the name is a problem. I thought of blocking and asking the user to create a policy-compliant name, but I was kind of waiting for them to respond to the WP:COI notice on their page first. What about it, Mutuallive? You removed the conflict of interest template on the article, and you've ignored questions about conflict of interest on your page. You may not realize that the WP:COI guideline is taken seriously here. When you next create the page, please create a username that complies with the username policy (usernames must represent an individual, not a collective), and also disclose your coi per the instructions. (It's kind of hard to believe that you're not in fact connected to the band.) I'll copy some of this reply to User talk:Mutuallive. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC).

Thanks for the responses guys, it has helped me out a ton. I am new to the Wikipedia platform and I did remove the WP:COI notice on the source editing page because I did not know why it was there. I did not mean to disrespect Wikipedia in any way shape or form. I will delete my current account 'Mutuallive' and in the future abide by the username policy. Again, I apologize for any inconvenience I put forth on the Wiki community and I will by sure to abide by all guidelines in the future. Thanks!

Great, thank you, you're taking it very well. Good luck! Bishonen | talk 13:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC).

Buona Pasqua!

Easter's Pastiere ready for launch

Dear Bish, many wishes of Good Easter, and thanks for your clever words! About the pastiere, please help yourself: our family's women (and also a couple of guys ;-)) have baked them on Tuesday for Easter's breakfast! Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The pastiere look delicious! Your family baked all that, Alex? What a wonderful family you have. I may eat it all before your Easter breakfast comes round. Bishonen | talk 10:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC).

Yes, Bish, it is a family tradition, which takes place at our country house at Easter, while each Christmas we prepare at home our tortellini (between 2,000 and 2,500). My tasks usually are logistical: last Easter I had to buy 50 eggs at the nearby farms... ;-) Alex2006 (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

BlueSalix

I was just in the middle of filling out an AE complaint against BlueSalix and just say you blocked them. Any suggests as to what to do? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I blocked BS for 60 hours for aggravated edit warring. Of course the discretionary sanctions alerts they have received (for American politics and BLP) still stand. I'm not sure if a topic ban from Ted Cruz is necessary — the fact is, I haven't followed the matter closely enough to say. Now I have 60 hours to read up, then I'll see. An AE report might be good, if you think you have enough basis for one, but I wouldn't post one while they're blocked if I were you. It's just inconvenient if they can't respond in the normal way. So if you'll be advised by me, you have 60 hours too. (Just going to bed here.) Bishonen | talk 00:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC).

Okay, I'll copy-paste it into a sandbox. Mind if I ask for your opinion on it once done? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Some users again trying to defame Sujit Meher article

Dear Bishonen,

Its really sad to see people keep trying to defame public figure articles again and again. Some users are keep trying to defame Sujit Meher article and requesting for deletion as a self promoted article. Please kindly go though the link, he has been listed among those top 10 alumni of NIFT itself, and even it published in NIFT official website too. How can it be a self promoted article, where its alma mater itself is saying he is in the list of those few respectable alumni of NIFT. So no need of any deletion request or debate on this particular article. Please i request you kindly protect such article, where people keep trying to defame such public figure articles. Even you can see all national media links and sources are prominently given.

Novelbuzz, I don't doubt it's true Meher is an alumnus of NIFT. (Sorry to hear you say there are only a few respectable alumni, but then I don't know the institute.) Not everything that's true should be in the lead, and putting the institute into the lead gives it undue weight. I know what it is that's "really sad" here. Most of the SPAs or socks promoting Sujit Meher and his so-called "bestseller" have been blocked. You can be too if you keep trying to canvass users to come and agree with you, and keep baselessly accusing people (me and Voceditenore at the moment, I presume?) of trying to "defame" Meher.[20][21][][22][23] Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Since this is a warning to you, I'll copy it to your own page to make sure you see it. Please sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end (~~~~). Bishonen | talk 11:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC).

References

TP access

Based on what's transpiring here, is revoking talk page access appropriate at this point or is that usually reserved for long-term blocks? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I say it be left open. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at it from that perspective, you're probably right, EvergreenFir. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

If he continues to use his page for attacks during the block, I will remove TPA, WV. But I hope you'll rise above, especially as you've commented rather strongly on him.[24] Always wiser not to do that. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC).

Maybe wiser in most cases, but I don't believe so in this case. This user has a long history of unwanted, disruptive behavior and has never really shown themselves to be productive nor a net positive. After so much garbage under the bridge, there's no indication they ever will be. Sorry, but that's my uncensored, honest opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Aw rats

Hi B. I just saw that the Laurel & Hardy dancing.gif has been deleted at commons :-( I am gonna miss them a lot. Enjoy the rest of your weekend in spite of this. MarnetteD|Talk 21:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No more dancing boys! :-( Sadness! Hope visitors will somewhat enjoy the little darwintwins playing instead! Bishonen | talk 22:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC).

Sad now. -Roxy the dog™ woof 01:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

OK those are a fun replacement and have turned my frown upside down :-) Now if there was just a way to put little Bowler hats on them - heehee. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

KGirlTrucker87 wants to be your friend! Friends promote WikiLove and make people happy. This user wants to be your friend because they like you. You can contact me at [[User talk:{{subst:currentuser}}|my talk page]]. Oh, and hopefully you will be my friend too! Become someones friend! Add {{subst:Friend}} to their talk page.

I just wanted to say happy easter to you, and I want you to be my friend :D otherwise, cheers. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

TBAN repeal and log deletion

Bishonen, In line with other actions that admins, and you specifically have taken, I would like to know if you can rescind my TBAN. I think the article is stable now that the RFC and everything else settled and I would like to be able to edit should it come up and more importantly, I would like the ban removed from my log. I have already had it used against me when involved in editing other areas. Regardless, I think a jump from one week to six months is a long time and I think time served is more than enough. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm dubious about removing the ban early, considering the many good reasons it was placed (IMO). At least, I'm not inclined to do it on my own. I suggest you take it to WP:AE for more admin eyes. (Good faith advice: don't mention Soviet Russia and how your ban was extended because you "dared to appeal". That stuff doesn't make a good impression on most people.)

The ban isn't logged in your block log (since it's a ban, not a block). It's logged here only. It's not going to be removed — the log is meant to be complete — but that log is not widely read, most people don't even know it exists. When the ban is over, whether by expiring or by being rescinded, I think it'll soon be forgotten. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC).

Edit war and pov pushing about Yemen

Hi Could you treat the request here ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I'm not well up on the topic, and I see a highly competent admin has already commented. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC).

Editing dispute, 3RR issues, and so on...,

Good sir, can you help me? You're well known for a fair and evenhanded dispensation of justice. I am having trouble with another editor on the Generation X article. Could you review the situation and perhaps provide some direction to us? I would greatly appreciate any of your help you might be willing to provide. Thank you. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like your problem has been solved by EdJohnston, who has semi'd the article. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC).

Sadly, as looks can be deceiving, his actions didn't actually solve anything, but I have learned well now that I shouldn't bug the (understandably) busy and consumed admins when I have problems and I have acted boldly in response. I will continue to, and I will not bother you again. Thank you for your review. Buddy23Lee (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks for

your action at National Statuary Hall Collection. I am curious to see whether or not it stops this person. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see Joseph was worried at AN3. But the edit that alarmed him was a few minutes before I placed the rangeblock. I'm very pleased that I've finally grasped the way to block an IPv6 range, after having had it explained to me ten or fifteen times (hello, User:RexxS, how're you doing?). Please let me know if there are more problems, but the rangeblock should hold them unless they sally out and look for an open proxy. Nothing except semi helps against that. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC).

Much better now, thanks. And Yay!!! Rangeblock!!! --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I just throw these things off in passing, you know. Nothing to it. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC).

• And there they are again, I see, Carptrash. I've extended the previous 31 hours to two weeks. Bishonen | talk 01:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC).

I have removed the words "guilty of" and replaced them with something less . . ...legal and we'll see if that settles them (him?) down. Carptrash (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear clever stalker admins

A new user I blocked for username vio, User:Yourlifeyourchoice, has requested unblock and a new name, JustLiz, which is both proper and available. I'd unblock them myself, except that I feel the admin that does ought to be able to help with the username change (rather than throw a newbie out in our bureaucratic jungle to fend for themselves). The trouble is I don't understand how to take care of the change. (I've looked, but that didn't help.) Anybody? Preferably with permission to do global renames. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC).

The user can go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest. If you are concerned they may have trouble with the process you can send them to WP:CHU/S, which still works. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. If it takes a while before somebody responds to them, I'll unblock myself and refer them to WP:CHU/S. Still... you realize they're completely new. CHU/S looks "simple" to you and me... anyway, I've finally pulled my socks up and requested the global rename permission, so I'll be able to take care of these things myself.[25] My request will have to spend two weeks in the bowels of the monster, though, so I'm still hoping somebody will take care of "Liz". Bishonen | talk 16:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC).

(tps) An admin after - care service. Cool :) Irondome (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Stalked and done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You're brilliant, Boing. I think you jumped in and helped the last time I had a problem like this, too, didn't you? What a good guy you are. Bishonen | talk 18:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC).

Well, I'm not in the mood to argue with you ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank youJustLiz (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Please protect my user page too

@Bish: An IP 59.89.103.139, possibly @Js82 or someone @Js82-like, is busy repeatedly vandalizing/adding offensive messages to my user talk page, along with the talk page of admin @Boing! said Zebedee here. Thanks to @Oshwah who has reverted the vandalism and personal attacks on both pages. Would appreciate a 6 month protection of my user page and user talk page this time, since several 1 month protections haven't helped. I love the new images and animations on your page @Bish, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Done. Yes the naughty little Darwinbish biting her brother Darwinfish is good (or bad), isn't she? Courtesy of the animation skills of User:Tex, friend to all bishes and fishes. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC).

Hi, Bishonen!  :) Tex (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ha! I can see you have e-mail notifications for when you're mentioned, don't you, Tex! Busted! I'll mention you more from now on! Say, did you notice the request higher up on the page from MarnetteD? She would like the twins to be wearing little bowler hats in the animation. (In reference to the Laurel and Hardy animation I had previously.) What do you say, are you up for it? Bishonen | talk 15:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC).

Eesh. I'll have to see what I can do. It's been many years since I created that and I no longer have the original. I also no longer have the time and patience that I had back then! Maybe some day. Tex (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Laptop Servis

Laptop Servis (talk · contribs), who you blocked for spam on March 8th, just tried to fill their user talk page with spam here. May be time to block this user's talk page access too. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice catch, Uncle. Bishonen | talk 01:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC).

Category:People married to Elizabeth Taylor

Was recently created. It was deleted at CFD a long time ago[26] and is singled-out in WP:OC#SMALL. Can you deep six it and maybe even salt them?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Category:Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor was briefly recreated in 2012. I've deleted and salted both of them, though it remains easy to create substantially synonymous but slightly different-sounding cats — "Men married to ET", "Spouses of ET" — sigh. We do what we can. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC).

I envied Richard Burton when I was a young pup. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you like me to add the cat People who wish they had been married to Elizabeth Taylor to your page? Bishonen | talk 21:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC).

As you have speedily deleted the category page, would you mind also emptying the category and closing the CfD discussion on it? – Fayenatic London 22:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I emptied the category. Someone else needs to do the CFD....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: There was a CfD discussion in 2006 and another in 2012. They were both closed. Are you saying there's a third discussion? I can't find it. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC).

Did you try "what links here"? It's at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_4. There was a regular CfD banner under the speedy one that you implemented. – Fayenatic London 07:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Helped Sockpuppets Done

I've already done writing all the sockpuppets of Profile101 by 17 IP users. Since he is blocked, i think is time to receive him a site ban. He's been disrupting, socking with three months. He was been disruptive since when he was created a account, and he has been vandalizing in the whole global Wikimedia. He has attached 3 language Wikipedia and ZH-wikipedia had been blocked. 07:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)121.7.127.70 (talk). We should start receiving site ban in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents right now.

Hi, Profile101. Would you like to be famous in an ANI report? See WP:DENY. You'll never be unblocked, so you don't need a formal site ban. Bishonen | talk 08:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC).