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).

As part of that right, Bish, thanks for replying to me. Hope enjoy a nice day, and if you archive all the messages again, please add a archive 21 on your userpage, because I don't to get evade a block (which I cannot edit my own talkpage after that, just like what happen to 5 other socks). Same thing, have a nice day! This User ProfileBath will not harrass people.ProfileBath (talk) 15:22, 30 April 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. Anyway, I see it's all done now – thanks, both of you. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 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).

Special:Contributions/112.134.81.97

112.134.81.97 rollbacks and block IP. --BasBibi (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've blocked for 72 hours. Somebody else, probably you, had already rolled them back. Bishonen | talk 16:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC).

Can't find my way thru maze of AE stuff

Wasn't it agreed at WP:AE a few months ago that individual admins could install 500/30 restrictions on any I/P article that was experiencing serious trouble from multiple new editors? Where, pray tell, would that decision be logged? I can't find it anywhere, and I stopped after 3 separate pages where it could logically have been logged. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 may be it because it includes "may be enforced by ... page protections" and has links to a talk page notice and an edit notice. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Complicated world we live in! Conflicts in IP and PI areas. I meant IP (India/Pakistan), not PI (Palestine/Israel). I think it was a decision reached at WP:AE. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops, India/Pakistan makes more sense on this page. How about WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive183#Caste articles and talk pages where the close includes "An administrator may place an individual caste article or talk page under the restriction...". Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The one in Archive183 is my closure of a request opened by User:SpacemanSpiff, trying to get agreement among at least a few admins of how these sanctions ought to be applied. (It is clear that Arbcom lets individual admins enact these like any other DS). For an example of how some people have been logging 500/30 sanctions in WP:DSLOG, see this entry: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#Page level sanctions. There are already some mentions of the 500/30 restriction in WP:DSLOG/2016. Search for '500.' By the way, notice that the page protection menu now includes 'Extended confirmed users'. This means that 500/30 can be automatically enforced by Mediawiki, on any page where policy allows it to be applied. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks for that, Ed. It's very encouraging that the software has been updated to help automatically implement these sort of restrictions. I'm particularly impressed by the editnotice (e.g. at Template:Editnotices/Page/Nair), so kudos to MusikAnimal for creating that template. I'm guessing this will be a god-send to 'Shonen and the rest of the admins trying to keep Wikipedia honest. It might even make life tolerable for Sitush again. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: I just tried to edit Nair from one of my alternative accounts, User:Famously Sharp, which has only 220 edits. Unlike semi-protection, where I can see beforehand that I can only "View source", it allows me to try to save the edit, then tells me that it's disallowed in the way that an edit-filter would operate. That's ok, but might be a tiny bit bitey for a good-faith auto-confirmed editor who has less than 500/30. --RexxS (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It has already helped at articles such as Vanniyar, although even I can't edit that at the moment because the permissions thing hasn't percolated through to my account yet. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's odd. It should be by now - your rights were updated at 08:32 this morning. --RexxS (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I can now, thanks. Couldn't at ca. 1000 our time. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Ed, thanks Johnuniq, that's the one I was looking for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you all, I have been following this with interest. I was quite deeply involved in Spaceman Spiff's AE request for 500/30 restrictions at caste articles, but I had some trouble parsing the way it was eventually decided and how it works, filters and all. The above discussion is very helpful. :-) There's just one thing that's unclear, and that I don't think Floquenbeam has been fully informed about: he asked about India/Pakistan articles in general, but the AE discussion and decision was exclusively about caste articles. I don't believe admins are entitled to place non-caste India/Pakistan articles under a 500/30 restriction. For instance, all the highly controversial articles about conflict between India and Pakistan don't fall under these restrictions. Am I right, EdJohnston? Bishonen | talk 14:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC).

(a) Admins can impose DS, (b) 500/30 is a DS. (c) Ergo, it is allowed for use in any area for which DS are authorized. I don't see any limitation to Caste articles. In the Archive183 thread, User:SpacemanSpiff provided a clear rationale that was specific to Caste. Nothing wrong with applying it to other ARBIPA topics, but any expansion ought to be cautious. It may be advisable to open an AE thread for any broadening beyond caste. The 500/30 appears to work for Gamergate, and the caste editing problem is similar to Gamergate. For the India-Pakistan wars, it is not so obvious it is an apt solution. We have entrenched opponents who have (usually) been on Wikipedia for a while rather than low-edit-count enthusiasts who want to Fix Wikipedia Right Now. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, look at what I started... Zad68 15:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're the fons et origo, you bad person Zad68! How nice to see you back! Bishonen | talk 16:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC).

• It's the little Zad! [Bishzilla stuffs the little user in her pocket and sets Darwinbish to guard the catflap.] No more escapes! bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC).

User:Zad68 gets credit as the first AE closer to boldly apply a 500/30 restriction, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#TheRedPenOfDoom, third filing in May 2015. Some of us were just waiting for Arbcom to slap this down, but they didn't. In fact, they applied their own 500/30 to all of WP:ARBPIA, a thing not widely expected by Arbcom prognosticators. (Arbcom has even been skittish about 1RR restrictions in the past). So Zad68 must have decided that the inherent authority of admins per WP:AC/DS was enough to apply this restriction. So far there's no evidence that 500/30 is 'authorized by Arbcom for some cases but not others'. But if they want to, they can spell that out. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I apparently said the right thing in the right place at the right time, in the right context. Because this idea hasn't just been tolerated, it's now got SWAG. Zad68 18:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the late reply, work and life have caught up and Wikipedia is lowest on the totem pole in terms of my time commitment now. Bish, I had the same interpretation as EdJohnston on this, but the reason I wanted to take this up to AE was so that we could avoid the "this admin doesn't like my caste so s/he's made my caste article not editable" discussions every single time at our very own versions of Broadway, Hollywood, and Bollywood. As for the India-Pakistan dispute articles or even the Tamil articles, I'm not sure this would help at this point, those have a lesser count of low edit SPAs, drive-by editors can easily be handled, but it's the well entrenched folks that require attention (e.g. at least a couple of editors with over five year editing histories were blocked in the past six odd months, for sockpuppetry and stuff in the I-P dispute space, and just look at Tamils for an example of how a featured article became a cesspool of bovine excrement.) That said, I think the Zad sanction can be imposed on lower profile India-Pakistan dispute articles, most of the POV efforts tend to be concentrated on the high-profile articles while the low profile ones attract the socks and drive-bys. —SpacemanSpiff 17:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Need an IP range blocked again

Hi. You blocked 2602:30a:2c95:6b0::/64 on March 23 after I requested it in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#Proposing a community ban for 166.137.105.84. The problem was adding hoax casting credits. Well, as soon as the range block expired, 2602:30a:2c95:6b0:c92e:ce27:5360:27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) started re-adding hoax credits. For example, [27] (Variety review), [28] (Variety review), and [29] (Variety review). Could you redo the range block? It seems to be helping somewhat to slow down the vandalism a little. I've been keeping track of some of the IPs used at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat. Most of the vandalism seems to come from 166.137.104.0/22, 166.137.216.0/22, 166.173.56.0/21, 166.173.184.0/22, and 166.177.120.0/22. These are pretty wide, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, they're too wide. But 2602:30a:2c95:6b0::/64 is surely only one individual. (Same person as 166.xx but at home, perhaps.) Since two weeks didn't impress them, I've made it three months. (Incidentally I see in the log that they'd had a one-month block, by Elockid, just before my two weeks. Hmmm. If it really helps, I'll make it a year next time.) Bishonen | talk 20:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC).

Thanks. It's a pain to deal with these persistent ones. Well, with enough Whac-A-Mole, maybe we'll find narrower ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Energyelectrofree

Had actually already been warned for that -- though not as strongly as I would have, or you did. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw Roger's warning, but I thought he needed something more bitey. :-) Bishonen | talk 20:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC).

Oh right -- I just saw your comment at Afd. Agreed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Objection to the deletion of the redirect of "2014 Ukrainian coup"

Western media is biased since they typically would not favor another geopolitical rival such as Russia. Moreover, it can be seen as a coup as there were many violent individuals who occupied government buildings and attacked the Berkut. It was a coup since it was the threat of violence that caused Viktor Yanukovych to flee. It is hard for me not to see it as a "coup". LinkinPark (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The redirect had previously been deleted per a deletion discussion, here. That's a reason to speedy the recreation of it, see WP:G4. If you want to dispute the decision made in 2014, you can take it to Deletion review. Bishonen | talk 09:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC).

1Tolasona

Any chance of a block for 1Tolasona (talk · contribs)? I've reported them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gadri and it is a duck case but I'm already getting fed up of reverting them at numerous articles and watching them revert my CSD G5s. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked now. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Another for you!

Anand reddy godwa (talk · contribs) and आनंद कुशवाहा (talk · contribs). Pretty much the same edits today to the same article, ie Reddy. Not sure if it is socking or meating but experience tells me it is one or the other because this has come out of nowhere. If I post the sanctions thing I am likely to be accused of biting by the do-gooders. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And no worries again. They had another go and so I've sent it to AN3. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Winterysteppe

Hi there,

You just granted a self-imposed block to Winterysteppe. He/she made about 1000 edits to talk pages in the last day or so using OneClickArchiver, bungling archive formats, archiving active discussions/RfCs, archiving all discussions on many pages, and creating other similar issues. When told about the problems, he/she tersely admitted being hasty, then blew off requests to actually fix anything and instead requested a self-block. I was in the process of opening a section at ANI just now, but that might be a bit intense for someone who tried to help, messed up, and now doesn't want to clean up. Also, being temporarily blocked limits the possible directions the discussion could go. The whole point is that it's not ok to make a mess and to request a block while leaving the mess for others to fix. I have diffs and whatnot for ANI, but maybe an admin making crystal clear "this is NOT ok" would be sufficient... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, the user is obviously under a lot of stress. You do know Wikipedia is not compulsory? No matter what he did (and it wasn't vandalism), he's got a right to take time off and decompress. Everybody has that right. Plus he's doing exams. And I want to emphasize that nobody else should feel obliged to clean up after him, either. Probably somebody who wants to will come along; that's usually what happens, and that's the advantage of the place being so big. In any case, Wikipedia messes don't trump real life problems. He seems very aware that he messed up, no need to crush him with an ANI IMO, though that of course is up to you. I for my part think you have scolded him adequately already. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC).

Rhododendrites Wintersteppe here. I get daily emails of tags and mentions. You do realize that I have messed up. I took this wiki block enforcement just so I can 100% focus on college graduation. This is the last time I'm actually hitting the "edit" button until June. I need some time to study and relax my head. And yes I messed up but doesn't mean you can harass me up to the point of filing ANI. Haw you seen my talk page?? I already got enough flak to know I messed up. How many times do you need to swing the hammer so you are satisfied? Until I get banned?

But seriously, I should tell you that you can easily use Twinkle to restore edits back to a state, like going back to an edit that included a RFC. That, yes that, can be used in cases of my disruptive editing. Yes believe it or not, disruptive editing can be reverted using twinkle simply by a few mouse clicks. I'm sure you have done that before. Oh right, you have done it here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. You already did the fixation when you asked me to conduct a fix, which I didnt know you wanted when you wrote on my talk page. Next time, be specific. Im not gonna mass revert my stuff in hopes of blindly revert 1 thing.

Now to address the issue of disruptive archiving. Yes it's 100% my fault. I have no excuses for it. Its extremely difficult to determine when it does need to archive but the dusty ones are in need of archiving. Also, yes I was aware of bots on some of them but I still did them. They seemed stale and tried to be WP:BOLD but I was reckless at the same time. And you and several others have told me. Instead of going revert and discuss, you went straight to annoy. Im not gonna archive. Its probably best I don't.

I'm willing to fix it, but in June!! That is TWO MONTHS FROM NOW. I am willing to be a better Wikipedian, although at a smaller rate. I love knowledge although Wikipedia got addicting. That was my record. ¼ of my total edits in one day. Ggez. Im willing to stay but dont bite the new comers. You, as a wikipedia since 2007, know that. Don't bite others. Get it through your head. Now quite harassing me through pinging me. I'm Changing settings to weekly. Oh and for the record, I'm a 22-year old guy. 98.221.52.171 (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

also final edit. If you want I will leave Wikipedia and asks steward for a indef global block. Or I will just use the account to turn into a vandalism only account block. 2601:84:4601:D750:B55F:1F57:DB7A:8916 (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FWIW this is the version I was replying to. I don't think anything about my response needs to change based on subsequent edits. Stick dropped. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Winterysteppe - You made mistakes, you refused to clean up the mess, and now others have to. That's the long and short of it. Telling me how to fix your mess with Twinkle is not helpful, and nobody is "harassing" you. If someone edits disruptively on a large scale and refuses to do anything to fix it, going to other venues is just the next step. I, along with multiple other people, tried to resolve it on your talk page first and nobody has taken it out of the usertalk space. That said, it was a mistake for me to mention ANI at all, as people do understandably tend to take it as a threat. I will not be taking it to ANI and am content to drop the stick. Best of luck on your exams.

@Bishonen - Well, I don't agree that the spirit of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is an applicable defense when it comes to repairing problems one creates rather than creating work for others, but your response is largely fair. I will accept, especially given the most recent response here, that I've said enough at this point and leave it at that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Expertise welcomed

Just come across a new article on Michel Issa that seems quite promotional - I was wondering if he is notable as the sources are in Swedish mostly? Any input welcomed! Blythwood (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Groan, what a lot of sucky sources. The article would look a lot better without the references to Mynewsdesk — oh, look, we have an article — which is a PR platform, or Chef.se (which offers "Native advertising" — I learned a new term there — on this page). Shortcut.se is a similar outfit, entreprenor24.se is user-generated, and worldaidactive.com is Issa's own organisation.

But there are a few reasonable sources. "Goda nyheter" is better than it sounds, being part of Aftonbladet. Folkbladet is fine, as is of course Sveriges radio. TV4.se would be good if only the subject was actually mentioned at the link — he's not. Mittuniversitetet, here, is a real university, so getting an award from them counts for something. Several of the sources talk about this award. Altogether, I think he's reasonably notable.

It could use cleanup, certainly. The "Multientrepreneur" thing is only sourced to Mynewsdesk and chef.se, and the eight companies only to Issa's own homepage. And as for the claim that his book (co-written with somebody), 103 pages, "will be translated into English in 2018", Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nor would I call it a "notable work", as the infobox does. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC).

Thanks

I appreciate the understanding. JamesG5 (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

3RR is a bright line, but, also, there's a reason we have admins and not adminbots — I'm actually supposed to use my judgment. Thanks for taking care of the article. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC).

Alice Lai Nga Yu

Hi Bishonen, this merits looking at again, and perhaps re-protecting. Someone has to save Wikipedia from students fulfilling assignments. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Protecting? [Sticks straws in hair.] I deleted it. The top version has been cleaned up by experienced editors (over and over), but there's so much copyright violation in the history of it that I don't see any other way of fixing it — I'm not up for picking through all those crappy versions by hand. Probably against several policies, the end of a beautiful adminship. Never mind. [Strews ashes on head.] Bishonen | talk 21:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC).

• Bless you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Bishonmen, can you recover the article " Alice Lai Nga Yu" because we need to submit the assignment. we have not a backup

Hi, User:Khchan425. I don't quite understand why you're the one asking me, since you're a new account, which has never edited the article, or anything else. Are you the same person as Chow chun wai? Anyway. I'd recommend you to always keep a backup of anything you submit to Wikipedia, as it's liable to be deleted if it's full of copyright violations and other problems. This one was mainly made up of bits cut from copyrighted internet pages and slightly altered. I don't know anything about your school — perhaps such work is acceptable to your teacher. Technically, it's no problem for me to restore the article, but the problem is I'd be restoring the copyright violations in the history, and they're not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. I'll tell you what I'll do, though: I can put the top version — the last version — which has been cleaned up by experienced editors, in Chow chun wai's "userspace". That means that you'll find it here. Most of the actual student work is gone, I'm afraid. But I hope it was a learning experience anyway. Please ask your teacher to contact me if he/she has any questions or comments. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC).

Harassment

Hi Bish can you please help? I'm being harassed again by Cassianto and Dr Blofeld who are accusing me of things I did not do. See here [30] and look at the post I removed before that from blofeld. They have been told in the past to stay off my talk page. Please ask them to leave me alone. Caden ^cool 19:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

And now he's done this [31]. Caden ^cool 19:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm certainly not on Blofeld's christmas card list, but I can't see anything remotely approaching harassment in any of those links, or anything rising above "very mild disagreement". The only questionable edit I can see is you, accusing Cassianto of lying without saying what the lie is or where it took place. ‑ Iridescent 19:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) And now the page is fully protected. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Caden, I have protected the article for four days and also asked Cassianto to not post on your page. (You should avoid his page too, please.) Bishonen | talk 19:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC).

Thanks Bish and dont worry I have avoided his page for a long time. I'm frustrated that he and Blo showed up out of nowhere today on my page to stir up more trouble. This has been going on for years and I'm sick of them never leaving me alone. Caden ^cool 19:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you fucking joking Caden. To have a harassment there needs to be a course of conduct on at least two occasions. I count one. Cassianto^Talk 19:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Only one element of harassment? Well, obviously, that makes it perfectly acceptable. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, who pissed on your doorstep? What's with your involvement, other than to fuel the fire. Cassianto^Talk 19:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

My involvement? Same as whenever you try and shout the odds- I get the popcorn out. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Well there's nothing for you to see here, so kindly busy yourself elsewhere. Cassianto^Talk 20:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I'll hang around, if only to watch you indulge in another high-profile self-humiliation. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

brand experience

... is locked for creation. If you unlocked it, one could set a redirect to the more meaningful customer experience. Thanks in advance... -- Kku 09:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Kku: I see I deleted it in 2007 as being a "corporate bs soufflé". The impatience of youth… perhaps I shouldn't have, because Google thinks it's sort of a thing. I didn't protect it, though. First MZMcBride did, but he's no longer an admin. And then Jarry1250 did, but that was part of some large-scale unprotecting-reprotection thing he did, I don't think he considered this article in particular, much. So, OK, it falls to me. I've unprotected, do what you will. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC).

Request

There is an important discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention about possibly finding a way to salvage Single-purpose editors and transforming them into positive WP collaborators in the general mainspace. I'm sure you run in to many of them as you wander around your domain. I'm also sure that every now and then one of the SPA editors rises above the crowd and seems worthy of more of your time and effort. Your personal insight and experience would be appreciated. WP:WER has become a relative ghost town (and I may be one of the few ghosts left in town) and User:Robert's idea may be just the boost the Project needs to revitalize. It's an opportunity for the Project to actually do something beyond handing out awards. I think Dennis Brown would like it. Buster Seven Talk 14:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamit Khemka

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

Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Funny one

I think we've got a funny one here. No need for action (yet), but just to let you know. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Rcrox editing while logged out.

Hi B, might you please consider semi protecting Rocky Rajesh and sanctioning Rcrox to stimulate discussion? He has continuously edited while logged out to restore disputed content like here. I can't fathom why this guy is absolutely reluctant to discuss, but his repeated attempts to force in unsourced, confusing and potentially trivial content is disruptive. I'm about ready to sanction him myself. Thanks and sorry to bug you. :/ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, Rcrox hasn't edited Rocky Rajesh (logged in) for months now, so I don't think I've got cause to sanction him atm. Indeed nobody other than you has edited it for weeks, so even placing a semi looks dodgy. I'll try to keep an eye out, please let me know if I miss further unsourced additions. Bishonen | talk 08:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC).

Editing while logged out to perpetuate a silent edit war and to evade scrutiny, which he has done numerous times, is still disruptive. That said, his irritating radio silence is starting to make *me* do idiotic things, so I'm dropping the stick and removing the article from my watchlist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Things got more interesting with this edit from Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please undelete John Holland (psychic)

The Google cache version shows enough of a claim of significance to survive A7, and the speedy nominator has been engaging in a spree campaign to delete articles on pseudoscientific subjects without complying with WP:BEFORE; virtually all of the other deletion tags they placed this morning have been rejected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've undeleted it in Bishonen's absence, although I don't think this has much chance of surviving an AFD unless you can find something else to add. ‑ Iridescent 11:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you? I'm not absent. I was just typing a response to ask for a link to the mentioned Google cache version, as I don't understand exactly what that is. Bishonen | talk 11:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC).

If you do a google search on a recently deleted article, you'll see a little pull-down-menu triangle next to the search result; if you select "cached" from that, it shows what the page looked like last time Google scanned it. (example from a page I deleted earlier today.) It's intended for websites with intermittent service, so you can view the content from Google's server rather than the original. Next time Google's bot reaches the page, the cache will change to also be blank. ‑ Iridescent 11:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Bishonem

Hi! You might want to keep an eye on the new account User:Bishonem. Sjö (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, blocked as an impersonator. Sjö (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr Lake. Yes, it seems to be a lively day. BTW I blocked your friend United Kingdom referendum on the British membership in the European Union. Bishonen | talk 09:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC).

Enable recreation of "2014 Ukrainian coup"

Could you please allow the creation of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_April_9

Here's is the official decision: No consensus to overturn the G4 speedy deletion of the redirect to 2014 Ukrainian revolution. But if somebody does want to have the discussion about whether this redirect should (now) exist, they can recreate it and nominate it for RfD. – Sandstein 21:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

" WP:G4 and relist for discussion. I carefully chose vacate instead of overturn because the G4 wasn't unreasonable. But, looking into this further, I can find a bunch of sources which use the term Ukrainian Coup, or variations on that. New York Times, Global Research, BBC, MLToday, Japan Times. None of these are wonderful sources, and I'm not sure that even those five together would be enough to survive XfD scrutiny, but I'm quite convinced they're enough to get past the WP:CSD bar. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)"

Best wishes

LinkinPark (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, LinkinPark, what both Roy Smith and Sandstein say is vacate and relist. Is that what you intend: recreating it and starting a new RfD? If it is, I'm fine with removing the protection. If you just want to recreate the redirect, I'm less sure, and in that case you'd better ask RS or Sandstein. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC).

Thank you. Recreate and relist LinkinPark (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've unprotected. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC).

Talk page abuse

A blocked user named user:164.39.77.70 is abusing his talk page. CLCStudent (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, took care of it. (Saving hurriedly before the site goes into read-only mode). Bishonen | talk 13:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC).

Hrithik Vardhan

Thanks for taking care of Hrithik Vardhan(Entrepreneur). Not salted, though. Does it matter? Cats like these will find a way to circumvent creation protected titles by DAB additions and subtle changes in spelling. I've been following cross-wiki a skilled master in this respect for a couple of years, the notorious José Rafael Cordero Sánchez. On enwiki he has only graced us with 38 creations under 19 different titles, known cases, that is. Recently adding strings to local title blacklists have had good effect. Just a thought, especially if Vardhan should return again. All the best, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed some minutes before your post that I hadn't actually salted (apparently I thought saying I'd salted was performative, I do that a lot. :-(), and did it. Yes, I know it's not much use, with that determined cat, but it does no harm either. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC).

Playing round the edges

What edit in your view demonstrates "playing round the edges"? In my statement I respectfully requested that my edits be viewed in good faith in the context of involvement with environmental topics. Sincerely I had no intention of boundary testing. Sincerely I believe there is topic area of the environment which is independent of American conservative politics. Hugh (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Hugh. I think it would make more sense for you to post questions to me and GWH at the AE, for more eyes. (Unless you've already been told your text at AE is getting too long, but I haven't seen anything like that.) But I will give examples here: this edit to Institute for Energy Research, and these [32][33][34][35] to American Petroleum Institute, all of which you defend by saying these institutions are "explicitly" non-political and non-partisan. As far as I can see, by "explicitly", you mean they say they are. Non-political and non-partisan seem unlikely on the face of it in both cases, as energy research is a highly political topic. Also in view of the "Funding" section of Institute for Energy Research. and the "Public relations, advocacy, and lobbying" section of American Petroleum Institute. And as Dennis said at AE, your edits aren't focused on the core of the article, but instead on the political ramifications of the topic. That's the kind of thing I mean by playing round the edges of your topic ban. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC).

Thank you for your reply here. "energy research is a highly political...the political ramifications" Everything is political, broadly construed. A reminder, the ban is not from political topics, it is from conservative American politics. Sincerely, I did not come to Institute for Energy Research and American Petroleum Institute seeking to test a topic ban, my intention was honestly to address a paraphrase of a source on climate change denial so inaccurate as to constitute original research and a neutrality violations in our project. I did so in good faith, as part of a clearly demonstrated months-long productive re-focus of my volunteer activity on our environment. I did so at all times civilly and without disruption. Behavior justifying expanded sanctions is absent. Considering the Institute for Energy Research and the American Petroleum Institute as in-scope of conservative American politics is a reach. Thank you for your kind reconsideration of this filing. Hugh (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Trip of a lifetime

Good morning Mrs Bishonen and what a wonderful morning it is. I have just returned from the US of A (where I am advising nice Mr Trump on his election campaign - such a charming man - do you know him?) to join HM in her birthday celebrations - isn't she marvelous for her age....just like you, and I log in to see that Wikipedia is sending people to the moon. Naturally, until they develop first class compartments, it would be a trip too far for me, but I can think of many Wikipedians who I would very much like to send - nice Mr Wales being the most deserving, and then some of our more diligent Admins. I think I shall compile a list. Just think one could load a rocket with them and then blast the lot of them off into outer space. It's far too good an opportunity to pass over. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear lady, how serendipitous for you to turn up just below Buster7's call for nominations for editor of the week! In your case editor of the century might be more appropriate, but even so. Shall I nominate you? What do you think, Buster? I have a kind of awkward feeling that on the many many occasions people have tried to nominate our largest editor, you have had some kind of odd objection, not sure of what nature. But surely that wouldn't apply to the Lady? Try to time the award for when she has finished compiling her useful Moonbase alpha list. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC).

As usual, you both have broken many of the interminable rules governing nominations for Editor of the Week. Rule #1: Keep it a secret. Now that you have "let the cat out of the bag" (as we say in the vernacular), the potential for surprise is limited. Rule #2: Nominate someone who is of little renown. The dear lady's domain encompasses all of Wikipedia-land (and now includes the moon). Her reputation is known far and wide.

My personal metamorphosis is at stake. Should I be derelict in my duties? Should I abandon standards that have stood the test of time, lo these last three years? Should I neglect my responsibilities? Would The Lady display the Award proudly on her User page or perhaps on her bosom with all the other accolades she has received? If the answer to any of these questions is "Yes" feel free to nominate. She can always decline, which would just enhance her greatness in the eyes of many. I just hope a certain grumpy administrator who left WER in a huff (not DB) doesn't get wind of it. Good tidings to you both. Buster Seven Talk 21:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am quite overwhelmed that you all recognize my small and very humble efforts to improve Wikipedia and I shall be delighted to accept the Editor of the Year award. It will be a huge publicity coup d'état for la Encyclopédie because (I should not really be disclosing this, but I know it will go no further) dear little Mr Trump is pursuing me quite assiduously and I am quite expecting to be the next Michelle Obama; in fact, I have already ordered several kilometers of Rose Chintz for the redecoration of the White House. Unbeknownst to the press and media, Donald and I have been an item for some time. He relies on me for my attuned political perception and intuition. Oh how fortunate are the good people of America, not since the days of dear poor Eva will the world have experience such a beautiful and sincerely passionate force for good as myslef. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Editor of the Year award in being cast as we speak...24 carats, of course. It should be deliverable before the New Year...but we can put a hold on it till you move into The White House. Its no surprise that The Donald has taken to you, dear lady, since he is allergic to anything common or bougois (sp?). I've also ordered a gold-lam-made (sp?) turban for the festivities. Not for me, for The Donald. He really should do something about that hair. Buster Seven Talk 20:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

yeah, I am going to appeal

So yes, I did not know what was going-on with the FRINGE cabal, but I am learning that their agenda is not always in-line with WP, and certainly not it's editors. I'm currently viewing a you-tube call to arms for their group https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rS92GguJwU&sns=em Susan Gerbic Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia JREF Workshop, and hope to transcribe the parts about Gorski especially. Have you seen this? Are you aware of this sub-group off-site self-called "guerrilla" group of advocates? They are right that I didn't know what I was getting into with them, but I am learning. This needs to be known by other editors here, not just rammed down everybodys necks the way they are doing. OH-and I didn't do anything wrong relatively, and this group is NOT acting right here. Did you even see my complaints of sock-puppet behavior? WHY are they not supposed to follow the general policys here? It is really confusing to GF editors and readers as well. This is a big problem. I do not disagree that they can do a lot of good on WP, but they should have to follow the same rules that everyone else has and they are NOT doing that.TeeVeeed (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, from Gerber's blog-http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com/ "The mission of the Guerrilla Skepticism editing team is to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia. We do this by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople".... Gorski is one of their named "spokepeople", and there is a particular drive to backwards edit on WP links to Gorski, the bold-edit which concerned me on the Vaxxed article. If this is not a COI, I don't know what is.TeeVeeed (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

As for whether you know what a COI is or not, I won't comment. No, I didn't see your complaints of sock-puppet behavior, where are they? If you're referring to your complaint about how "one editor/admin? apparently uses two different names, which is confusing", it's quite hard to take that into account when you don't even mention either of the two names. Please clarify. Is it about JzG / Guy ? If so, it seems pretty minor. I mean, you don't even seem to actually think the unnamed person is being deceptive. But go ahead and appeal, certainly. You saw this section about where to appeal? I advise you to take a look at the possible venues, WP:AN, WP:AE and WP:ARCA, and decide where to file your appeal (only use one of them, please). The difference is roughly this: on AN, the community decides on the outcome of your appeal; on AE, uninvolved admins do; and on ARCA, the arbitration committee does. Think about it. Bishonen | talk 10:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC).

PS. @TeeVeeed: I just saw you have posted on User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unprotected. That wasn't the best place for it, as it's a special page — it's mainly for IPs to use when the regular Jimbo talkpage is protected. In order for your post to be at all widely read, you should move it to User talk:Jimbo Wales. And, no, I for my part certainly won't sanction you for that kind of discussion before you have appealed. (Well, provided you appeal pretty soon.) Bishonen | talk 10:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC).

thanks-I was wondering why it is so quiet there! TeeVeeed (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

OK well I answered you on my TP, and thank-you for sorting-out what I was getting at about how using two sigs was having a sockpuppet effect on myself. I didn't want to parse-out every name involved because it was just something that kept confusing me as the discussion dragged-on. And I don't think that using two sigs should be done like that. I really wish that you would take the time to see how reckless User:MjolnirPants was being, and dragged me into that rv war by acting dumb. TeeVeeed (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

So I am thinking-of appealing directly to you as the admin who imposed sanctions. If that doesn't work, am I allowed another venue? I have some issues. I am appealing for a modification or complete reversal of your actions concerning myself.

• 1-I have a problem. I really want to strike-out something that I posted on the vaxxed talk page. It has been bugging me since I should not have posted it in the 1st place, and looks like I am attempting to accuse Gorski of something when my intention was to point-out that his inclusion was contentious. Whatever my excuse, I feel like I NEED to do a strike-out for that particular stuff that I posted there. It was never my intention to discredit or really say anything about Gorski, except that I didn't like the ref. for the article. It is true that I grabbed the content from a very biased source because it was the first search result that was not Wikipedia or his own site, but I admit that it was wrong of me to include allegations and implications that I don't, (and don't want to be involved), know anything about. What I am trying to say is that I knew at the time that even-if there is/ or was some tie to pharm. companies funding university research, that I was aware that the practice is generally a positive action. I was expecting to be rebutted on that but that aspect was not discussed, and now I am just feeling sorry that I posted that crap.
• 2-Being indef. banned from "vaccines". I don't see any reason for that? JFTR, I have IP edited recently as IP on a vaccine-related topic, and I have ideas for a nice sub-section that I was working-on prior to your admin action on myself, but I am following the ban now and cannot proceed even as IP at this point.
• 3-I agree that I acted in frustration against other editors on the article and in edit summary. The editor who brought me to admin. in particular, where we edit-warred, yes I did that but I feel that I was pushed into that with continuing tendentious editing and miscommunications/misunderstanding that I admit I have trouble AGF with. IF YOU CAN MODIFY OR REVERSE MY BAN I AGREE NOT TO EDIT THE ARTICLE AT ALL.
• 4- I think it would be fair to allow me to edit the article talk page. If this happened, I would take the discretionary sanctions even more seriously, and follow to the letter. But I would like to have some input there, considering that I have already had an ordeal there, that I am attempting to understand the problems, and to make the TP safer for other editors and users such as myself who were/are unaware of problems with the topic or who state that there may be an agenda that is not in-line with normal Wikipedia editing practice. And to help with the overall neutrality of editors and admin.involved. But I would not intend to become an SPA on this, so I would reserve the right to ignore the article talk page.
• Thank-you for reading this and I hope that this can be worked-out without me having to make diffs and other tedious for myself tasks req. of a more formal appeal.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, TeeVeeed, I'm awfully busy in real life. I'll try to get to this either today or tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC).

TY for update, please take your time I am in no hurry, the only thing pressing is the strike-outs that I wanted to do, but they are buried in a wall of text anyhow. I appreciate any attention that you can give my appeal, and I hope that you have a chance to see how I was instigated (on the talk page)-into frustration which is my excuse for edit-warring. TeeVeeed (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll respond about the thing you feel is urgent: I will not modify the ban to allow you to edit Talk:Vaxxed in general, because you have been a big timesink on that talkpage. But I will allow you the particular edit/s you ask about, to strike out the stuff about Gorski that you mention. Don't add anything else. That's strike out, not remove. Do you know how to strike out? This is how. Look in edit mode to see what I did there. Do please say in the edit summary that you have my permission for the strikeouts, so people don't waste time making a fuss about it. Bishonen | talk 13:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC).

• And here's the rest of my reply to your post . I think I answered your points 1 and 4 just above. As for 3, when you appeal in a more public venue, I think you'd do yourself a favour by not blaming others for your actions, and focusing on what you did. That's just my advice.

• 2. This worries me. "Even as an IP"? You seem to think the edits you have made as an IP concerning vaccination are a reason for me to lift that part of the ban. I think the opposite. You have described some of the early confusion about your edits, and a related SPI, not very clearly, on your userpage. And you have stated there that "I am not trying to maintain multiple identities here." That was in 2013. Are you really not? I must admit what you say above about your IP vaccination edits sounds to me like you're right now trying to evade scrutiny wrt vaccination, by not using your account for related edits. Why else do you do it, please?

Thank you, however, for revealing the existence of this IP editing. (Even though I can't see it, as you don't reveal the IP itself. You don't have to reveal it.) Please stop editing as an IP altogether. IPs are allowed to edit, but I can't see any respectable reason for users who have an account to edit logged out. Please always log in and take ownership of your edits; it'll be better for your reputation here, and will look more honest. BTW, I've found the IP you used in 2012, but you're obviously using a different one now.

Yes, after appealing to me you can certainly appeal in one of the venues I mentioned, WP:AN, WP:AE or WP:ARCA. A single admin isn't supposed to decide everything about your ban, so go ahead and take it to where more people can take part in the decision. I see you started an appeal to AE in your sandbox, pasting in the AE appeal template there. (AE is a good place for you, IMO, but you must do your own choosing.) I do understand making diffs is tedious. Are you able to make them at all? I think Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide explains how to, as simply as possible. (I wrote that page because I think help:Diff is horribly complicated and off-putting.) Please note that the "Simple guide" also explains how to make permanent links to a whole section of a discussion. It's not hard, and can often be much more convenient for both you and the reader, since one link can save a whole slew of diffs.

Please have a go. It's hard to discuss stuff here without having some facility with diffs. If you still have trouble with them, perhaps somebody (hello, talkpage stalkers) can do them for you in your appeal. I can help you with a few myself, if you write a text in your sandbox with indications of the usernames that made the posts you want to refer to, as well as the exact timestamp when they were made. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC).

• Working backwards, not in importance to reply-----I have trouble with diffs which is a vision problem, but I can try using my special glasses, it is just harder since being in edit-mode makes it harder and some times impossible with settings etc. to adjust font-size and other modifications that help me to see.

• It was not IP edits on purpose. I actually went back to find two recent IP edits when I was wondering why I was also banned from vaccines. I had thought that I was logged-in, and they were minor. Reasons for mentioning, still not sure why I'm banned from vaccines in general, and two, no, not trying to say that I thought that I should be allowed to edit IP when I am banned. No-I get it. But I wanted to mention the IP edits more for transparency.--(will continue later----Thank-you)TeeVeeed (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Transparency..? If you're interested in transparency, please tell me what IP you edited from so I can look at the edits. Not here, use e-mail. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC).

OK-so Thank-you for allowing me to strike-out garbage that was a mistake to post. I really don't feel any need to go to that talk page or the article now or the foreseeable future. But a complete ban, like what I am under right now, forbids me from ever referring-to the article, and talk page, if I am understanding it correctly? Also-I would not be allowed to request admin. actions or other considerations based-on anything that I should happen to see there, if I looked. That seems like it could be cumbersome possibly in the future?

I probably should have tried harder to request on the TP that certain changes that I liked for the article be changed. (IE: I had a problem with, "so-called" which was actually a requested edit from another editor that I did--because it seems redundant and petty to me, when it could have gone a different way, but it is complicated because I am seeing issues of WP:SYNTH and OR, so, adding-in all of the background that is unrelated to the film in question, just makes it more messy imo. Like--they ( Vaxxed)-called the guy a whistleblower, but he actually does not fit the definition of one? If the statement had been a quote related to the film, I would have had ZERO problem leaving it there. If the entire phrase had been properly cited or referenced to a reliable source about the film, no problem. The problem was who was calling the guy a "so-called" "whistleblower". Was it US? That is where I had a problem and I would always have a problem with that.)................so, with that in mind, I thought that the phrase without "so-called", was "enough".

Now in hindsight, as I started to say, I see where "so-called"--or some explanation about how #CDCWhistleblower could just be a click-baity hash-tag promo for the film, may be an important point, IF the person in question does not actually qualify as one--(and it does NOT look like they do). Maybe even worth a sub-section to the article, properly cited with a reliable source that could point that out, or why the promo "CDC Whistleblower" is wrong--(if it is). -It was also mainly a parsing/syntax choice where I agreed with other editors that "so-called" was not needed there. So, now I think that if it was so important to telegraph that info, then it needed to be explained more rather-than leaving it like that, and in hindsight, I should not have been in such a hurry to dismiss whatever reason there was for "so-called" being there in the first place, and trying to collaborate better with the editors involved to expand on that point correctly, because I still think the phrase as-is "("so-called "CDC Whistleblower" narrative)" is awkwardly open for improvement because it says too much and not enough at the same time.

If there is a way for me to change my IP posts to logged-in, I could do that with a hint on how? I can send you email of my IP edits to a vaccine related topic, but I don't know where to send? And it would be from my gmail account? To further clarify, it was not until AFTER I was topic-banned that I went back looking-for those vaccine-related edits, and then I noticed that they were posted as IP. Even-so, one had been rv, with no response or problem on my part, and certainly not disruptive, AND that particular article was not under any sanctions at that time, like the Vaxxed article is afaik.

Blaming other editors, well, part of appealing to you in this way is so that I don't have to go to the trouble of dragging all of the other editors into it, so I agree that I will focus on where I went wrong there. TeeVeeed (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Since you have yourself enabled wikipedia e-mail for your account, you can find my "e-mail this user" link in the left-hand column on this page, under "Tools", along with "User contributions" etc. Just click on it and you will be able to send from the account you have entered in your preferences. (If that account isn't live any more, change it!)

About changing your IP edits to coming from your account: no, that can't be done. If you accidentally edit logged out, you can log in and make a dummy edit, and state in the edit summary that "The IP xxx edit was mine". You can still do that now, provided there hasn't been a whole history of other people editing after you — then there's not much point. One or two subsequent edits don't matter, and I would certainly allow you to do that in this case as an exception to your ban.

Sorry to hear you have a vision problem, but creating diffs is not done in edit mode, as you'll see if you look at the Simple diff and link guide. Bishonen | talk 16:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC).

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

(redacted personal info copied continuing appeal)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ (Redacted)IP

OK-so thank-you for all of the great info. there. Above is the IP history of my edits to the (Redacted) article. They were partially reverted and as I already mentioned as you can see I made no attempt to dispute or disrupt the rv editor's changes.

I do not want to publicly link my IP addy to this topic please. User:Jytdog was right that I had no idea what I was getting into there. (vaxxed). The rabbit-hole is deep and dirty, and although it is interesting, as-far as I am concerned on the topic of Vaxxed, I'll leave it to them to fight it out. And I am sorry for not being way more cautious with the discretionary sanction warning posted on the TP. I felt like a number of normal policy were being abused, (I still do feel that way)---by myself, I admit I broke policy numerous times there, AND especially regarding discretionary sanctions, (And I DID take it personal when I got an alert on my TP).....but also by other editors. And something that I am not saying is a violation of any rules, for instance, the FRINGE policy itself was changed within the last few months by one of the involved on the Vaxxed Talk Page editors! So--as editors, we are being forced to comply with policies that contradict what we normally try to do, by the very editors who changed those policies recently.......I'm sure that by now you can see where I had trouble working my mind-around all of this? If this appears to be an attempt at blaming or excusing my behaviors that were out-of-line, it is not. It is an attempt to explain where my frustration and ultimately actions there came from. I normally avoid articles with discretionary sanctions, and for some reason(s) I just got caught-up in that one. I'm pretty sure that the DS was applied AFTER I edited the article, (I had a rv earlier that I went back to look-at and thus began my contentious involvement) so I think that i was involved before DS happened there, which caused me to keep on it? Normally I back-right-out of a topic if I see DS, so I'm kicking myself for getting involved and I think that is what happened. Also, In my defense, although I was argumentative and frustrated on the TP and in my edit-summaries, and I edit-warred on a DS article, (I think,-or came close enough to admit that)- there was nothing that I edited into or out-of the article itself that was so horrible and I think that should be considered for my appeal. Thanks-again for the information. Regards-TeeVeeed (I will redact my personal info/IP and add to my appeal on your TP if you don't mind) TeeVeeed (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC) edited to add brackets for named editorTeeVeeed (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

no need

No need to blindly cover your admin friend. Any good reasoning instead would do. -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You have an admin friend? Buster Seven Talk 23:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

??? -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC) (this will get me a 4 yr block).

If only. --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. Your illiterate admin friend will serve you. No thoughts required. -DePiep (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? Kindly re-read WP:NPA. I can stand being called "illiterate", but I really do object to being called an "admin". --RexxS (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Assuming logic (AGF, always): it was to you but about a friend, so no "admin" label for you, no fear, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Civility and forum-y discussion on article talk page

@Bishonen: We have a dormant account @Mayasutra that has reappeared, currently focussed only on Talk:Maya (illusion), lecturing that Jan Gonda - a celebrated Dutch Sanskrit professor is wrong and multiple WP:RS be damned, demanding that scholarly sources be deleted, article be changed and Mayasutra's OR be the basis of the article. The article's talk page is a wall of post (@Mayasutra is cut and pasting from websites it seems), much of it is all mostly WP:FORUM-y, with @Mayasutra asking me to ignore the sources and "explain your viewpoint". Both @Kautilya3 and I have tried to politely repeatedly remind @Mayasutra that we stick with WP:RS in wikipedia, and OR is unacceptable. But to no avail. There is a @kashmiri user too, not too active, who is egging @Mayasutra along. The discussion has shifted into incivility, calling me childish, and repeatedly. Is it okay to strikeout or delete such "childish" etc wording? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Latest and third instance, this time with "childish silly". I have already requested @Mayasutra to desist. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

And now a direct accusation of "POV pushing" by Mayasutra. How much should Sarah be expected to put up with? --RexxS (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Sarah. I'm just so profoundly ignorant of these matters that I hesitate to intervene. I know SpacemanSpiff has been a little on again/off again recently, but right now he's editing like an angel, HINT HINT. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC).

@Bish: Thank you. @SpacemanSpiff: Posting the links here, because the summary is above: Mayasutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki). More on Maya (illusion) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Bish, Thank you for making me read that long talk page, I could've spent that time working on the CSD backlog! That said, Ms Sarah Welch, if there are problems regarding the validity of sources (I'm not making any judgment on whether there really is a problem here), I'd suggest taking it to WP:RSN and solving the issue once and for all. Also, getting the opinion of a subject matter expert like Dbachmann would be beneficial, although he has been avoiding Indic/Sanskrit articles for a few years now. As for the behavior, I think RexxS' warning is sufficient for now but I don't have any objections should another admin feel differently and think that tool usage is necessary here. I will leave a note on the talk page shortly. —SpacemanSpiff 04:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff, After discussing with Kautilya, had included content in the etymology section (without removing Sarah Welch's content) --- can you point out what is wrong in the content I added? However, Sarah Welch reverts it without common consensus as mentioned earlier. As admin, please, you have to take a call here. Please do. Otherwise this is not moving ahead coz Sarah Welch refuses to respond to requests for common consensus. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Bishonen: Kindly note the actual issue -- Ms.Sarah Welch consistently refuses to reply to issues raised (see here, here and here), assumes, sermonizes (obviously gets personal). Nobody asked her to ignore sources (does she imagine things?). If this behavior is not childish, what should it be called -- see here and here. In addition, Sarah Welch refuses to seek common consensus, and is hence doing POV pushing. Sarah Welch had ample time to respond to the 2 points, come to common consensus; but did not do so. Now, she reverts the etymology section without common consensus. What do you suggest about the common consensus? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@SpacemanSpiff: That section has 15 sources (14 cites, but one cite has two sources). Everything is sourced to WP:RS, many with embedded quotes. I am fine with RSN/DSN/etc process, because it is a due process. But @Mayasutra needs to stop calling names, casting aspersions and such forum-y lectures, with "Just because you have a reference (gonda) does not mean your reference (gonda) is correct." The (gonda) there is, of course, Jan Gonda. I have added two recent WP:RS, with embedded quotes, both by respected professors, one known for Hinduism scholarship and other for Buddhism scholarship, saying the same thing as Gonda.

Now imagine what will happen if we let @Mayasutra-types come along, fighting RS with their OR in every article, casting aspersions without evidence (such as POV-pushing, as @RexxS notes above). Top that with @Mayasutra finding it incredible that wikipedia is relying on WP:RS, rather than checking if the scholar is right, see @Kautilya3 notes here. I think this is beyond RSN, it is a Village Pump or behavioral issue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sarah Welch, haven't we moved on, from the time of disusing Gonda's reference, to the current time of keeping Gonda's reference but also representing alternate meanings for ma and maya? You say "Now imagine"?? Why do you imagine things??? Is something truly wrong with you? Its not the first time you choose to assume. Yep, it is a behavioral issue, because you refuse to reason, agree to work on common consensus, and move on. Let SpacemanSpiff take a call on common consensus first; and explain what was wrong in the content I added to the etymology section without removing yours. Just bcoz you have RexxS to add to insults on your behalf; does not mean you can revert without common consensus. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

BTW, let the poor village pump be. The reference (Radhakrishnan) you use in the article (thru Donald Braue's work on Maya of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan) grew up around the village pump; and I know it for sure from a reliable personal source. Learn to be civil before you sermonize others. There is no need for anyone to get personal unless you do so first.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Mayasutra, I don't see any consensus anywhere for what you've added. Kautilya3's statement is in the abstract suggesting that reliable sources should be included, you've extrapolated that to support your content addition and don't like being challenged on it. Repeating the same thing in multiple locations doesn't make something fact either. This is not about whether the sources themselves are valid or not, that is what consensus and evaluation is for. And then you cast aspersions again. If you don't like collaborating constructively on here, you don't have to, but if you do contribute here then make sure you don't indulge in attacks and casting aspersions or your ability to contribute will be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 08:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Mayasutra's edit was more in the nature of a rewrite than adding a few extra sources/comments. I was just checking to see what changes he made when I got pinged here. I am not surprised that Ms Sarah Welch reverted the edit. As per WP:BRD, a (further) discussion is needed to discuss the merits/demerits of the edit. @Mayasutra, this is normal procedure. You should not take offence for it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya, you said "If you have other sources that give better explanations, please feel free to add them". That's what I did. Now, you say this. Great. Am not surprised really. Please feel free to elaborate on the merits/demerits of the edit. Nope, am not taking offence. However, I wish that you had refrained from name-calling like village pump; which apparently emboldened Sarah Welch to go on an offensive. Addition -- I did as had told you -- mentioned each author's view separately. Added alternate meanings of ma from MW and sources that attest to it (Zimmer and Singh). Did not do more than that. As for your query, the iranian asuras did not escape the magical turn. MW concerns lexicographers (including modern ones; which is why such confusion occurs over root sound). Anyways, am done with this I guess. @SpacemanSpiff, am not active on wiki. Would not bother me for having editing rights revoked. However, if you ask me to follow rules of behavior, you must do so with Sarah Welch too. The lady got personal first, went on an offensive. The main reason is there is no willingness on her part to come to common consensus. RexxS comes along and piles on offensives. Surely, he can say the same thing in a much different way. He does not. So, it seems rules for admin is different from other editors. Neither is Sarah Welch willing to reason out normally. The above stances of her assumptions are example enough. Such being the case, it is left to Kautilya and yourself, to decide what stays in the etymology section and what goes. I do not blame Kashmiri for saying he is tired. Me too, not finding this worth it. Have nothing to gain or lose. Might as well put my efforts into building a forum with much better info than you find here. So, leave this to you guys to decide what you want in the etymology. Thank you.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Vandalizing IP

Hi Bishonen, long time to type. Now this is not very usual of me to ask this (my first time doing this actually), but can you block an IP? Apparently the IP constantly vandalizes an article, removes sources and adds his own version without sources. Now I've checked all his edits and they are all made to vandalize the article. Yes, other editors have done their part to clean up after his mess, yet he is still making unconstructive edits. (N0n3up (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC))

Well, you'd need to tell me the IP or the article, N0n3up. I have no way of finding what you're referring to. Bishonen | talk 11:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC).

This IP constantly vandalizes this article, and apparently the IP's actions are single purpose edits as seen in his edits, not contributing to anything. And other editors (including myself) did their part in restoring the article's original, accurate and source-supported version as seen in the article's edit history. (N0n3up (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC))

And I don't mean to be a nuisance or anything but he's just done it again. He/She clearly has no interest in Wikipedia but to vandalize articles. (N0n3up (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

That looks like a content dispute to me, N0n3up. You'd better ask another admin if you're sure it's vandalism. Or try WP:AIV. Bishonen | talk 10:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC).

I'm not so sure of that, the IP has been constantly reverted by various editors other than myself, his/her edits (in case you haven't seen them) are clearly vandalism and two different editors have recently complained, one reverted the vandal IP, the other one left him a warning here, I think it's clear that the IP is nothing but a vandal. (N0n3up (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

In case I haven't seen them but just opined without looking..? You are starting to be a bit of a nuisance, you know, N0n3up. I just find it hard to decide it's vandalism. Please ask someone or somewhere else. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC).

Alright, if it persists I'll take it to WP:AIV or ask someone else. Sorry if I'm a nuissance and also sorry in case I sounded too imposing on ya. (N0n3up (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC))

IPv6 range contributions

Our discussion at WP:VPT encouraged me to enhance {{blockcalc}}. It can be used with multiple IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses. If you have a single IPv6 address, you can enter it as in this example:

{{blockcalc|2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63}}

The result (below) displays a /64 range with a link to the contributions made by addresses in that range in the last month (for today, that means edits on and after 26 March 2016).

---

Sorted 1 IPv6 address:

2601:188:0:abe6:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
1 /64	1 /64	1	2601:188:0:abe6::/64	contribs

---

If older contributions are wanted, you can enter something like this (edits on and after 26 January 2016).

{{blockcalc|months=3|2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63}}

Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I love you, John, but… am I supposed to go somewhere and write {{blockcalc|etc}}? Where? Or can I just go to the single IPv6's contribs, cut off the IP after the fourth group of digits, leave the colon in, add an asterisk, and click Search? It seems to work. And to the kind of mind I have, it sounds… simpler. At least, if I'm satisfied with going back one month — I don't know what I would do for going back longer. (Change the numeral in the URL, perhaps?)

PS, by the way, yes it worked, but you should have seen how fantastically it worked when I forgot to leave the colon in! :-) Lots of IPs, lots of contributions.[36] Are all those other IPs irrelevant? Bishonen | talk 15:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC).

To try blockcalc, you might edit your sandbox and replace its contents with the example above, then Preview. There is no need to save the edit because preview is enough to see the results. When finished, close the browser window to discard the previewed edit.

You are correct that looking at Special:Contributions/2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 then replacing everything after 2601:188:0:ABE6: with * works well.

Blockcalc has two advantages. First, it defaults to showing only the edits in the last month (or whatever number of months is specified). With many IPs, that makes no difference because the IP only has a handful of edits in total. However, for other IPs, it makes a big difference. In the above example table, blockcalc generates this contribs link—that currently shows 13 different IPs. The manual method of inserting an asterisk lists 90 different IPs, many of which have not edited in the last few months.

The second advantage of blockcalc is that it can handle multiple IPs and can calculate what ranges are needed to cover all the IPs entered. That may not be useful in practice because what is needed is obvious, or because the technically correct answer would block far too many IPs. Anyway, blockcalc is an option that may be helpful in some cases. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Look at this crazy stuff, John. A /20 block of an IPv6 range! Several galaxies of users. Now unblocked, but the blocking admin's response ... well, see for yourself. Bishonen | talk 07:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC).

Yeah, that's a bit blasé. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Question about TBAN scope

Bishonen, you were involved with this recent ARE [37]. I think the editor in question has again violated the TBAN but I also think my recent frustration with his various edits and behavior may cloud my judgment. Thus I'm asking this as a sanity check and based on a suggestion here [38]. Two edits to the Exxon Mobil article were made by the editor in question today [39], [40]. These edits seem very similar to and include the same article as edits identified by another admin as violations [41], [42]. Would you read those as violations? Thanks Springee (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Sorry, Springee, I'd rather not make the call either. Bishonen | talk 09:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC).

OK, Thanks for the feedback. Springee (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I don't really know where to report trolling (and I'm afraid I've lost faith in ANI discussions as most go undecided) but would you or someone else take a look at user Dijhndis at Scandinavia, and particularly the talk page Talk:Scandinavia. The way the user comments seem design to create conflicts, and say whatever will wreak most havoc and keep disputes going, in rather typical troll behavior. Jeppiz (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say troll necessarily, but battleground, certainly. I've advised/warned them on their page. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC).

Removing comments from talk pages

You gave me a 48 hour block for removing comments from a talk page. You said comments are not to be removed even once. I respect the decision and I also respect fairness, as I'm sure you do. So please issue 48 hour blocks to the three other editors who did the same thing on the same talk page and have yet to be sanctioned for it 1. 2. 3. Note: my IP address keeps changing, I have no idea why. It's not intentional, my ISP must be doing it. 172.6.238.220 (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I will not. Removing pure trolling and personal attacks is an exception to the rule. Stuff like "this guy, who is clearly an SJW" is a personal attack: it attacks a person. (And following it up with "It was a compliment" is the purest trolling.) Was Curly Turkey's post "What a load of gibberish" quite rude? Yes. But not personal. It commented on your statement, not on you personally. Read WP:NPA, where the difference is discussed. Also, you were reverted by numerous editors; nobody else edit warred the way you did.

I understand that your IPv6 address keeps changing through no action of yours, they will do that, but I don't understand about the 172.6.238.220 IP you use here on my page. That's a static IP, and those don't change about. You've been using it for long enough to get various warnings for it, too. Perhaps it represents you editing from work and the IPv6 from home, or something — I don't want to know. But if you want to take ownership of your edits, be transparent about your contributions, and make it possible to communicate with you on your talkpage, you should create an account. The only "advantage" for you that I can see to editing from such wildly changing IPs is that it makes it easier to escape blocks for disruptive editing. Many admins don't know how to make range blocks, especially of IPv6, so they only block the one IP, which would obviously have been of little use in your case. Bishonen | talk 07:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

"what a load of gibberish" is pure trolling, as is publicly calling me a troll and dismissing everything I say. 'Troll' is personal. Curly also removed a good faith comment that had no attacks in it. He appears to have done so because he agreed with me and didn't want to be seen doing so.

And now look at my talk page(s), 3 people are tag-team restoring things that I remove. Including Curly who you told not to edit my talk page.

That's fine too, I'm sure. These guys can do whatever they want to me. I step slightly out of line and get blocked just because I don't have an account. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:30D5:8A19:A572:213B (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing further about whether you were at fault or everybody else; please take it to ANI. For that purpose, I would really create an account if I were you, but that's up to you. I've found the page in question (sigh) and full-protected it so we don't have any more edit warring. You're correct that you were entitled to remove comments, and I've said so there, but I'm not sure you can blame people for not realizing seemingly totally unrelated IPs represent the same person. If you want to be recognizable, the solution is to create an account. Note that as for "Look at my talk page", you don't seem to realize that the lack of a stable talkpage for you is part of the problem. The talkpage of the IP you have now posted with is a redlink, of course. If you want people to look at something, the least you can do is supply a link and not send them (me) digging through histories to find which particular talkpage is in question. Please do that in the future. (PS, I just realized you've changed "Look at my talk page" to "Look at my talk page(s)". Are you expecting me to find and deal with some more pages you haven't given any links to?) Bishonen | talk 10:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

I blocked the IP for 60h for block evasion (I blocked the previous reincarnation earlier today, also for 60h).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, you'd better unblock them both, Ymblanter. The block had expired when those IPs edited, it was only for 48 hours. And I had blocked the whole /64 range, so they wouldn't have been able to edit with any of those IPv6's while blocked. There's little point in blocking single ones anyway. (I'll tell you how to block appropriate IPv6 ranges if you like, I've finally figured it out and it turns out to be easy.) Bishonen | talk 11:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

No, I blocked the first one per WP:NOTTHERE, not for block evasion. The second one was clearly evading the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, as I say, there's little point, because it changes all the time, which is actually the fault of the ISP, not the user. One individual will normally be assigned a whole raft of IPs — a /64 range — and they'll keep getting new IPs from it. Bishonen | talk 11:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

Sure, but there is also little point in unblocking them since the range is blocked anyway. Let us keep like this until the block expires. (One of them has an unblock notice but I have hard times seeing this unblock accepted, at least how it is formulated now).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean you've blocked the range? Because my range block has expired. But no, I understand you don't want to unblock them — when I suggested that, I thought you'd blocked them both for block evasion, which would be a different situation. Anyway, I'm going out in the sun now. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

Oh, I see. No, I did not block the range. Let us keep it like it is now.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

DS appeal

Why have you closed my appeal quickly while I was still preparing further statements on the case? STSC (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) More pertinent questions would be:

1. What makes you think 'Shonen closed your appeal, and not some other admin, like, oh, let's say Dennis Brown, for example?
2. Why do you use the word "quickly" to describe a close of an AE appeal that had been open from 28 April to 2 May?
3. Why are you still preparing further statements for an appeal that you chose to open six days ago?
4. What makes you think admins are going to conduct arbitration enforcement on a time-scale to suit you and not themselves?

Enquiring minds want to know. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

1. I have mistaken Bishoen as the closing admin.
2. I said "quickly" in the sense that they didn't let me finish my statement.
3. I only have limited time due to my work.
4. In the interest of fairness, admins should let the appellant finish his statement.

STSC (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't close your appeal, I merely posted my opinion as an uninvolved admin. My opinion agreed with that of the two admins who had posted previously. Presumably Dennis Brown happened to be online and watching, as he closed the appeal just a couple of minutes after my post. That indeed was a quick action, but as RexxS says, it wasn't particularly quick in relation to how long the appeal had been open. Here's a question for your question: if you needed extra time to 'prepare further statements on the case', why didn't you say so? As you know from the original case against you, that's all it takes, because on that occasion you asked for and got a three-week intermission. Bishonen | talk 19:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC).

Never mind! STSC (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph again...

Is there a good reason for not taking Sir Joseph to ANI yet regarding his recent edits? After seeing him essentially begin to repeat the same behavior he did at Sanders's article, I'm beginning to think he may need to be banned from all things related to Jews/Jewishness broadly construed. (There certainly doesn't seem to be anything good coming from his edits on that topic...) Thoughts? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And he's managed to piss off yet another editor. On that note I think the ban might need to be on religion broadly construed. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And it's just been brought to my attention that they're repeating their behavior on Joe Biden's talk page too. This is seriously getting out of hand again. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Where did I mention Milgram on Biden's page? Or am I never allowed to mention religion? What is wrong with asking for citations? Guy Macon did it at Talk:Richard Nixon, is that not allowed? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't act like you're editing to improve the encyclopedia with those edits, you're doing it to make a WP:POINT. This time I have 0 sympathy for you... I gave you the choice to stop and you still refused to. This is what topic bans exist for. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Minor clarification: My request on the Richard Nixon talk page was at the direct request of Sir Joseph, who had made a WP:OSE "do you treat other politicians this way? What about Nixon?" argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. I see that he copied and pasted my request for a citation at the Nixon page to the Hillary Clinton page, including the minor error I made (The RfC passed by 80%, not 75%). --Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want me to stop I can stop but I ask you again, why is it OK to ask me why I never did it to other pages, and then when I ask on other pages, ask why I am doing it. And I am not editing the page, I am posting on the talk page. And I ask again, to read the Milgram talk page and look at the attitude and behavior of especially Sundayclose, why is that allowed? Can't you see how frustrating it is for me to see everywhere I go that certain religion infoboxes being removed and I get no response? I've asked for policy and I get no response. Milgram is not the same as the other page. He is unambiguously Jewish and yet that is still a problem. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I want you to stop. That's all, end of discussion. If you lack the competence to do so or to see why, then we'll be moving foward with the topic ban. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, but can I ask you read the Milgram RFC? I and BS have asked for the requested policy and all we get is "asked and answered" or we get taunted. Not as much from GM but mostly from Sundayclose. Any source we bring is not good enough for them and for Milgram. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Coffee, I suppose you saw my recent warning to Sir Joseph? I hadn't noticed he had gone on to Talk:Hillary Clinton and Talk:Joe Biden to make a point. (I don't follow him around the site — what a dreary job that would be.) Yes, I see a reason for not taking him to ANI: This latest ANI thread was archived just five days ago. I really don't see the point. Guy Macon, who had opened that complaint, called for a close as no action required on 28 April because "Sir Joseph appears to have dropped the stick"[43]. To which SJ graciously responded "Support but suggest an admin admonish Guy Macon for his behavior", and a few days later, he picked up the stick again.[44] And now I see he's spreading his campaign all over the place. How many times has he been taken to ANI for the way he wears out other users with his his stubborn repetitiveness? I don't know. (Why he doesn't try to change the policy about the religion parameter in infoboxes I don't know — possibly because he knows there's no chance to get any traction.) Some form of ban would be the best, as he can edit constructively in other areas, but unfortunately there is no discretionary topic ban that would fit the case. As you know, he has a six-month topic ban from Bernard Sanders, purely because of his behaviour in relation to religion in the infobox. I have two suggestions: either ArbCom or a fairly hefty block. There's certainly a risk with ArbCom, too, that they'll decline opening a case if he "drops the stick" for a few well-chosen days, but I still think it offers more hope than ANI. I have no faith whatever that Sir Joseph will drop this stick and not pick it up again without a formal sanction. I'll sleep on the idea of simply blocking him. It's nighttime in my timezone. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC).

Bishonen, do you see the problem with Guy asking me to drop the stick? I could very well ask him to drop the stick. What he is saying is basically, the policy goes to how he wants and when I ask for proof, I'm told to drop the stick. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

...and talk Jimbo Wales: Special criteria for Jews on Wikipedia?.--TMCk (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I stopped on Clinton and Biden but I don't see anything wrong with my discussion at Milgram and again, I and User:Bus stop have asked for the policy and we don't get it. What we get is snark and condescension and personal attacks, "...that you are too dimwitted to tell the..." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is most concerning is that the disputants are clearly aware of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126 #RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127 #RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes, which were resoundingly against inclusion of either |religion= or |ethnicity= in infoboxes, yet they seem to want to re-litigate the question endlessly, as well as conflate Jewish ethnicity with the religion called Judaism. I can see that the first RFC gave licence to "Permit inclusion [of religion] in individual articles' infoboxes if directly tied to the person's notability, per consensus at the article."; but I don't see the walls of text at Talk:Stanley Milgram, for example, as containing much of an attempt to tie his religion to his notability, nor to seek consensus on the matter. Now we've had the RfCs at VP(Policy), this sort of behaviour really needs to stop. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

there was a discussion of his religion being notable, the issue is that Guy and others are stating his religion is not Jewish. Once we get past there we can continue the discussion on notability. Milgram has written that the Holocaust and his upbringing did play a role in his career so the argument for notability can be made. He chose the Milgram experiment specifically because of his upbringing. He wrote about how he should have been born in Europe and killed instead of being born in the Bronx. That is all on the talk page already and in the main article section. AND for the record the ANI even mentioned that Guy was guilty of exactly what he was accusing me of. And if you now go to the talk page of Milgram, even Jimmy Wales chimed in to support my claim that all I'm asking for is proof. We're going around in circles because every time I ask for a proof or policy I don't get it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, we can go on to something else once we get past the issue of Milgram's membership of the Jewish religion without being religious? I get such a strong vibe from that that you'll never get past it and will never stop. And this less than two hours after you held out a glimmer of hope to Coffee (above): "If you want me to stop I can stop". I'm beginning to think you actually can't; at least you clearly won't. You have been blocked. People need a rest. See your own page for details. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC).

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, in the process of moving so I have to head out for extended periods of time. Thanks for making the block, it was incredibly justified and sadly necessary. If he continues this behavior once the block expires — which, based on his history, he likely will - I'll assist you with opening an ArbCom case. This ridiculous cycle needs to stop, especially when he's hit 3 high profile politician's pages with the same insanity during the middle of an extremely heated election cycle. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll risk being trolled, just once. Look Joe, I gave you the links to the two RfCs above. I'll assume that you are capable of clicking the links and reading the discussions. Those RfCs took place at WP:Village pump (policy). Do I have to explain to you the significance of the word "POLICY" in the page title? RfCs taking place at "Village Pump (Policy)" are policy, by definition. So please don't annoy people any further by asking for policy when you know what the policy is and where to find it. --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph is now making false claims that Jimbo criticized me, and removed my response.[45] Of course he is free to delete whatever he wishes on his own talk page, but using that privilege to attack other editors and stop them from responding is a bit unfair. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  Guy, As you probably already know, the removal of your note on his talk page is taken as acknowledgement that he's read it, and you may use the diff of his removal to show that, so you're covered if it ever goes to dispute resolution. Nobody is going to worry about risible claims like that anyway, so my advice is to leave him be. He's got a week to think about how he might change his interaction style, and hopefully he'll work out how to do that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Apology and account creation

Bishonen,

I created an account and am ready to edit. Sorry for the problems yesterday. I hope we can move forward and be wiki-friends. Msjjkim (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure you had an account (or accounts) before. Does this mean you're abandoning that one and making a WP:cleanstart? Is the old account blocked? P.S., I can WP:revision delete your e-mail address if you want. Bishonen | talk 10:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC).

That would be fine if you would do so please. Thank you. Also, I am not sure about the whole clean start thing. Am I required to do so? I guess I would like to start fresh unless of course this against the rules somehow. Msjjkim (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Bish: Msjjkim just showed up at AE [46] to announce to @Strongjam: and I that he has a new account. I've got no idea what that has to do with AE, and Strongjam hasn't participated there lately, at least that I know. It’s a bit odd. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• I remember this editor using the same phrases when harassing NBSB last fall (or summer, time flies). They're not just having "fun", they're evading a block I made for this exact same behavior. I've blocked this account, and suggest someone capable of range blocking (waves at Bish) block the IP range used. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Mike V had already blocked the range for a month, Flo.[47] But it looks like they have access to a new range.[48] If they can shift like that, it's hardly worth going after them, at least not unless you really understand about IPs and their ranges (cough). Remind me why we don't require registration to edit, again? Bishonen | talk 21:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC).

When reverting?

When reverting an edit, do you look at both the edits made by the editor while looking at the two versions of the article before and after change, or simply click on "compare and select revision". Not reverting anyone, just curious. Sorry in advance if its a stupid question. (N0n3up (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC))

Not sure what you mean — I don't see a "compare and select revision" thing to click on, perhaps you meant the "prev" (=previous) button? When you have the history in front of you and want to revert the last edit, you can click on "rollback" or on"undo" (which lets you add an edit summary) or on "prev" to get a diff, and then undo from there. "Prev" is preferable, as you should look at the edit and make sure you know what it is before reverting. There's usually no need to look at the full versions before and after, as long as you look at the diff. But I may not have understood your question. Bishonen | talk 10:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC).

@N0n3up: You're looking at the article history which has a Compare selected revisions button. That generates a diff to look at and is useful if the user made multiple consecutive edits - you can select the one before they edited and the last edit they made and compare them in a single diff. Normally, I just click the "prev" link in the article history and step through the edits made. Optionally, you can go to your preferences; pick the 'Gadgets' tab and tick the box next to Navigation popups. That will allow you to see the target of any link simply by hovering over it. It's a quick way to examine a diff either in an article history or in your watchlist. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen, RexxS. Thanks guys. (N0n3up (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC))

Discretionary sanctions alert

I received Discretionary sanctions alert for my account. I dont know what it is about. Please help me in understanding the same.

Hi, User:ChatruSamhara, nice to see you on my page. It means that there have been many problems with Indian articles, and therefore the Arbitration committee has authorized administrators to use their own discretion (that's why it's called "discretionary sanctions") in sanctioning editors of these articles who edit unhelpfully. For instance, an administrator can give an editor a topic ban from some or all Indian articles. That would mean the editor wouldn't be allowed to edit Indian pages. Of course they would be warned first. Note that the alert doesn't mean you have been editing unhelpfully! By giving you the alert, I basically wanted you to be aware that these articles are controversial, and that you need to study our policies and listen to advice from experienced editors. I was a bit concerned about this edit, where you removed the template stating that the article had problems in five regards: neutrality, need for cleanup, lack of inline sourcing, reliance of primary sources, and incompleteness of perspective. That seems a poor idea, as you had only addressed the sourcing, not the other things, and also experienced editors didn't think the sources you had added were very good. (You were pretty quickly reverted.) It's also a problem that you didn't reply to the advice from SpacemanSpiff about Conflict of interest on your page. Hope this helps. Btw, please sign your posts on talkpages (not in articles) by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Bishonen | talk 12:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

Well, that was a waste of perfectly good advice, but then that's a big part of what admins do. Sock blocked along with a whole drawerful of them. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC).

Your edits from five years previous

Previously you were listed as one of the top editors at Jane Austen and I thought you might recall your edits related to the late Wadewitz there. I have added two new sections to the article to move it closer towards further featured article upgrade and was wondering if you might review or assess aspects of the page as to where the article might stand now. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Me, Fountains-of-Paris? (Cool username!) Looking… that must be a very freaky algorithm that ever considered me one of the top editors. All I can find in the history is that I reverted some vandalism round about 2010. I'll be glad to look at your additions, of course. Jane Austen ought to be a featured article! Bishonen | talk 17:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

Such a beautiful page and quite one of my favorite crime writers; I am often likened to one of her characters - Elizabeth Bennett, such is her charm, wit, beauty and wisdom, that it's often said that she could have been modeled on me. I've read the book many times and just love the chapter where Mr Darcy jumps into the lake to rescue her - so romantic. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I see you mean you love the film, dear lady. That's your prerogative; but when my students, writing E Lit "projects" supposedly about Pride and Prejudice the novel, mentioned how fetchingly Mr Darcy's wet shirt outlined his manly chest after his dip in the lake, I failed them. Cruel, perhaps. Who wants to read a lot of old books where you don't even get to inspect the handsome men visually? Even though JA is a very fine crime writer. Mr Darcy always reminded me of your nephew, by the way! Bishonen | talk 14:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC).

No, no, I've never seen the film, it's books for me - I devour them hungrily every night. I am a very literal person, even as a child I read Dostoevsky in the original; his War an Peace quite heaves my bosom. I always feel that one is ether educated or one is not, and, of course, I am. I do sense though (I am very perceptive) that poor Miss Austen was hampered in her writing by her lack of worldly experience - my own acclaimed works, by contrast, are so much more vibrant and pulsating - if you know what I mean? You are not alone in seeing the resemblance between my ruggedly handsome nephew and Mr Darcy - my family have been the muses of great writers since that dear little man penned his Beowulf, which I'm sure you know well as it's all about the people in your own little country. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your protection of this article

Two reverts are hardly a reason to protect the article, especially when I had opened a discussion to discuss them. 89.164.252.229 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No, the number of reverts isn't the reason for the protection, the FRINGE-y disruption and block evasion is. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

• http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/89.164.252.229
• Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity #IP editor
• Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore

--RexxS (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, RexxS. Asking for sources and arguments when you've provided none yourself isn't my idea of a "discussion", Asdisis. I'll revert-block-ignore if there's any more timewasting on my page. Bishonen | talk 08:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC).

Re: Our user names

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Received, read, thank you. Bishonen | talk 11:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC).

Your copious false portrayal (aka lies) and associated threatenning behavior on my talk page

Warning:
If you continue the sort of uncivil dominance-indulging self-deluding false-portrayal behavior (and especially your lies that I have perpetrated "silly accusations", "disruptive editting", and "personal attacks") and associated dominance-asserting block-threatenning behavior that you exhibitted here: [49], or if you actually block me based upon your lying pretenses that I have perpetrated "disruptive editting" (which is the polar opposite of the truth; my edits having been quintessentially constructive, and you know it) or "personal attacks", then you yourself will be blocked by any honest admin who notices your gross power-abusing behavior. Some religion scholar (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think you should get a bit of experience with how Wikipedia operates before taking such an aggressive approach? Your first edit was on 11 March 2016 and you have 44 edits in total, most of them connected with one article. At any rate, if Bishonen left a warning the best approach would be to carefully consider the wording and ask if there are any questions. Suggesting that another editor is a liar can be a career-ending move at Wikipedia. Editors are supposed to discuss content (which may be right or wrong, or properly sourced or not, or "due" or not). It's fine to speak strongly about content matters, but extending that to editors is known as a personal attack and will be prevented if self restraint is inadequate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Some religion scholar: If all the traffic is heading toward you, you're probably in the wrong lane. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• One for my scrapbook, anyway. It reminds me of someone. Bishonen | talk 08:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC).

Hall of Game Awards article flamewar

Hello, I don't post major stuff that warrants me registering for the site (usually minor edits), but 2601:84:4501:A323:9911:756:AB12:CA3A and StealthForce; look at the whole history log for the Hall of Game Awards; he and three other IPs were involved in edit wars for that article last year (over whether there was 2015 edition or not; the awards were discontinued in 2014), and that was why I wanted StealthForce blocked, and the IP address reprimanded (for getting into a flamewar with me; read the User:StealthForce reported by 2601:601:4002:E260:2C5A:78C1:501E:4DDF entry in the Edit Warring section of the Administrators noticeboard). I hope you can hear me out on this. Thank you. 2601:601:4002:E260:2C5A:78C1:501E:4DDF (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)