User talk:Bishonen

Indo-Aryan migration

Edits on this page Indo-Aryan migration have been reverted by many editors. I don't want to cross the 3RR limot nor I want to revert again. Notably, there is a set of usual editors have made baseless accusations and seem to be removing my content just because they don't like what I add. It's not just me, another editor Wiki841 too has reverted them and restored my edit.

In the interests of avoiding edit-warring, I request you protect the article. I don't simply want my preferred version to be protected, so whatever version you protect is up to you. I am open to discussion but they shouldn't falsely blame me of copyright violation and outdated translation when there is none. They also keep using Wikipedia policies like WP:SOAPBOX which have nothing do with my edits. I suggest you tell them to discuss and prove themselves first and not make bad-faith baseless accusations. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I want the ban removed

Hi, I want the ban removed as I never added unsourced material to any of the articles. May I know how I can appeal? Sharkslayer87 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) @Sharkslayer87: In fact, the template at the bottm of your talk explains everything you need to know...I advise though, that appealing the TB ten minutes after it was placed has a 100% chance of not being successful, I'm afraid. Try editing elsewhere for a few months, be productive, non-controversial, and then this can be revisiyed with more chance of success, perhaps. Just FYI. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Hi, Sharkslayer87. I have not banned you for adding unsourced material, but for using poor sources, and/or making claims unsupported by your sources, despite warnings and advice. The place you can appeal is the administrators' noticeboard. But Serial Number 54129 gives you good advice: you'll have a better chance of a successful appeal if you edit uncontroversially in other areas for a few months first. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC).

Hi, Bishonen, I apologize if I did disruptive editing. But I beg you to understand me. I never added poor sources. My sources are genuine. The below two sources really provide synonymity between Raju and Kshatriya. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Kanumuri-Bapiraju-faces-uphill-task-in-Narsapuram/articleshow/33795850.cms https://books.google.com/books?id=oQOF7tkWXjIC&pg=PA98&dq=kshatriyas+rajus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD-s67t4PaAhWGxFkKHcyxBUY4FBDoAQhUMAk#v=onepage&q=kshatriyas%20rajus&f=false.

The first source says "Rajus (Kshatriya)" and the second source clearly says "The rajus are a small, close-knit community of the Kshatriya caste"

These are the sources that I used. I also used Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard who is considered by many as one of the greatest social anthropologists ever. He has more than a hundered thousand results at google scholar and he has been cited by thousands and thousands of scholars. “The Raju caste, classified as the Kshatriya or warriors among the Twice-born castes, is the second highest in the village. The Raju are descendants of former rulers of the area and though their wealth and influence has declined they still bestow patronage in the form of land, money and political connections. Several Raju families have Shudra and Harijan field laborers attached to them by yearly agreements”.

He states in no uncertain terms that Rajus are classified as Kshatriyas.

Please kick me out if you want but please don't say that my sources are not good. I have never added bad sources. All my sources have been good. I might have been a little aggressive in my editing for which I apologize but I never used poor sources. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sharkslayer87, since you have already appealed at WP:AN as well, I'll leave the community to deal with it. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC).

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hmmm, Bish and Writ Keeper, this doesn't seem to have been logged. Think the block is fine as they were notified, but noticed the lack of paperwork and all when I was looking at the AN thread. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  Probably, I know I forgot. I'll do the paperwork. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  Now logged; I think Bish was a good bean and had already logged the topic ban. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, I got my respective South Asian discretionary sanctions log pages mixed up, sorry Bish. I should head over to BN, I suppose... TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, the community bans are so much rarer than arbcom bans that it can get confusing when one is applied, especially because they are also called "discretionary sanctions". But even though we now have arbcom ds for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, which of course cover caste as well, it's somehow rather pleasing to have a special thing for caste disruption. It tends to be so... disruptive, and there are always new caste warriors arriving to tell us they're descended from kings. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC).

  My "favorites" are those who try to add their descent from various gods as a fact. Yes, my great-great-...great-grandfather was actually Vishnu! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Kind talkpage stalkers ahoy

Oh, dammit. I've been trying to fashion a bright red obnoxious box to post at the top of Talk:Ghirth, with the text "This page is for civil discussion of improvements of the page Ghirth. Caste glorification, attacks on living people, and other irrelevant material will be removed." It's supposed to be used as a last-ditch attempt to manage without semiprotection of that talkpage, which is currently at the mercy of clueless inexperienced caste warriors expressing their frustration at being unable to "improve" the semi-protected main page. Check it out, especially the stuff that Utcursch has removed. So, I have some boxes, that I've been trying to adapt, but it's bloody impossible. I probably keep missing out some really important dot or curl. Would a clever talkpage stalker like to create one for me? How about you, RexxS? NeilN ? Bishonen | talk 20:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC).

TonyBallioni obliged, I made it a bit more obnoxious. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Lovely stream today in the picture, Bish. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I love you guys! Bishonen | talk 20:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC).

Nice work folks! I wanted to add "... as will all posts from any editor who has a deity anywhere in their family tree" but eventually I managed to suppress the impulse. --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hehe. Utcursch has also pointed out that we have the template {{Not a forum}}, I suppose I may use that another time. The angry warning is cooler and more obnoxious, though. Bishonen | talk 22:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC).

Strictly, the talk page should be empty by now :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 03:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Young Luna, my plan with asking for a box was in fact to follow it up with blanking the talkpage. But then I felt hampered by the fact that Utcursch and another user have answered the SPAs in good faith, telling them things that they might conceivably benefit from. I doubt it, going by experience, but it's possible. And blanking Utcursch himself seemed just rude. Did you see this gem btw? The name mentioned, and indeed the account name, probably refers to the author of the main academic source for the article, just with a spelling/transcription variation for the first name. I thought of asking for oversight, but with the different spelling.. nah, bah. Bishonen | talk 08:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC).

That comment was rather out of line, so I've gone through the page history and applied some revdel. Better safe than sorry. And FTR I prefer the angry warning; the other one gets ignored basically always. Vanamonde (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it was pretty specialist stuff! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to personally thank you for your comments on the unblock request. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, 331dot. I think you did right to reject the appeal, though I was ready to leave it to you. 24 hours isn't much, and I hope he uses them to review 3RR and dispute resolution. The "Shakespeare authorship question" is also under some of our less known discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC).

Grawp,

who was? Sounds vaguely familiar.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Grawp is User:JarlaxleArtemis. If you click on the username, it'll take you to his Long-term abuse page. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC).

My pages

Thank you all for your recent vigilance on my user and talk pages. Much appreciated. There are some very odd and bored people around. Giano (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(Bishzilla sticks the little Giano in her pocket for safekeeping and cakes.) bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 16:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC).

That won’t be necessary, thank you Mrs Bisonen. I am in town for the Royal Wedding, although quite why that silly Harry is marrying some American thespian of very odd and vocal family, when my own beautiful and very well bred daughter, Muriel, is still completely untouched by human hand, I cannot imagine. So I am very well placed to care for darlingest Giano. I cannot think what the world is coming to; I blame Donald Trump and Wallis Simpson. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Without a doubt, two of the great villains of history. Your obedient servant... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(Probably much more suitable and could even have had a Eurovision tie-in)? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, you are quite right Mr Evans. While I admit poor Muriel's brain is mostly in the heavens, her breeding is impeccable and when scrubbed up, sh is almost pretty. The people don't want a royal family who lectures them on rocket science, feeding the starving millions and developing their bodies. I can't help wondering if Ms Markle has not been sent by Mr Trump to undermine the Establishment. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. did you know that Prince Phillip was, in fact, a giant lizard? [1]

(feel free to add suitable caption)

How interesting, and no I didn't know that. But it doesn't surprise me because the Battenburgs are riddled with morganatic marriages. Whenever the hands of my daughters have been requested, I have always insisted on 16 quarterings, just to be on a safe side. Once one has a reptile in the family, short of charging the public to view it, there is little one can do. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Captions

1. David Bowie's maternal grandfather Charles "Ziggy" Knight scratches behind the ears of his pet dinosaur Stega Tom. Floquenbeam talk, 23:06, 10 May 2018‎ (UTC).
2. Bishzilla..? It's lovely to meet you, but I figured you taller! Bishonen | talk 10:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC).
3. "I've had to wait 150 million years to get this hip done, and I've still got very restricted movement." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
4. The inevitable evolution of Darwinfish and Darwinbish has resulted in...DarwinBishZilla! Tex (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Mess starts up on Kubrick article AGAIN

Hello, I have seen your comment on Cassianto's talk page "Please feel free to alert me on my page if you should see new infobox discussions being started where there's already a recent consensus." On Talk:Stanley Kubrick an editor has just started a "Straw Poll" on whether or not an infobox should be included when the last of numerous such discussions was closed on 4 April.Smeat75 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

But is there a recent consensus, Smeat75? The hidden edit-mode-only topnote in the article refers to a consensus against infoboxes from 2015. I asked Cass, in the comment you mention, if there was any more recent consensus, but he didn't reply. The discussion you mention was closed by Ritchie333 on 4 April with the comment "This is going nowhere. At least wait for the main Infobox RfC to finish and let the matter settle; doing it right after an Arbcom case is counter-productive." So, would you, or somebody, like to link me to this "main Infobox RfC" so I can take a look? If it's still not finished, I agree it's too soon to start a straw poll on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Sorry to be ignorant, but I'm trying to learn. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC).

OK, it's hard for me to act without information. I've been reading this page to try to learn what main infobox RfC Ritchie was talking about, but all I see is arbs complaining that there isn't such an RfC. So does it not exist? Re-pinging @Smeat75 and Ritchie333: I'd like to help, but I'll be going to bed soon. Still, tomorrow is another day. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC).

The Rfc-in-question, is at the Village Pump policy page. It's been stale for a while & has yet to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Nisus and Euryalus (1827): an early depiction of chiropractic by Jean-Baptiste Roman (Louvre Museum)

I think Ritchie333 must have meant the RfC on infoboxes at the Village pump [2], not one on the Kubrick article specifically, where there is no consensus. Never mind. This bickering is obviously just going to go on forever (even gets a long article about it in the Wall St Journal).Smeat75 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. I can most heartily understand the reluctance to close that. All right, so we're on our own at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. I'll try to craft a page restriction. Not sure whether that has ever been done per the "Civility in infobox discussions" discretionary sanctions, so I'll run it by WP:AE first. Though not tonight, as Wikipedia is down, up, down, up, down for me — it took 10 minutes just to get this posted. Good night. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) I've tried to summarise the previous debates and suggested a rest from the topic for a while. It might be enough to give the regulars a bit of a break, but if not, a page restriction carefully crafted to include a threat of incineration by Bishzilla ought to do the trick. --RexxS (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Bishzilla is with uncharacteristic timidity proposing a page restriction on AE. Clearly she has the discretion and the roarr factor to just impose it, now that we have discretionary sanctions, but I suppose she wants advice. Bishonen | talk 07:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC).

There's a general opposition to arbitrators posting at AE, so I'll add a comment here that a) the DS are there to be used, and b) as someone entirely uninvolved with the article, the Stanley Kubrick page seems a good example of where they might reasonably be applied. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Young Euryalus perhaps need sock for posting at those boards! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 09:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC).

Syracuse isn't registered as a username, fwiw. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Euryalus: I was surprised to find that User:Nisus seems to be available as well. --RexxS (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Bish, I did the paperwork for the restriction. [3], [4] The editnotice is especially important as Arbcom won't consider a restriction as valid unless one is present. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, an editnotice as well? Thanks very much, NeilN, I didn't realize. I haven't applied a page restriction before — indeed, I tend to dislike the regular "consensus required" and "1RR" restrictions, having seen the kinds of "gotcha" filings they give rise to. That's why I was so keen to have a really simple infobox restriction. And now we wait to see what kinds of wikilawyering it'll invite, because, for sure, nothing is ever really simple. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC).

Yes, it makes sense as a bold editor might unknowingly break a restriction because they haven't read the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It does make sense, sure. Bishonen | talk 15:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC).

This seems simple enough, stable for years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Not sure what you're getting at here. If there's no prolonged dispute then editing restrictions aren't needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I replied to "nothing is ever really simple" (further up, edit conflict), by mentioning an exception, wishing it could be the rule. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay. But I've found sometimes mentioning simple things on highly watched pages suddenly makes things less simple :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I might want to reply but was trained successfully (by restriction) to leave it at 2 comments per discussion. The simple case was on my mind because his birthday is coming up, and I think TFA would be nice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)