User talk:Bishonen

Go ahead, post, make my day

Bunt community

Hi Admin, can you please have a look at the edit summaries used in this page history -->> [1] ... Also your input will be welcome in this discussion too . thank you.. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. I won't waste time with topic bans or the like for this, or further warnings, since the user has completely ignored all friendly advice by admins and others so far. Blocked indefinitely. Thank you very much, Adamstraw99. Bishonen | talk 14:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC).

Thanks, I Am happy that I approached the right person... thanks again --Adamstraw99 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Adamstraw99, in the list of policies/guidelines that you've cited to him, you missed the most important of all which asks for minimal competence from an editor ;-) ∯WBG^converse 14:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

WBG, i took this too seriously --> "it can be insulting to other editors." but won't for next caste warrior --Adamstraw99 (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This was an extreme case, and a very bad-tempered editor. Another admin has revoked their talkpage access now. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC).

Priya Prakash Varrier

This article has been recreated, Priya Varrier. You were the closing admin at the AFD and the deletion review.--Let There Be Sunshine 10:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedied and creation protected, since these people won't give up. Thank you, Let There Be Sunshine. Bishonen | talk 11:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

just wondering

Are you the same Bishonen who, once upon a time, a long long time; did something which was later known as Bishonen's empirical thing? —usernamekiran(talk) 16:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

There is only one Bishonen. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC).

La di da! 'Ark at 'er! There's a whole Bishonen family! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 17:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC).

...a whole menagerie more like! :p —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

[Slightly embarrassed]: yes... yes... that's as may be. But there's only one actual Bishonen. The Bishonen of 2007 is the same as the one today. Bishonen | talk 17:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC).

(edit conflict) x2
aah. Maybe something like this.
By the way, I am sort of sad now that I wasnt on wikipedia in those days. The next RfA was a farce according to one comment on that RfA itself. But those days also seem to have a lot of wikidrama, so it cancels each other out. I am happy with current days. Now I should stop editing talkpages, and do some actual work. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

(Have you noticed yet that there's a new Komodo dragon in the edit notice every time you edit or preview?) Are you saying you don't like a bit of old-fashioned flavorful wikidrama, usernamekiran? Good clean fun. See for instance WP:BLOCKABDICATE. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC).

Oh, I didn’t realize that saga had its own shortcut. Good thing he still got to keep his sysop bit. It’s not like he would ever abuse it in any other circumstances, and he would never do something dumb like move a high profile BLP through protection for kicks and giggles. /sarcasm Also, I do like the dragons Bish!TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah: should have led to the all-new and improved WP:MOVEABDICATE :D and I suppose eventually we'll end up with a sysop with no actual sysop tools  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello there, Tony. I think that's the only single shortcut I have ever created, bumblingly and inefficiently — it's difficult! — but I really thought there should be one there, that I could refer to if the need arose. It sometimes does. For the fine dragons, you can thank User:RexxS who created the Komodo Karousel. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC).

(edit conflict) I am on mobile, so couldnt see it. I had to switch to desktop view to see it. I like fun, yes. old-fashioned flavorful? even more. Wikidrama? As long as it clean, i think i am okay with that.

But only thing I could register from wp:blockabdicate, and that is that you are a lady! I always thought of you as a guy.
Apologies. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Thoughtcrime! I'm outraged! Bishonen | talk 15:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC).

Indeed. How could she be the Platinum Goddess of Wikipedia, were she not a lady? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it’s quite a lovely shortcut, I’m glad you made it. Also, for any connesiuers of Walesian diffs, appreciate this one while you can since the article is at AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Question from new user

WHY'D YOU TAKE DOWN MY CONTRIBUTION! Heather Clark is a real person and Ms Hathaway and Summer Hathaway are characters from the musical School Of Rock! 28-Meme-Wounds (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, 28-Meme-Wounds. The list at Heather (given name) is only for notable people named "Heather". Your addition "Heather 'Hedy' Clark British YouTuber, Sister of Dodie Clark" was unsourced, and the Wikipedia link you added was red (= the article doesn't exist). Feel free to re-add Heather Clark with a link to a reliable secondary source — not her own Youtube channel — that shows she's notable according to Wikipedia standards. I don't understand what you say about Ms Hathaway and Summer Hathaway — I don't think I've removed anything like that. Bishonen | talk 15:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC).

Rajshekhar Reddy Arya

Hi, any chance of you keeping an occasional eye on the activity of Rajshekhar Reddy Arya? They're writing spiels of caste-centric stuff on article talk pages without any supporting sources and quite often using bellicose phrasing. Several people have left them notes on their own talk page, of which I am the latest. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: I daren't. They have a black belt in Karate! But it's nice to see you up and about, hope you're taking it easy. I notice the user is arguing with a section from 2008 — 2011. (No talkpage archive, apparently.) The sections "Is there anything really called as Reddy dynasty" and "Fake History", both very old, are full of aggressive mutual attacks, so in a way I can understand that your guy took his tone from them (presumably not noticing, or caring about, the timestamps). Let's see how he reacts to your warning. BTW, did you notice this diff, which is even more intemperate than the posts you removed? No signature, naturally, but it's your guy all right. I can't understand why it doesn't show up on the page. Maybe the interface itself rebelled against it? Pinging RexxS: do you understand why that doesn't show up? Any other little talkpage stalker? Bishonen | talk 14:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

It's commented out by the preceding broken "Autosigned SineBot" comment. TwoTwoHello (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit is inside the commented-out notice from a bot (i.e. it appears between <!-- and --> markers) that prevents it appearing outside the code. EdChem (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aaahh. What an undeserved piece of luck for the author and all of us! Thank you, TwoTwoHello and EdChem. Bishonen | talk 14:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

Thanks for taking a look. I was not intending to suggest that some immediate action was required - my note and those given by others previously should have sufficed at that point. But now they have said this. In the world of things caste on Wikipedia, it isn't extremely derogatory etc but it is yet again someone writing sort-of inflammatory comments without providing any supporting evidence. This is the type of thing that often spirals out of control on such talk pages and it bothers me that they are still not getting it after you and I had our say on their talk page. AS you intimated, I really should avoid dealing with this sort of thing at the moment! - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I don't think they are listening. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request

[2] and [3]. Friends might be reading it. In any event, no good reason for anyone to have to read it. Thanks in advance to you or another talk page watching admin. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Floq! ---Sluzzelin talk 15:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Constantly amazed at how many horrible people there are in the world. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, most of them are pretty young and will one day realize how horrible they were. Most. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. \*cough*\Kav\*cough\ Sorry, something in my throat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I gotta admit I didn't catch that. But yeah, "most" is in the realm of 65-75%. There's still lots of people at all ages working hard to ensure that the rest of us have someone to look down upon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

And seemingly, anonymity brings it out. Bishonen | talk 16:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

There's nothing "seemingly" (or "seeming", for that matter) about it. I've met people IRL whom I knew online to be total assholes to me, and they acted exactly as if they were utterly thrilled to meet. Of course, that may have something to do with the fact that I don't look anything like what people expect, but I nonetheless noticed that, back online after the fact, they remained much nicer after that. Plus, it's been studied pretty extensively. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This user believes that meeting other editors in the flesh makes it far less likely that they will be treated like a pile of dogshit online.

Even has a userbox. --RexxS (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL That's awesome. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It cuts both ways though. Ritchie333, for example; nice as pie online, tries to beat me up at the London meetup! :o ;) —5⁴¹²⁹ 13:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It was me who put him up to that. Sorry, I'm just an asshole online. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I actually wasn't talking about meeting IRL, but about posting as an IP, as in the case Sluzzelin posted about. (Hello, Sluzzelin, hope you're getting some use out of that teacosy.) I.e. without the more longtime "identity" or "avatar" of an account. That seems to bring it out sometimes. Don't beat me. P.S., to digress, I have in fact met RexxS, and he pulled me out of the way of an oncoming tram. Tells you something, doesn't it? Not sure what, except that he's never done that online. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

Maybe that's how you know who your true friends are; they pull you out of the way of online trams too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

... or bring you lovely online teacosies... (waves at true and fishfriendly fishfriend :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 17:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Oooooopsh

Sorry about my finger trouble over at AN...(I wanted to undo another edit on my watch list,( on Khirbat Lid) and undid yours edit on AN instead, Again, sorry! Huldra (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Shucks, I'm too slow... I was just about to ask if you have met my enforcer. Hear her roar! Bishonen | talk 20:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	...because I just read this, and laughed out loud. Vanamonde (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources and edit-warring on Oeselians

Hello Bish. A few days ago you blocked Blomsterhagens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit-warring on Oeselians, but he's at it again, repeatedly making POV edits that aren't supported by reliable sources, and also aren't supported by a consensus on the talk page (see Talk:Oeselians#Ethnicity & language of Öselians and page history of Oeselians). So would you mind taking a look at it, because this is becoming a huge time sink, with anything other editors say being totally ignored by an editor with an obvious lack of competence, not being able to understand simple things, in spite of having them explained to them multiple times (such as mediaeval mentions of "Estonians" not possibly being references to the modern Estonian people, since neither the Estonian people nor the Estonian language existed back then, that we can only use reliable sources, and that we can't present claims in a paper written by a student as if it's the university they're studying at that says it...). Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

He now also seems to be canvassing Estonian users to get support for his POV... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I trust others to see the talk page contents on Oeselians & Norsemen, read the sources, see my diffs and those of Thomas.W and then make their own conclusions. The main problem is that Thomas.W makes it look like it's me against other editors, but there are actually several editors who disagree with Thomas and have provided ample sources. Also, the topic has nothing to do with what Thomas just mentioned. His latest "revert" was for "misrepresenting a source" where I was directly quoting a source. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Your edit added among other things "A report published by the University of Helsinki finds the expression to support the identification of Oeselians as a Finnic language group" to the article, without explaining that the source (which shouldn't be presented as "a report published by the University of Helsinki", since it's not an official comment by the university, but a paper published by people active in "Folklore Studies" at the University of Helsinki...) is commenting on a document about a single event in the 13th century, and thus refers to that event in that period of time only, which is grossly misleading in an article that mainly focuses on the Viking Age, that is several hundred years before the event commented on, and is being used by you to support claims you're pushing on other articles about there having existed "ethnic Estonian Vikings"... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Are there academic sources about there having been "Ethnic Estonian vikings"? If not, it's not a topic to be had. It certainly isn't connected to what you're talking about right now. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You're the one who claimed there were Estonian Vikings on Talk:Vikings, and in these edits on Vikings you specifically mentioned the Oeselians, an article that at that time claimed the Viking Age Oeselians were "a subdivision of the Estonian people". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe this link explains the dark sides of the inherent conspiracy that's been handed down by fate to your capable hands for you to save the multiverse Fair warning: This is a rickroll. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) From tragedy to farce in five paragraphs... :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

To be fair though - there's no battle for "Estonian Vikings" to be had on my part. There are two main questions right now: 1) What language was spoken on Ösel during the Viking Age? 2) Were there Norse settlements on Ösel during the Viking Age? I support whatever is written in academic literature, contributed to by people from uni. Stockholm, uni. Copenhagen, uni. Helsinki, uni. Tallinn, uni. Tartu, etc. and hope that enough editors will take their time to form an opinion. Luckily other editors agree with the sources. I don't really even care what source is being used, as long as it's an up to date source, written by a Viking Age researcher. The topic has not been about "Estonian Vikings" for a long time. Anyone can see the talk pages on Oeselians or Norsemen and make up their own mind on what's been happening today. I only have an issue with a single editor. Thomas, in his own words, believes I have a nationalistic agenda. I'm also a "POV-pusher" and some other words I can't remember anymore. He's also said today that he thinks Estonian Viking Are researchers have a "nationalistic agenda" "like me". I suppose I'm just a part of a big conspiracy then. Have a good weekend everyone and thanks for keeping Wikipedia alive. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Thomas.W and Blomsterhagens: Blomsterhagens is the user who previously rejoiced in the supercool name User:SørenKierkegaard, isn't he? (I'm a big fan of Enten-Eller.) I'm not up for wrapping my head around this to me extremely unfamiliar matter right now, sorry. Maybe some other admin? Or else I'll look in a day or two. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

Yes, that's me - I was asked to change my username by the Danish wikipedia because of wiki policies on not having usernames after famous people... which I guess makes sense Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Local Danish policy, maybe? I've never heard of it, other than, of course, as regards living famous people. You can hardly be accused of impersonating Søren Kierkegaard (1813 — 1855), can you?

Bishonen | talk 19:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

Yeah, I guess maybe people wouldn't be so friendly to someone named Winston Churchill on the english wiki either? Not sure, maybe it affects some people's national identity. Awesome re Enten-Eller! Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Before he became SørenKierkegaard his username was JonSonberg, and before then JaanMatti, since he has had numerous namechanges. All of them names that can be seen in discussions on the talk pages of articles within his rather narrow field of interest... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You've exposed my deeply hidden cover, Thomas! 10 points! And 12 goes to.... Norway! Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I can add that it's less than two years since he started to change usernames, and the latest name change was only a few months ago, so you don't have to go far back in history on talk pages to see more than one name leading to the same account, which can easily confuse other editors, and make them believe that multiple editors share a certain opinion. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thomas this is fascinating. What else can you find out about my sinister plans? I just opened a can of beer and reading your comments is way better than my usual routine of dressing in pink latex on friday nights. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Playing fool, with a comment like that and the post further up where you linked to a Youtube-video, makes the lack of competence even more obvious. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Could you please both pause for breath? The more complaints you post, Thomas, the less likely it is that some kind admin talkpage stalker will want to dive in and take care of your original issue. And I really wish that one would. It's getting overwhelming. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

@Thomas.W and Blomsterhagens: Sorry, I can't face immersing myself in this. The subject is too complicated as well as too uncongenial to me. I also don't think it's ready for ANI: it would probably be blown off as a content dispute. How about trying Wikipedia:Third opinion? There are obviously too few people on article talk. Try inviting some more. Winston Churchill talk. 14:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

First sock

Here's the first sock of Rameezraja001. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That's some loud quacking. Bishonen | talk 05:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

Then they're too clever for me, which is quite easily possible and wouldn't surprise me given what I found. I can't confirm it. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Do you think I should unblock, Doug? Did you see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rameezraja001? Bbb closed it, but, in the circumstances, I suppose he may well have done that without using the CU tool. Also, note my little conversation with the user at User talk:Reasonable Actor, it's ridiculous. If you can't confirm it, I say it's a meatpuppet. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

He's better than I am. I'm guessing it was a combination of CU and behavioural, but you may be right. Don't worry about it. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm topic banned on "vaccinations" but

Hello I have been topic banned on that for years and I would like to KEEP that ban, please. Unfortunately, I discovered some potentially dangerous outdated information quoted by the CDC which has since changed (also by the CDC) to the exact opposite of what our article currently says. Not sure how to proceed as I am aware that I am banned on talk pages as well, and the talk page in question has no traffic anyhow-thank you TeeVeeed (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

More info. so the article itself is not directly ABOUT vaccinations so I think it is safe to say here that it is the Immunocompetence article. What happened was that I noticed recent better definitions of contraindications precautions and safe to give/when to some types of vaccines and "altered immunocompetence" was listed for something and I wanted to look it up so I landed on our page there. The cite is from around 2011 and there is another one from 2016, (from same source CDC)- that says the opposite of what our article says. Thanks againTeeVeeed (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

TeeVeed, this thread is a topic ban violation. You're asking an admin (who is free to block you for this violation) to make edits on your behalf. Have you ever heard of a facepalm? Because now would be a good time for you to make that gesture. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

TeeVeeed, MjolnirPants is right; you must not post about vaccinations on user talkpages either. Also, I checked the CDC guidelines as updated in 2017, here, and I can't see the change you indicate. But I'm not going to discuss this with you further or argue about it, sorry. Don't do it again. Bishonen | talk 08:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

Just for the record, the reason I posted here is because Bishonen was the blocking admin and said this, "You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 07:56, 22 April 2016 ". Not related to this topic in particular, I am noticing that old vs newer/updated/conflicting info. being posted on US Government health sites is a problem in general. When recommendations etc. are changed I am noticing more and more that the outdated stuff is just left up without being changed in any way to indicate that newer/changed info. is available.TeeVeeed (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

To wrap this up before TeeVeeed gets into trouble, I've reviewed the latest CDC guidelines and updated the reference at Immunocompetence to the latest version. As far as our content is concerned, their conclusions remain the same, so nothing further needs to be done. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, I just want to say thanks for annotating my block log-book. I would have said it earlier, but I got scare when confronted the lizard. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL, that's what he's for. You're welcome, Τζερόνυμο. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

Trump

Regarding your message on my talk page: It should not be necessary to go through an elaborate talk process to amend text which is clearly and obviously POV. "Trump is bad, Trump lied, Trump is racist, Trump is not as rich as he claims, etc." Not a single good point appears in a prominent position. But, hey, that's what Trump does to people, even to experienced wikipedia editors, they lose their independence of mind. The text of the current article is so blatantly a hit-job, which is unworthy of wikipedia. We are not CNN, but nor do we want to be Fox. Somewhere in the middle would be nice. And those responsible for this bias are attempting to maintain it by inserting "DO NOT CHANGE" commands within the text. Some serious and systemmatic rebalancing work, including a thorough line by line examination for bias, conscious or otherwise, needs doing on the article, including an examination of the tone of the article in general. How should we go about that?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You've been around long enough to know the answer to that – or at least long enough to know not to ask rhetorical questions here. We go by what the best quality sources say. If the American public were to be stupid enough to elect an evil, lying, racist fraudster, then we would expect the best sources to say so, and that's what our article would say, isn't it? We don't want to be Fox or CNN, or any other news outlet for that matter because Wikipedia has no POV other than that expressed by the quality sources that we rely on for our content. "Somewhere in the middle" would not be nice, because we have no obligation to set off the ravings of a lunatic fringe against the well considered rationales of quality sources. --RexxS (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)"Trump is bad, Trump lied, Trump is racist, Trump is not as rich as he claims, etc." I searched the entire article and couldn't find any of those statements. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Lobsterthermidor, if you continue to ride roughshod over consensus, you're heading for a sanction; either a topic ban from American politics, or a block, depending on the circumstances. As hidden text in the edit field states in many cases (and I note you don't pretend you have missed it), many or even most of the phrases you change or remove are the result of, indeed, "an elaborate talk process", often an RFC with many, many editors involved; what we here call "consensus". And you think it's up to you alone to override the agreement they have arrived at, because you believe these editors have 'lost their independence of mind'. Seriously? Bishonen | talk 16:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) I’d recommend just not editing anything related to American politics. Makes one much happier! TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sound advice, that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Also increases wiki-longevity. I’ve lost count of the AP2 editors that have been sanctioned. O3000 (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen, yes, seriously. The article has such an obvious anti-Trump bias it's almost funny. Like watching 2 minutes of CNN. It's just dig after dig after dig. No mention of anything positive whatsoever. All sourced from anti-Trump media. But that's what Trump does to people, makes them lose their minds. TonyBallioni, good advice. I'd rather edit something less contentious, like Zionism, lol. Even an attempt to correct something so obviously biased as "Trump's policies have caused protests" into "some of Trump's policies have caused protests" apparently has to go through a lengthy talk page discussion. So the article is basically irrevocably set in anti-Trump treacle. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned: my advice to everyone is to avoid American politics as well as ethnic and nationalist disputes. Life is too short to waste time arguing with people on the internet who know The Truth (tm). On your actual complaint: that’s one of the most watched and discussed articles on Wikipedia so yes, just about every comma reflects either consensus by agreement or compromise so it’s likely that any bold change you make will be reverted and need to be discussed. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, —PaleoNeonate – 21:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Clueless, possibly COI editor

Any chance of you having a word with Sardar Jay Khan? This latest edit is fairly typical and they've had a bunch of warnings about edit warring, sourcing etc. I first came across them at Sudhanoti District. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, done. Perhaps I should have given them the discretionary sanctions alert as well — the one they got has expired — but quite frankly they're not the kind of editor where a topic ban is likely to be meaningful. Here be dragons! Bishonen | talk 10:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC).

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Editor unintentionally introducing bad grammar into articles

I have a question on how to move forward with this. I was reading a random anime article and found the grammar to be atrocious. I started looking into who had left it in that state and I came across an editor who's grammar leaves much to be desired, often introducing typos or converting English words into Japanese. I've left a message on their talk page in the hopes that they respond, but given how they removed a warning about a copyvio by dismissing it... I'm not hopeful. Their edit count isn't huge, but it is causing damage to quite a number of articles. What do you suggest? --Tarage (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

an editor who's grammar leaves much to be desired – Oh, Tarage! (See WP:TARAGESLAW2.) EEng 19:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see below concerning Muphry's Law, EEng. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC).

Yeah, but I took the opportunity to rub it in by naming a second law after ol' Tarage. EEng 20:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

...Dammit. --Tarage (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I know there are some Japanese contributors with very poor English skills (of course there are also those with excellent English). It's certainly a problem. If their edits aren't numerous, would you consider improving the grammar yourself? Assuming the meaning is clear. About the copyvio: I see their comment, but that may actually be in good faith — they've never been to the website mentioned — fine — they may have copied from a three or four times removed copy of the material on a different website. Whenever I look for and find copyvio, I tend to get masses of hits, so that would be unsurprising. Anyway, it was quite a while back. I'm not sure what more to tell you, Tarage. My own personal opinion is that we should discourage users with abysmal English from contributing, but I think I'm in the minority there ("They mean well!"). Bishonen | talk 21:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC).

I hope what I said didn't sound discouraging. I just get urked when I go to a page and see long existing grammar issues. I don't really want to take on trying to babysit their edits right now, though I did undo a few. --Tarage (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

"I came across an editor who's grammar leaves much to be desired." *Cough.* ;) Valenciano (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Now, now. Don't nitpick. Bishonen | talk 13:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

That's "nit-pick". --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Compare also my edit summary. I really meant to say "piking nitts". But did you look up Valenciano's link to Muphry's law, RexxS? Pretty cool. Bishonen | talk 20:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

I did, Chère. It made me quite nostalgic about Usenet – Rexx first left his muddy dinoprints all over alt.rec.scuba. --RexxS (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's what I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nanashi_II&oldid=865267107 I just spent nearly 30 minutes trying to fix this summary, and I don't even know if it's correct. There are so many issues with wording and grammar that anyone trying to read it would be incapable of understanding what's going on. And if it took me this long to fix just one, imagine how much work it's going to take to fix all their edits. I really am not trying to discourage them from editing but this isn't helpful to Wikipedia. This is really bad. This is their most recent edit. I didn't even hunt for it! --Tarage (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Tarage, I think you may have misunderstood my comment; I was trying to express that IMO we should discourage editors with incomprehensible English from contributing, as harsh as that may sound. A lot of people seem to think that as long as somebody is trying to help the encyclopedia, they should be encouraged up to the hilt, never mind if the support they get uses up more time and energy from other editors than the result is worth. For myself, I think WP:CIR applies. If I were you, I'd take it to AN or ANI. Feel free to give them my regards. I'm just going to bed now, but if you do go to a noticeboard, I'll try to chime in tomorrow. Also, by getting more eyes on the problem, you may get some Japanese speakers offering to help. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC).

You're right, I did read that wrong. I'm gonna try to see if my correction post on their talk helps at all. If it doesn't... yeah... ANI might be where I have to do. I don't like cutting out people who want to contribute but that paragraph made my head hurt. --Tarage (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage: (I woke up, curse it.) Yeah. I think the way he responds to you[4] is very unpromising. If I understand him aright (always doubtful) he denies that there's a problem with his grammar and asks you to show "proof" that there is. As an explanation for why he rejects what you say, he adduces that other accustions have been false (copyvio), which makes him disinclined to believe your statements about faulty grammar, and asks you to "reconsider". Instead of, you know, asking you to help, for example. Really unpromising.

If your detailed example analysis doesn't help him, I think it's hopeless. The only reason I don't simply place a CIR block myself, with polite thanks for his efforts and suggestions for editing the Japanese Wikipedia instead, is that I think a majority would be against me, unless opinions on this problem have changed in recent years. Let me sleep on it. Then maybe tomorrow, after evaluating his next response, we could post a joint ANI filing (or just you if you prefer, since it's your baby) and propose that unless a competent Japanese mentor is willing to expend the time and effort, long-time, to guide him every step of the way, and unless he is willing to guided by a mentor — two very big if's — he should be blocked. Bishonen | talk 00:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC).

I would be more than happy with a joint filing should it come to that. I don't want anything resembling trying to get someone blocked as 'my baby'. Crass as I am, I actually don't enjoy seeing people blocked. I'd much rather see them become better editors. Sadly sometimes I let my anger and frustration get the best of me, as all have seen. But yeah, when he asked for "proof", I figured it was worth a half an hour of my time to show exactly what I was seeing to him. --Tarage (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since your long post, Tarage. I'll try to keep an eye out to see if they go back to their old ways, or if they answer constructively. And could you please let me know if you should notice any signs of socking? Bishonen | talk 19:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC).

Sure. --Tarage (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The response wasn't... great but not horrible either. Sounds like the editor might quit editing, which is unfortunate but probably for the best. --Tarage (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

These cases are sad. 😕 But, well, yes, I agree it may be for the best. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC).

...I'm afraid they've resumed adding bad grammar into articles. I'm all out of ideas. I think it's time for a block. --Tarage (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. I have been thinking about going to ANI and trying to find a Japanese speaker with good English who's willing to "mentor" the user — well, in practice, to translate everything he adds, either from his English (which perhaps a Japanese speaker can understand) or actually from the Japanese. But I can't believe it would work out. What a boring job it would be... not one I would actually advise anybody to take on. Particularly in view of how much the user edits, in different articles. It seems to me it would merely delay the inevitable block. So here we are. Thank you for trying, Tarage. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC).

Donald Trump

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article is under consensus required. Just an FYI. PackMecEng (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Are you saying that consensus is required to remove an entirely-duplicative paragraph sentence which literally somehow got copy-pastaed into the article twice? That strikes me as rules-lawyering beyond words. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Was my edit summary not clear, PackMecEng, or do you just think it's a good idea to troll me? A sentence in the article occurred twice in succession. The second occurrence was removed by a user who unfortunately didn't use an edit summary,[5] so another user mistakenly thought actual content had been removed and restored it.[6] I removed it again when I noticed the doubling. My edit summary was a reference to that of the user who restored the doubled sentence; theirs had been "no reason to remove this". I hope it's all clear now. With some effort, I'll assume that you're somehow trying to be helpful, and that you actually believe I'm not aware that our probably most controversial single article is under consensus required. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC).

The material was removed here, challenged via revision here, and then you reinstated it here. But eh WP:IAR and I do not care that much. Just trying to be helpful and thought it was funny. It of course should be removed but I couldn't help myself. PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't "challenged". (And if it had been, it wouldn't have been via "revision".) There's no need to invoke IAR, and no need to act like a troll either. Please just write me off as humor-impaired next time you want to be funny. Bishonen | talk 16:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) More importantly, PackMecEng, you're almost certainly in breach of Template talk:Ds/alert/doc #Usage: "Some pages and topics on Wikipedia are authorised for Arbitration Discretionary Sanctions (DS). Users editing these pages may be alerted that discretionary sanctions are in effect. You must use this template to do so" and WP:AC/DS #alert.dup: "Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. It is a sanctionable offence to deliberately or carelessly notify a user about sanctions that they are clearly already aware of. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

That only applies to the official alert. It was a technical breach of the sanction because in general any reversion is considered a challenge (per wording of "challenge (reversion)") but that is pedantic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: The official alert is the only alert allowed per WP:AC/DS #Alerts, and giving alerts is restricted in this way because of the possible chilling effect. There's no getting around the restriction by trying to make up an "unofficial" alert. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It is the only alert that counts - not the only alert allowed. People are allowed to inform people of the restrictions (and indeed the formal {{Ds/alert}} makes no mention of this specific restriction, being only a notification of general DS on WP:AP2, and so informing people of the specific restrictions is often necessary in a good faith manner to let people self-revert violations instead of dragging them to WP:AE) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, the documentation of {{DS alert}} is absolutely clear and I've already quoted it above. You must use this template to do so can hardly be read any other way, and when AGK wrote that, I don't believe he was under any misapprehension about the requirement to use the template to make other users aware. One reason why the template must be used is that it creates a log; and that is part of our protection against malicious, intimidatory or frivolous notifications. I'm quite certain ArbCom did not intend that editors could place "ad hoc" alerts willy-nilly. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally with regulars in that area you leave a friendly note before giving them a template see WP:DTR. But again I am up for your offer if you want to test it on ANI. Also as everyone (including me) has said this has no chance of going anywhere, nor was it meant to. PackMecEng (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

If you say so, that is unfortunate. Also RexxS really, that is what you see here? However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message I did not place a formal Ds template here since they would clearly be aware of the sanction they railed against in the past. PackMecEng (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Yes, in the opening post I see a clear example of "Users editing these pages may be alerted that discretionary sanctions are in effect". I don't believe it's possible to read your post as anything else. If you'd prefer, I could test opinion at ANI – when you get sanctioned as a result, you'll know I was right. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I am curious now, sure thing. Give it a go at ANI. PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, Bishonen is certainly aware of the American Politics Discretionary Sanctions as they have issued sanctions under them. But this is beyond stupid; "consensus required" doesn't prevent someone from removing an obvious mistake first added to the article this week. No admin nor the community would ever do anything about this even if you found some rule-lawyer way that it is not allowed; WP:IAR is a rule too. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm trying to decide whether this entire thread is an exercise in coordinated parody or irony or burlesque or satire or sarcasm or somesuch. EEng 20:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

On reflection I'm thinking it's most likely somesuch. EEng 20:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Can't it be all of the above? PackMecEng (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ScienceApe

Too lazy to fill out the WP:AE templates and such. The personal attacks here and here are quite obviously enough for a block, but he's also violateed his TBAN. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

And he posted again after given an explanation of how TBANs extend to talk pages. Not doing favours with this either. Sigh. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, I should've posted on their talk from the start instead of encouraging them back to the EW talk page. Still— ——SerialNumber54129 18:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

That lot was too much even for me. I've asked at WP:ANI #Personal attacks by User ScienceApe for an uninvolved admin to take some action. --RexxS (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

For crying out loud, it was just a topic ban from one bio..! Weird. But as Oshwah says, there was a lot more iceberg below. I've indeffed. Now I go indef Oshwah for referring to me as "he". Bishonen | talk 18:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC).

HA! Sorry about that... gotta love it when you actually go to type in "she" but because typo, it saved as "he". Good times... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Has telling people to fuck off ever resulted in an unblock? :)Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, people need to blow off steam sometimes. (But he'll have to do it at UTRS now, I've revoked tpa.) What worries me more is that the user seems to think Serial Number and I are one and the same, or perhaps that all who have disobliged him are one person. Maybe he doesn't notice the sigs. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC).

Eh, maybe he just forgot who he told to fuck off and who he merely called corrupt. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but was it me he told to grow a pair? It's really not clear. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC).

I'm convinced you already have the biggest pair... Metaphorically speaking, of course. I was alerted to this with a bit of a "I caught one this big" post on my talk yesterday and when I looked at the interactions... Well.... Let's just say "wow". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

- MrX 🖋 13:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm pleased to recollect I was in the running for Wikipedia Review's "Balls of Steel" award once many years ago. Even though I don't remember which of my many vicious actions that was for... The main thing is it made Bishzilla quite envious. Nice big pear, MrX! I'd quite like to grow one of those. Bishonen | talk 13:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC).

Could I ask you to look at something...

A thread at BLPN: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Milo Yiannopoulos. The editor is name calling (calling me a communist and "unbalanced"), lying through their teeth (I laid it out in my first comment there), accusing me of using personal attacks and Masem has apparently decided to encourage their trolling. I have no idea why, but now that they've gotten some encouragement, this is likely to never stop. Note that this is the user who once told me that "Liberalism is a form of mental illness, you will never see reality though its haze...." because I tried to explain how basic statistics work to them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Oh dear. That editor is being disruptive, but the thread as a whole is not encouraging, either. I've left a comment: I'm afraid I don't have the time for the detailed review necessary before blocking someone with a long track record. After a brief look, a block seems necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I'll save you some trouble: This is how this editor behaves whenever they encounter anything even remotely political. I had thought about filing an ANI and did a little legwork, but admin attention is admin attention. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Well Drmies went and gave him a warning. That doesn't rule out an immediate sanction, but I'm inclined to wait to see what they do next, and sanction if necessary unless their behavior improves immediately. But that's just me, if Zilla wants to pocket him now I'm not standing in the way. Sorry, I know that's frustrating, but since the net result we're aiming for is a reduction in drama, caution is indicated. Vanamonde (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Young Vanamonde93, pocketing by Bishzilla is reward, or possibly consolation, not sanction! Pocket very cosy, residence there much coveted and envied! [Bishzilla thinks about it. A little worriedly:] Isn't it? bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 13:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC).

@Vanamonde93: Not at all. I don't much care what's done, so long as the trolling (or indistinguishable editing) stops. Thanks for looking in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was away, especially since Alex Shih has given the user a mere 48-hour block, which seems a little ridiculous, given the attacks on MjolnirPants. Since Alex's block rationale only mentions trolling at BLPN, I suppose he may not have read this thread which followed on Drmies's warning. Bishonen | talk 13:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC).

I hadn't read that either. I just assumed Digby took the warning Vanamonde mentioned to heart, since they hadn't added to that thread again. Truth be told, I really don't know what to say about this situation. I don't really plan to ask ANI to indef or topic ban this guy, but WP:CIR certainly comes to mind, reading that thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I suppose you could take the line that, given Digby's prior clean block record, Alex's short block might be sufficient warning about those sort of attacks. Personally, I think WP:ROPE will now apply, and with their current mode of interaction with other editors, it will be just a matter of time before they get indeffed. Either way, it will be one less thing to worry about. --RexxS (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Well said, RexxS. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking at their contribs, it seems to me that there's at least a chance they'll just go back to editing automotive and engine topics. But I wouldn't bet money on that. Anyways, here's hoping we're wrong . ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Santanu99

Hello, Bish. Would you mind hiding this farewell message of theirs on their talk page, and remove TPA? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. Sometimes I can be useful. Vanamonde (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

For info: Special:Contributions/2405:205:6325:128D:F075:C1E6:D96A:2A96, probably needs an eye on it in 31 hours time. --RexxS (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

And the other eye on the /64 range, I guess (there's nothing yet, I just looked). New admins tend to be cautious, which perhaps isn't a bad thing. Thank you, Dino. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC).

I'll explain to User:L235 that he might as well block the entire /64 range for an IPv6 when I get a chance.

As it's one of their popular articles, I did a check of Special:History/Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management for any more edits from any IPs and there's no sign so far. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I'll do the /64 when I get a chance – I'm told cookie blocks should generally make /64s not as needed, but I do generally do /64s for block evasion cases. Was very busy when I was pinged to this IP on IRC. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Kevin. I saw that too — in the admins' newsletter, wasn't it? — but it wasn't very crisply put, as I remember it — as you say, there was a "generally" in there, and maybe a "probably" as well. I have noticed that if a single IPv6 is blocked, it often happens that we don't get any more from that /64 range. So what I do since then is I only block the range if I see other IPs from it helping to vandalize. But life was really simpler before — the message was meant to be helpful, of course, but for me, the result was that I'm now less sure what to do. 😐 Bishonen | talk 19:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC).

P.S., I see you've already got a sock account asking for "justice" on your page, Kevin, congratulations. I've declined their unblock request. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC).

There's no harm in blocking in the /64 so you can continue to do so. Essentially, it is kinda easy to get around a cookie block if you have the barest of technical knowledge, hence the "generally" and "probably" in it working to stop vandalism from a /64 range. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thanks, Galobtter. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC).

Nomination of Becky Sharp (character) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Becky Sharp (character) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Becky Sharp (character) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CapnZapp (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey

Just for the record, I appreciate you objecting to Lourdes' threat in that close. Lourdes' threat seemed so over the top that I briefly considering asking for the block, just so I wouldn't have to listen to the hysterics in that threat any more. Seeing that several other editors also took issue with that threat was quite encouraging. Seeing you come along and add your note was a reminder that not all of the pointless drama has to end with things worse than before. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That's good. It felt quite weird to have my unclose blanked and reverted for no obvious reason and to then be accused of "fighting", so I'm glad you at least liked it. Bishonen | talk 21:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC).

The funny thing is that pretty much everyone edit warring over the close had good intentions (even, I'm sure, Lourdes, though their methods were highly questionable), and were all just trying to get the thread closed on a rationale note.

Softlavender objected to the demand in the close, and had objected to the block threat.

Ivan had a much better close rationale worked out, and I'd previously asked them to close with their message to me made "official".

Floq was just being level-headed and trying to end the edit war.

Mr rnddude was trying to respect my clearly expressed wishes to see it closed (which was actually more commendable than it seems, given that our last interaction was me banning him from my talk page).

Lourdes was probably just trying to lay down the law, and get thread closed. They probably took my response as an implicit agreement to their terms (though they'd have blocked me for sure if they'd seen what I was about to respond with before I edit conflicted with Softlavender...)

The whole thing turned from a pond full of hysterics to a straight-up comedy of errors right there at the end. Which was amusing, to no small extent, even though it was also frustrating. I'm just glad it's over. And yes, I meant what I said about being more chill in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Favour, please?

I'm presently mentoring pre-university students for Wikimedia's participation in Google Code-in 2018. I'm teaching them the Lua programming language used in Wikipedia pages. Unfortunately one student has created two identical pages in the Module: namespace. I've moved one of them to the proper place, but to keep things tidy, the other needs to be deleted G6 (housekeeping) as it's merely a duplicate. Sadly, you can't mark module pages for CSD because they won't accept a template.

So, would you be kind enough to examine Module:Sandbox/Safan41 (the right one) and delete Module:Sandbox/Safan41/Safan41 as a duplicate, please? The extra text is mine, trying to stop Safan41 from using it. This is one of those exceedingly rare occasions that I could really use admin rights, rather than bothering others with a simple job that I'm not allowed to do. --RexxS (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

RexxS, you're not an admin? Really? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If I had started editing Wikipedia at the age of 54, instead of at the age of 55, I would probably have volunteered for adminship ten years ago. Since then, however, the process has cranked up its requirements to something approaching either sainthood or perfect blandness. I'm afraid I'm a poor match for either of those, and have little inclination to take part in the hazing that has characterised RfA for far too long. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I know — I won't delete it, and then you'll have to apply for adminship and do it yourself! Bishonen | talk 11:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC).

It's pretty clear that RexxS is universally disliked, so his Eeyore attitude is probably for the best. :) Softlavender (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Swenglish

Hi Bishonen

SergeWoodzing has asked me to contact you regarding their stated intention to eliminate errors made because of Swenglish translations whereverer I can and no matter how far they have spread. [7]

The problem as I see it is, these errors seem to include terms that have spread to common English usage. That seems to be what no matter how far they have spread means. So by the practice and policy of English Wikipedia, they are not errors at all. And SergeWoodzing claims to have "corrected" hundreds if not thousands of them.

Are you willing to become involved? Andrewa (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewa: I'd rather not, sorry. I've seen Serge's pings, and in a way I'm touched by them, but when I last involved myself in his problems, it turned into a lot of (to me) uncongenial work in fields I'm not from myself interested in, such as royalty, nobility, and show business, and ended in off-site acrimony. Some of that came from his friends, and eventually also from himself. I don't feel inclined to become entangled with that again. I will say this: I believe Serge is a well-meaning editor, and his knowledge of Swedish and English is impeccable. I haven't seen much of his work correcting Swenglish in articles on English Wikipedia, probably because his interests and mine are so different. But in general, I believe such work is a boon, as far from all Swedes editing here have perfect English. Well, I'm sure you've seen that for yourself, for instance on Adville's page. Do you specifically need an admin to assist you? For highly competent bilingual Swedish/English users who might be up for helping, and who don't have baggage with either Serge or Adville (AFAIK), I'll mention User:Bonadea and User:Thomas.W. Bishonen | talk 11:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC).

Thanks for the reply.

As I said, I approached you entirely because SergeWoodzing suggested this. He did point out that you were an admin, but it was not my idea to contact you at all, it was his. I was hopeful that you would venture an opinion on the particular issues at hand, as he would presumably take notice, but respect your desire not to do so.

There are two questions that you would be able to answer (but feel free not to).

First, does Swedish Wikipedia follow the recommendations of the Swedish Language Council, and if so how closely? (That seems harmless enough.)

Secondly, you say you haven't seen much of his work correcting Swenglish in articles on English Wikipedia, but you're ahead of me, I haven't seen any of it and he has provided no diffs, just a refusal to discuss on his talk page. So any diffs of the edits you have seen would be appreciated. email them if you're unwilling to discuss on-wiki, and I will not disclose my source of course.

Thanks again for your reply. Andrewa (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I know very little about the Swedish Wikipedia. My experience there has been brief and disagreeable, and is now far behind me, barring the small additions/corrections I may still occasionally make to articles that interest me. And, well, when I said I haven't seen much of Serge correcting Swenglish at enwiki, I really meant I don't remember seeing any of it. Sorry, Andrewa, I should have been more precise. Bishonen | talk 13:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC).

I'm sorry that your experience there was brief and disagreeable, and so of course has mine been regarding Swedish issues on English Wikipedia to date. It occurs to me that perhaps this is a common story. Cross-cultural issues can be very tricky. Language and culture are inextricable one from the other, and it is natural to assume that what is good manners (for example) in one's own culture will be seen similarly in the other, and to apply the phrasing etc. of one's own mother tongue to one's second language. And paradoxically, as a result it is also common for speakers of English as a second language to prefer constructions that differ from their mother tongue to others that, to a native speaker, are equally acceptable and equally elegant, or even more elegant. To the speaker of English as a second language they are suspicious and avoided just because they are familiar. This can even be so even after many decades of English immersion. The initial language programming is never completely lost. Her English is too good, he said, that clearly indicates that she is foreign - Enry Iggins. Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Andrewa: The relevant Swedish Wikipedia guidelines can be found at sv:WP:Skrivregler, and derives its mandate from their Manual of Style (which is a guideline rather than a policy). The short version is that they consult external language guides like sv:TT-språket, sv:Svenska skrivregler (bok), and sv:Svenska Akademiens ordlista över svenska språket and obey the rules described there when they are in agreement; and develop local consensus when the external guidelines fail to specify or are conflicting. This is essentially the same as on English Wikipedia. The existence of a prescriptive formal language authority in Sweden (vs. English) has relatively limited relevance in practice: well established style guides for English actually tend to be more prescriptive in practical effect for any given working vocabulary of comparable size to contemporary Swedish. However, for any given specific case (as I believe there was a specific detail that prompted this line of questions), the Swedish Language Council's precepts may be useful to determine which of otherwise equivalent alternatives would be more correct. --Xover (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to confirm my general suspicions. Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

email

Yeah. No. Non starter. Crashed and burned before. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Right. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC).

User talk:Safechem industries

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Cahk. Done. I've reverted to their blanking of the page, and added a tpa revoked template. Bishonen | talk 12:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC).

Block me

I've now edited four times since I decided to stop. I've read your essay. Would you please block me and my main account? Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You've read my subpage and are comfortable with my conditions? All of them? OK. I need to know for how long you want to be blocked. And also: are you speaking for both your accounts? Checking... oh, gee... for all three of your accounts, as mentioned on your userpage? Regardless, there will in your case be a waiting period of 24 hours from when you reply below (or by e-mail, which is always an option in case you want to speak more personally). I'm going out right now, but the clock will start as soon as you respond. Bishonen | talk 13:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC).

Yes, I've read it; Yes, I mean all of my accounts, I just forgot about the Yeshua one, and for as long as you're willing to. Indef is fine by me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

But have you read it carefully? As I say there, six months is the maximum term I'll consider. And I'll only do that in extreme cases, since I place very hard blocks (no e-mail, no talkpage access, and the log will contain a warning that any admin who considers unblocking is asked to consult with me first). Will three months do you? Bishonen | talk 15:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC).

Improve the project Bish. Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

If you have the stomach to read through my entire email, then you'll understand that I know exactly what I'm asking for, and that I'll take 3 months. Just like 6 months, the urge to edit will be long gone by the time it expires. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, MPants at work I for one will miss you. Hopefully you'll return in < 3 years, unlike me.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

“You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave.” Apologies for quoting an Eagles song. And, I’ve been wrong before. (Still feel guilty about starting that War in 1812.) Mjölnir, whatever is best for you. O3000 (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• 3 months is fine. Maybe people will stop asking me to reconsider if I only ask to be blocked for 3 months. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: "We are all just prisoners here, of our own device".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• MjolnirPants, your accounts have been blocked for three months. Bishonen | talk 14:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC).

Anonymous user reverting my edits again

Hi, you very kindly helped a week or so ago when someone was randomly reverting my edits, especially those on the page for Heaton Moor. You also kindly invited me to mention here if it started again. It has - three reverts today, including two of my edits which were fixes for obvious vandalism. Are you able to help again? Many thanks. C0pernicus (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, C0pernicus. I've blocked the most recent IP at Heaton Moor for 72 hours. Please let me know again if there is more. It seems a little ridiculous to semiprotect an article like that, but I will if it becomes necessary. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC).

Many thanks. C0pernicus (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sir Sputnik

Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes

Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes

Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Keilana

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

ARBCOM

There's only one candidate at the moment, (and they have negligible recent experience). Would Bishzilla consider running? She would occupy all vacant seats by herself; problem solved. Vanamonde (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes! Bishilla for Arbcom!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe in another ten years. Bishzilla did run for ArbCom in 2008, and is still resting from the effort of it, I'm afraid. You can see her candidate statement here, and she answered the community's questions very ambitiously.[8] Understandably, there was much wailing and weeping when she withdrew from the election, but she realised then (and still realises now) that actually arbitrating might be even more arduous than answering questions. So no go. The old thing is too lazy. Bishonen | talk 18:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC).

Are you sure? I could arrange a kitten and Toblerone telethon to see if we could drum up enough donations to make it worth her while.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What are you hinting, Ponyo, and how did you know "Toblerone" is a dogwhistle for lining one's pockets in Bishzilla's ancient homeland?[9]? There will be no kitten and Toblerone-gate! (She doesn't even eat kittens very often. Too small!) Bishonen | talk 20:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC).

Sure, Zilla is probably still exhasuted, but maybe one of the others in the Bish menagerie? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

OMG, don't encourage them! Bishonen | talk 20:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC).

Given the fact that I appear to be "universally disliked", I thought I ought to have a run at ArbCom some time – that's one prerequisite ticked (and also in the interests of broadening dinosaur representation of course). --T-RexxS (rawr) 22:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

But, but, Zilla's pocket would be such a good cat bed! Babou 🐱 (meow! 🐾) 19:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Pocket catflap always open to cute little Babou 🐱! And cute dignified little old dino very much encouraged to run for ArbCom! None too soon! Get 'Zilla's weighty vote for sure. bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 04:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC).

• My, has it really been 10 YEARS since Bishzilla ran for ArbCom? Crazy. I'm getting old, I'm afraid. Tex (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hello, Tex! We're all getting old, yes. Except Bishzilla, who always was. Bishonen | talk 21:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC).

File:David Garrick as Hamlet.gif

Hi, is there a goodreason to retain this local copy, when there were 2 other versions, in higher quality and higher resolution versions on Wikimedia Commons?

There's absolutely no issue in retaining versions like this though, I was just puzzled that no-one had noticed before now. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

'Shonen uploaded the file locally in 2004, while File:David Garrick as Hamlet.jpg only dates back to 2008, and File:David Garrick in Hamlet (Shakespeare, Act 1, Scene 4) MET DP860143.jpg was donated last year, so she wouldn't have known that higher resolution versions would be later uploaded with different filenames. I don't expect she's aware of them. --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I expect I uploaded it for Reputation of William Shakespeare. (How I enjoyed creating that humble effort centuries ago, and how it has grown by the efforts of many hands since then!) Indeed I wasn't aware that there are now other, better versions; please list it for deletion, ShakespeareFan00, and thank you. Pity none of the versions are now used in the article, having apparently been ousted by the much duller File:David Garrick as Benedick.png, which I also uploaded in 2004. BTW, Benedick is apparently also missing most of the information that it ought to have. [Plaintively:] RexxS fix with some RexxS magic? I don't know who the artist is. Bishonen | talk 04:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC).

That ones also got a duplicate at Commons , I left a note here, File_talk:David_Garrick_as_Benedick.png, but would appreciate someone that can assist me in finding a reliable source for the artists life-time, so the information at Commons can be udpated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I've added info to File:David Garrick as Benedick.png, which is a cropped version of the Commons file.

@ShakespeareFan00: I've left a note at the File talk page, but the best source is the Biographie universelle – readable at https://fr.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Michaud_-_Biographie_universelle_ancienne_et_moderne_-_1843_-_Tome_13.djvu/373&action=edit – is that enough for you to fix the Commons file information? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

ARBCOM II

bishapod talk to your inner fish needs to be encouraged to develop. Bishapod gets my vote. Has the required intellect for ARBCOM or DEFCOM or whatever it is. I will vote Bishapod. Suggest campaign slogan Bishapod is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills - but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones that allow Bishapod to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Bishapod apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendants, the four-legged vertebrates - a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals and humans. Bishapod knows where you are coming from, don't matter your species. Vote Bishapod, the inclusive one. Simon Adler (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Vote Little Stupid?? Gee. Since I just checked out Bishzilla's campaign statement of ten years ago, I can do no better than quote it: "'Zilla have own sockpuppet: Bishapod a k a Little Stupid. Irritating little user, very stupid, always embarrass 'Zilla, regret creating." As for needing to develop, the first thing he did after he had developed slightly was create the regrettable Darwintwins, over whom he has no control. (Don't suggest they run! For good reasons, they're not allowed in Wikipedia space!) Diversity is not everything. (PS, I think some of the italics may have been unintended, fix.) Bishonen | talk 12:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC).

Angus Gardner

Hi. Thank you for protecting Angus Gardner ten days ago. I saw that at the WP:RFPP page you mentioned protecting it for 3 months [10], but the protection at the page is set for 1 year.[11]. I am not sure if that was intentional or not. Personally I would be happy to see every current referee protected for as long as they are refereeing, so I was very tempted to ignore this (partly why I am so late in bringing it to your attention). However I feel something like that should be intentional so thought I would double check. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Er.. no, I did protect for 3 months, Aircorn. Did you perhaps look only at the years (=protected on date in 2018, protected until date in 2019)? It's protected from 4 November 2018 until 4 February 2019 — that is 3 months. By my lights, that's a long protection, considering that it has only ever been protected for a week before.([12] — scroll down to see the log.) It's a BLP, and the vandalism had been fairly nasty (childish but nasty), which is why I yanked it up from a week to 3 months. About current referees being protected — you may well be right — but it takes a lot of abuse for a whole-year protection. Maybe current referees should be pending changes protected as long as they're refereeing? You could suggest it. (I won't, since sports isn't my thing at all.) Bishonen | talk 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC).

Oops, sorry, you're completely right. I must be stuck in some form of time warp. I agree pending changes would be the way to go. Where would the best place be to ask? AIRcorn (talk)

@Aircorn: Oh, rats — I thought you might ask that, and the fact is I don't know. For a single article, you simply ask at WP:RFPP, of course. But for doing it on principle, for all referees, I really can't say. Look, why don't we leave my semi at Angus Gardner until some time in January, and then I PC it indefinitely? (You'll have to remind me.) Bishonen | talk 20:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) As having PC-prot as default/on-demand for a whole class of articles (like referees) would be a significant policy change, IMHO, your best bet would be to air the subject at somewhere central like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or perhaps somewhere more focused like Wikipedia talk:Protection policy (although you'll get more response at VPP). HTH. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for the advice. I will do some research and might start an RFC at the VPP. AIRcorn (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Falconfly

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=868697100&oldid=868695887 This is pretty unambiguous. I asked them to retract it and they refused. Given that they are already banned from commons for... legal threats... I think a block here is needed. --Tarage (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC).

Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

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.Lolifan (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The e-mail is about a creep on Wikipedia who uses it to target victims. Lolifan (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've replied, Lolifan. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC).

Thank you for responding, Bishonen. I'll let ArbCom know. Lolifan (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

About MjolnirPants' self-requested block

Per this section, do you think that you might also want to full-protect his talk page for the duration of his block, if he wants to stop his interaction? It's probably OK if you don't, but we should let his talkpage go silent. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 23:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I respect his wishes, will not ask him to return and would prefer if his TP went silent. But, this is up to him. Let us all go silent about going silent. O3000 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• A user has asked for this on his page, SemiHypercube, and I hope people will respect the request and MjolnirPants' obvious wishes, but I won't erect administrative barbed wire around the page until it seems needed. It's better, IMO, to show trust in people's good judgment and good will, unless and until there is reason not to. Bishonen | talk 02:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC).

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bishonen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Truth about Stefano Gabbana

I posted information on the page of Stefano Gabbana. The information is confirmed by The Guardian, NBC, CNN, SCMP, etc. The modification is NOT vandalism. Please read the news and do not keep deleting the information and covering the truth.Jensonw (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not the droid you are looking for, Jensonw. I haven't removed a single pixel of text, let alone "kept" deleting information, at Stefano Gabbana; all I did was semiprotect the article against disruptive editing by IPs. In the edit history, you can see Acroterion removed your text. Acroterion has also warned you on your page, so that would be the right place to respond to him and discuss your additions to the article. Oh, look, I see you have posted the protest above word for word at Acroterion's page as well. The same accusation levelled at two administrators doesn't make any sense at all, so now I'm confused. I agree that your additions were inappropriate, by the way. Please read our Biographies of living persons policy. Bishonen | talk 02:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC).

Jensonw appears to be too wrapped up in trying to promote outrage to be very concerned about who's done what. I've given an example of what a neutrally-written account might look like, we'll see whether they'll buy into something that might comply with policy, or whether the Truth according to Jensonw can only be written in terms of moral judgment. Acroterion (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, admins have absolute power over me on Wikipedia. Admins can ban me and block me. I can do nothing but feel sorry about Wikipedia.Jensonw (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. You can try posting to the right admin, for a start, instead of somebody random (=me). Bishonen | talk 02:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC).

Indefinitely blocking me

Bish, I saw your name at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Once I finish up what I feel I need to do on Wikipedia (within the next couple, few or several months), will you consider indefinitely blocking me? I think I've had enough of Wikipedia, and one way to ensure that I don't return is indefinitely blocking this account. I won't be tempted to create another; my whole identity on Wikipedia is with this one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer, sorry to hear you're coming to the end of your tether. No, actually, I won't block you indefinitely, because I don't do that. Six months is the maximum term I will consider. Please see User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks, which contains my principles for these blocks. Bishonen | talk 09:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC).

Check an article

Hi, Bishonen. Seasons greetings. Could you help me? I am trying to reorganize Planet Nine to have logical sections. What’s there has grown chaotically as discoveries were published, resulting in a convoluted mess. I need the eye of a non-astrophysicist. Lurker comments are welcomed. Jehochman ^Talk 17:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC).

@Jehochman: Well, I think I'd better put my observations here for your consideration, since I'm speaking as a 13-year-old reader (I think that's supposed to be Wikipedia's ideal reader), and I don't want to be torn apart by grown-up astrophysicists on article talk. So:

Lead

Better not say "the clustering of the orbits" as if that's something known to the reader. The "clustering" needs to be mentioned/explained in the first paragraph.

I don't understand what it means to say that it was "scattered" onto an eccentric orbit. I mean, it's supposed to be big and round and whole — not scattered. Is it a term of art?

TOC

I agree the TOC needs to be clearer and tighter. Specifically, how about "Origin" —> "Possible origin", and "Alternate hypotheses" —> "Alternate explanations for the effects" ? It's true that "Previous models with additional planets" wouldn't fit into that, but then it already doesn't fit. Shouldn't it be its own top-level header? It's history, so it should theoretically be high up, though the trouble with that is that reading about the historical background is a lot less interesting than reading about the Superearth itself. Maybe shorten it drastically (since there are "main articles" that cover it) and move it up?

It would be nice if "Searches for additional extreme trans-Neptunian objects" could also be packed away somewhere where it doesn't interrupt the main narrative as much.

(So are you following the fates of InSight?) Bishonen | talk 18:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC).

Kama Sutra article

Hi Bish: some young fans of Bishzilla want to know if she has a twitter account (they apparently searched for it already and couldn't find it, I was going to send you an email about this but must blame distractions). The two kids are super impressed by her fridge and the cozy pocket! On a less serious note, I was trying to change the title of the Kama Sutra article, one I am reviewing and updating these days. The title that is predominantly found in the RS is Kamasutra ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17] etc), consistent with the title of the original text. The word split and capitalization of the second part is uncommon. I tried to move it. The message I get is this move needs some admin action. FWIW, I checked the archives and talk page, there is no relevant discussion on why Kama Sutra, rather than Kamasutra as the title. I see Hijiri88 created a redirect in 2006. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: thanks WBG for the try... but one editor has challenged the move. I will start a discussion on the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd better await consensus, then. I'm frankly not sure whether it needs an admin or not, considering the history of the target page. It's a mess. Tell little fans welcome use catflap to access cosy pocket! Bishonen | talk 16:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC).

Правила Википедии (in Russian)

Одни правила Википедии прямо противоречат другим, и выполнение одних правил всегда приводит к нарушению других, что не является нарушением правил. Так, например, наличие административных прав позволяет одним участникам принимать решения без консенсуса с другими, что приводит к возможности злоупотреблений, а разрешение игнорировать все правила (пятый столп, или викиидеология - либеральная пятая колонна) приводит в том числе к нарушению этичного поведения и к конфликтам. Блокировки участников и удаления страниц снижают популярность проекта в обществе и качество материалов. Одним из сомнительных факторов в русском разделе Википедии является так же оплачиваемое участие.

Жёсткие правила не являются недостатком, если все участники их придерживаются, но поскольку правила противоречат друг другу и сами себя нейтрализуют, то фактически начинают действовать другие, не оглашённые закономерности, основанные на произволе участников, ограниченном их уровнем образования и нравственности, техническими условиями ресурса и законами окружающего мира. При этом малое количество участников с дополнительными правами ограничивают добавление информации, иногда вопреки улучшению статей, но не могут осуществить полный контроль над проектом, поэтому в остальной части Википедии большинство обычных пользователей могут бесконтрольно добавлять всякую информацию. В основном люди делают больше хороших правок, улучшающих статьи, именно за счёт этого Википедия и развивается.

В общем и целом, правила вторичны по отношению к целям Википедии. И это означает, что для достижения цели все средства хороши.

Одна из проблем Википедии - это подмена истинности и объективности информации на авторитетность.

Абсолютная истинность - это идеальное состояние, которого нельзя достичь в силу разных ограничений. Но это вовсе не значит, что не нужно стремиться к истине.

Истина имеет уникальное свойство: если люди стремятся к истинности и объективности, их субъективные мнения всё меньше отличаются и содержат меньше противоречий. Люди, ищущие истину, рано или поздно приходят к единому мнению. В споре рождается истина.

Если участники спора не могут прийти к единому мнению, это может означать:

   Недостаточный уровень знаний. Участники могут имеют недостаточно знаний в данной области. Наука открыла ещё не все законы, и мы многого можем не знать. Чтобы преодолеть это, нужно получать образование, учиться и познавать новую информацию об окружающем мире и его законах.
   Недостаточный уровень нравственности. Некоторые из участвующих в обсуждении могут не стремиться привести своё субъективное мнение к объективности. Следует учитывать, что доказательство не обязательно предполагает истинность. Доказывать можно и нечто, не соответствующее истине, причём вполне успешно. Но к истине это отношения не имеет.

Если по каким-то причинам не удаётся преодолеть противоречия в различных вопросах, в этом случае нужно придерживаться правил этики, чтобы избежать конфликтов, и попытаться продолжить поиск истины. Если нельзя достичь истины сейчас, это не значит, что её невозможно будет достичь в будущем. LllKSTlll (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• @LllKSTlll: Are you aware that this is the English Wikipedia? If you're not able to communicate in English, I suggest you contribute to the Russian Wikipedia instead. Bishonen | talk 21:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC).

They can't. I guess after the de. and ru.wiki blocks they've now picked en.wiki to post their "musings".-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Short synopsis: It's a long rant about rules on the Russian Wikipedia, what they are, aren't and ought to be, plus complaints about administrator abuse and paid editing there. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm sure it was well-intentioned. To save everybody else from having to Google translate, here's what it says:

Wikipedia Rules

Some Wikipedia rules directly contradict others, and the implementation of some rules always leads to a violation of others, which is not a violation of the rules. For example, the presence of administrative rights allows some participants to make decisions without consensus with others, which leads to the possibility of abuse, and permission to ignore all the rules (the fifth pillar, or wikideology - the liberal fifth column) leads, inter alia, to the violation of ethical behavior and conflicts. . Locking participants and deleting pages reduces the project’s popularity in the community and the quality of materials. One of the dubious factors in the Russian section of Wikipedia is also paid participation.

Strict rules are not a disadvantage if all participants adhere to them, but since the rules contradict each other and neutralize themselves, then other, non-announced laws based on the arbitrariness of the participants, limited by their level of education and morality, technical conditions of the resource and laws, start to act. the world around us. At the same time, a small number of participants with additional rights restrict the addition of information, sometimes despite the improvement of articles, but they cannot exercise full control over the project, so most ordinary users can uncontrollably add any information to the rest of Wikipedia. Mostly people make more good edits that improve articles, it is due to this that Wikipedia is developing.

In general, the rules are secondary to the goals of Wikipedia. And this means that to achieve the goal all means are good.

One of the problems of Wikipedia is the substitution of truth and objectivity of information for credibility.

Absolute truth is an ideal state that cannot be achieved due to various limitations. But this does not mean that one should not strive for the truth.

Truth has a unique property: if people strive for truth and objectivity, their subjective opinions differ less and contain less contradictions. People seeking the truth, sooner or later come to a consensus. In a dispute, truth is born.

If the parties to the dispute cannot reach a consensus, this may mean:

• Insufficient level of knowledge. Participants may not have enough knowledge in this area. Science has not yet discovered all the laws, and we may not know much. To overcome this, you need to get an education, learn and learn new information about the world and its laws.
• Lack of morality. Some of the participants in the discussion may not seek to bring their subjective opinion to objectivity. It should be borne in mind that evidence does not necessarily imply truth. You can prove something that does not correspond to the truth, and quite successfully. But this has nothing to do with the truth.

If for some reason it is not possible to overcome contradictions in various issues, in this case, you must adhere to the rules of ethics to avoid conflicts, and try to continue the search for truth. If truth cannot be reached now, it does not mean that it cannot be achieved in the future.

Fascinating essay, and quite unrealistic. --RexxS (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You're sure it was well-intentioned, really? Well, if you go deep enough, I suppose everything is on some level well-intentioned. Thank you for your useful information, Ponyo — I feel I now understand better where the user is coming from. Bishonen | talk 14:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC).

Discretionary sanction on Lauren Southern talk page

I did not see the warning this until after the last edit. At the end of the BLP I said there doesn't appear to be a BLP issue here and that I would continue the conversation as far as LEAD and NPOV goes. Nobody there objected to that plan. I'm not sure I understand how I "severely or persistently violated Wikipedia policy". I asked you this initially and received no clear response. WP:BLUDGEON is not a policy. I've participated on a number of 3rd opinions and have seen some pretty lengthy and heated exchanges over seemingly trivial details. Based on my experience, I would not consider this talk page a lengthy discussion nor an example of WP:BLUDGEON, but I could be wrong. I felt I was understanding the others position and we were actually making progress, having a WP:civil discussion, following the guidelines of WP:TALK#USE, WP:TPG#YES and WP:TPNO and moving towards a consensus without edit warring. Had you let things play out a little longer I think you would have been surprised. Perhaps the fact that this article is somewhat political there is a different standard. I realize you are probably very busy, but I would like to discuss this a bit further.Dig _deeper ^talk 02:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Answered on your page. (Please use the colons properly. I've fixed it for you.) Bishonen | talk 09:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC).

Remember Me? I remember you!

Hello Bish! After years of being busy along with maintaining a technologically bereft state, I am ready and willing and ABLE to throw some time into this project again. I am looking for a sponsor in good standing to nominate me for administrator responsibilities. You are the first person I have asked, but I plan to let Slim V and DMCDevit know that I am "back" as well. It's been awhile, but after some English Lit. credits, my writing style is MUCH better than it once was. You could also count on my continued stalwart attitude concerning the improvement of the project through reversion and cleanup of vandalism, and the kind of guidance I have been able to provide to newbies and certain problematic editors who I think I was able to help become productive and genteel in their editing here. In short, I wish to be the kind of admin I always was. Questions, comments and ideas are appreciated. Talk to you soon... Best Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Please, don't even consider it until you've got some content contributions under your belt. The Wikipedia of 2016 isn't the Wikipedia of 2005, and unless and until you've got some kind of evidence to demonstrate that you understand the current approach to sourcing, writing, and editor conduct, the RFA participants are unlikely to look very favourably on you. Given that you have a grand total of three mainspace edits in the past year, two of which were minor edits and the third of which was an unsourced claim that somebody had died, an RFA is unlikely to get a single support. ‑ Iridescent 19:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Rather than content generation, most of my administrative actions in the past centered on reversion of vandalism, warning problematic editors and blocking incorrigible and combative editors. It had very little to do with content creation, in fact.

Going over the new improved edit counter I see that virtually none of the content I have created has been removed/ reverted. I go for quality over quantity.

This project is not some kind of contest to me. It needs help, and care and improvement constantly, and that is my only motivation. The main difference I perceive in the Wikipedia 2018 is an unsettling feeling that it has become somehow elitist... Based on terms of endearment to the "community" rather than competence and willingness to do the work. Thus, I have asked a couple of respected Wikipedians whom I worked closely with in the past, and who know my intentions are only to improve the project. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know you have good intentions, and I'm glad to see you back, Hamster Sandwich. Hey, have you seen how to make thin hamster for sandwich? But as for going for admin, I agree completely with Iridescent. Look at a few recent RFA's and see what people expect, and what makes them oppose. You need to do some recent content work, and also preferably to show your good judgment in places like WP:ANI. As Iridescent says, it's a different place now. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC).

THIN HAMSTER!!! So Awesome! Such assiduous petting!! JOY!! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Aw, Hamster Sandwich, you're the man all right. I knew you'd love "assiduously". Bishonen | talk 21:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC).

Bish, too much! TOO MUCH!! What a bunch of dicks I dealt with today. If you'd like to reconnect, name a venue outside of this place, and it would be a joy and a pleasure. I am withdrawing from WP... Recoiling would be more accurate... Recoiling in a kind of revulsion. I will never edit a single thing again. I will continue to spend endless days reading, but I will never augment WP. I am loathe to write another single word. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) It's very, very difficult to pass RFA nowadays without at least 10,000 edits -- that hasn't happened in over 1.5 years, and even that one was a special case. It's also very very difficult to pass RFA without a clear current commitment to, and knowledge of, the project. I agree with looking at lots of RFAs, as many as you can, starting with the most recent and going backwards. It's quite tough at RFA now, and you don't want to set yourself up for grief. Softlavender (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Not even going to bother... My new plan is to go whining from place to place when I think an admin needs to take action. Which as you know will probably be A LOT. Everytime I see something that needs to be reverted, every time I see something that needs an admins hand, I will be whinging and moaning and... well you get the picture. Things that would normally be an easy fix will be dropped into a variety of laps. For example... my removal of some nonsense at The Ley School page... "Can someone please remove those two extraneous words?". Going forward, that will be a request at some Administrator page or other. Because I can't look at vandalism in the project and do nothing. That would be irresponsible. Since the little "Keep me logged in" button (a new feature to me...) will keep me logged in for a year, no need to edit "anonymously" anymore as well! Happy Days! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This further demonstrates your unsuitability for adminship in more ways than one. Yikes. Nihlus 04:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you expect a comment from me, Bish? -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 10:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Huh what, young Woof? Comment on how to make thin hamster? Bishonen | talk 16:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC).

Appeal against topic ban

Can you explain the appeals process for this post-1932 politics topic ban? Thx. KidAd (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. You have 4 options:

1. Ask me to reconsider, explaining why you think the ban is unfair or unnecessary.
2. Ask for review at WP:AN, ditto
3. Ask for review at WP:AE, ditto
4. Submit a request for amendment at WP:ARCA.

The difference between the last three is that at AN, the community will evaluate the ban and your arguments; at AE, uninvolved administrators will, and the process will be more structured and probably quicker than at AN; and at ARCA, the Arbitration Committee will. I'd advise against going straight to ARCA, both because ArbCom tends to be the slowest option, and because once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is disallowed. You might want to take a look at some cases brought to AN and AE respectively, to get a sense of which venue would suit you better.

If you want to appeal to me, go ahead, but I'll be off line for some hours; I'm supposed to be asleep as we speak. Bishonen | talk 05:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC).

Thank you for your understanding and flexibility. I can understand how my edits as of the past few days could've lead to this block. I have been acting with haste and editing not to improve Wikipedia, but to revert other edits by people I disagree with. I'm not here to be a vigilante, I'm just here to try to contribute to Wikipedia constructively. Regardless if the block is reverted before the next three months, I do plan on staying away from post-1932 politics for a while. It isn't all I edit, but the inherent POV complications that come along with pages on political figures has certainly riled me up. Thank you for your time and consideration. KidAd (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. I hope you enjoy editing stuff that doesn't rile you up so. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC).

Still, I would like to make my case for being un-banned. I edit on Wikipedia to eliminate language that violates NPOV. I can see why my latest back-and-forths with snoogans have lead to this, but I would also like to point out that, to me, I was merely mitigating the harm being done by a bad-faith editor. I do not intend to impart my own feelings or political opinions on articles as snoogans finds himself in the habit of doing. As we speak, he has gone behind my back to revert most of the work I've been doing in the past few days. Not only does Snoogans write with a strong political bias, his writing is so glaringly incorrect in form that is punctures ruins perfectly good articles. If I am unblocked, I do plan on staying away from snoogans, but I think that editors like me should be around to counteract bad faith editors. Thanks. KidAd (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• FYI, Bish, this is at WP:AN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oh! I didn't know. I just typed up a "no" for KidAd, together with some detailed advice about what to do and what to avoid when he went on to Option 2 or Option 3. Not much point in posting it now, I guess. Pity. Well, I waste time most days, why not today. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC).

• I was going to suggest you post it anyway, so they can use it for their next appeal (this one is not going to be successful), but I see it will expire in 3 months, so... yeah, I guess it was wasted time. Oh well. Still counts toward good karma. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, and other people have now given him pretty much the same advice on AN. Oh dear, this, pointed out by Mr Serial Number on AN, is not good at all. Battleground. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC).

• Good grief; that was left after they appealed the topic ban. I'm not sure they actually read WP:TBAN. I've left a warning on their talk page. -Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your reply over this edit :-) ∯WBGconverse 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I did not see that coming. Thank you very much, Godric. Bishonen | talk 16:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC).

Having a word

I saw your comment at ANI (it's suppressed, so I can't link to it, but I read it). I went and looked through HF's talk page and re-read the BN discussion (which I had just glanced through the first time). I was thoroughly unimpressed by Leaky Cauldron's comments, and I think it's quite understandable that Hamster Fan's a bit miffed. If I'd seen that beforehand, I'd probably have just dealt with the vandal and more or less ignored ANI. That said, I think the tone at ANI at the point that I had pinged you was not nasty: do you disagree? I can't fault you for not wanting to step in, but I wasn't sure if your comments about biting were directed at me or at Leaky Cauldron and Iri; if it was me, I'd like to know. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you, Vanamonde, but to Leaky caldron and Iri. I see a lot of stuff has been suppressed; I suppose I and others got caught up in something that needed removing from the public archives, not that I understand how it works. I mean, my comment that you're talking about, for instance, is suppressed, which also kills Godric's diff just above, but it's perfectly well visible on the actual page still (AN, not ANI, [18] if anybody's interested in these mysteries), which convinces me the problem didn't emanate from me. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC).

Okay, good to know. The suppressed stuff has to do with the request currently sitting at ARBCOM; a potentially libelous/defamatory comment about a banned editor was removed after it had been on the noticeboard for a while, so a lot of other stuff was caught up in it. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I offer my apologies, and my gratitude to both of you. I should have disengaged from the situation immediately after User:UninvitedCompany's Oppose comment and when I had given my thanks. I was under the impression at the time that every commentator there was a Bureaucrat, and was appalled at the quality of the discussion subsequent to my thanking the interested parties for their (mostly) helpful comments. I rose to the bait, and that was the end for me. It will never happen again. Please allow me this opportunity for sincere contrition. Best Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and thank you for being gracious. The comments at BN (and later at your talk page) were really quite unpleasant, and your pique is understandable. Vanamonde (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought it would be a good idea to get some good advice [19] before I came back. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sandeep7422

Re Sandeep7422. You topic banned them from Rajput related articles a couple of years ago but they seem to be back in action again (see [20]). Could you take a look?--regentspark (comment) 17:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked. He added stuff to Sikh Rajputs with his IP in October,[21] which I recently reverted. Now that I've protected the page, he has had to log in,[22] but both text and edit summaries make it obvious it's the same person. And now he doesn't have a current discretionary sanctions notice. :-( Well, doesn't matter, the user is so incompetent that it's not much use dabbling in further topic bans anyway. I was going to say I'll indeff for persistent disruptive editing, but realized I'm involved on the article now: I've reverted him. If you're not involved, perhaps you'll do it, regentspark? If you agree it's the proper action, I mean. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC).

Looks like they were editing as an IP while banned (e.g., [23]). Add the repeated addition of the same text as an IP. I've indeffed them. --regentspark (comment) 21:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that too? Perhaps that was how he got into the habit of editing as an IP, and maybe didn't even realize the six-month ban had expired. Good block. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC).

RegentsPark, did you mean to set "email disabled, cannot edit own talk page" tho? No talk page notification either.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Odd. It must have autochecked those boxes when I reblocked them to correct the block notice. Fixed and thanks for the heads up. --regentspark (comment) 12:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Er.. but regentspark, there still isn't a notification on his page. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC).

Look now. (Quantum message. If you see it, it's not there!) But seriously, I'm not going to try using my iPad for editing.--regentspark (comment) 15:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

• From the editor: Time for a truce

• Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia

• Special report: The Christmas wishlist

• Opinion: The blogosphere migrates to Galaxy WMF

• News and notes: Reviewer of the year, WikiCup winner, and the 2019 Wikimedia Summit

• Reflections: Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day

• In the media: Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars

• Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee

• Arbitration report: A long break ends

• Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight

• Gallery: Intersections

• Recent research: Why do the most active Wikipedians burn out?; only 4% of students vandalize

• Essay: No one cares about your garage band

• Humour: The dark side of our favorite root vegetable

• From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Lock my talk page indefinitely

I won't be editing anymore. I want people to leave me alone and stop posting on it. If I don't edit there's no reason for the talk page to be unlocked. I want to be left alone. --Tarage (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)