User talk:Bishonen: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:58, 13 October 2020

Hi thanks ma'am

I am thankful that u took fast action but this may continue.I have faced 7 such attacks by new accounts and they may return with new one.Btw thank u for ur recent action for blocking the socks Heba Aisha (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Heba Aisha. That wasn't me blocking the socks, it was a checkuser, an admin with special access for making sure if someone is a sock or not. Would you like me to semiprotect your page for a while? Semiprotection means a user can only edit it if they have an age of at least four days and have made at least ten edits. That prevents socks quite well, usually. But it also has a downside; you may want to hear from some new accounts and IPs. So please consider that before you reply. Bishonen | tålk 09:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Yes of course tq in advance......as you can see i m hit by vandals 9 times as of now.And this may continue.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think i would like to consider the suggestions etc of autoconfirmed user only as new users and ip are here to disturb me only.Plz you may proceed.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. (I've fixed your indents in this conversation.) Bishonen | tålk 11:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Ban

Hello. I am messaging you to appeal a ban on American politics that was placed on me after I attempted to remove biased information from the Proud Boys Wikipedia page. I mistakenly left the biased news sources, but I will remove them. At the beginning of the article, the editor Jorm has listed the Proud Boys as a fascist and possibly racist organization when this directly conflicts with the group's core beliefs Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove them you will be blocked. You are topic banned from the subject area. Please read WP:TBAN to see what topic banned means. You ignored my warning and went on removing sourced content and adding stuff that wasn't covered in the sources that were there, and you have provided no sources of your own. It's just as if you didn't see my warning. Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources, not by what an organization says about itself. I am declining your appeal. Bishonen | tålk 20:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict) Can't speak for Bish, but. Sounds like you want to continue making the edits that earned you a ban to begin with. Wikipedia uses information from reliable sources unconnected with subjects. What subjects say about themselves is of little encyclopedic value. That you choose sources connected with the subject over independent sources makes your efforts incompatible with building an encyclopedia. And, as an uninvolved admin, I endorse your topic ban. If you wish to promote what they say about themselves, you may need to find a different venue than this encyclopedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisburke123: Lost ping in ec. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The news sources accuse the organization of possibly being a White Supremacist organization when the leader is a black man from Cuba Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have had this account since 2014 and I am sad to see what this website has become. Goodbye Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) PS, Chrisburke123, I take it back that you've added no sources, as I see you did add one source minutes before I published your topic ban on your page. However, that source was a link to the Proud Boys' own site. As we keep telling you, that's no good. Reliable secondary sources are the only sources that count. If we went by how wonderful all organizations themselves think they are, we could just as well replace half our articles with links to organizations' own websites. Bishonen | tålk 20:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

In that case, is there a way that I can have the topic ban removed after a time? Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(provided I do not make similar edits) Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, almost all of my edits have involved making grammar corrections, and political pages on Wikipedia are what I find the most interesting and occupy most of the time I spend on this site. If I am not able to take part in it, I do not see the point of having an account. This is the reason why I ask if I can make edits after a period of being topic bannee Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ban is indefinite, you are going to have to appeal it successfully before it can be lifted. You have appealed to me; I declined; you can go on to appeal at either WP:AN or WP:AE. At AN, the decision will be made by the community; at AE, by a consensus of uninvolved admins. Theoretically, you can appeal right now, but practically speaking, you'll have a much better chance if you appeal in a few months (preferably six months) and spend the interval editing in other areas, and/or other Wikimedia projects. The idea is that you'll then have constructive editing to point to, to show that you're able to also do it in American politics. A personal point about the best kind of editing to do in other areas: you really, really need to learn about our sourcing policies and show, in practice, through other editing, that you understand them. In other words, grammar corrections are nice and useful, but they're not what you most need to show understanding of now. Bishonen | tålk 21:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: I've changed my mind and made the ban less broad, per note at User talk:Chrisburke123. Bishonen | tålk 09:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban

Konnichiwa Bishonen. You just topic banned me from articles related to India and Pakistan. Can I edit draft articles related to those countries? Can I edit articles of celebrities from those countries? Can I edit articles related to Bangladesh or Afghanistan? Can I appeal my topic ban after 3 months if I edit other articles satisfactorily? Domo arigato.—Dr2Rao (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr2Rao. No, you can't edit draft articles related to those countries, or articles of celebrities from those countries. You can't edit any page on Wikipedia related to those countries, or discuss anything related to those countries, including on talkpages and user talkpages. The sole exception to that is that you can discuss your topic ban with me on your own or my page. Yes, you can edit articles related to Bangladesh or Afghanistan, provided nothing India- or Pakistan-related comes into it. And yes, you can appeal the topic ban after 3 months if you can show you have edited other articles satisfactorily. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, can I edit articles related to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism?—Dr2Rao (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provided nothing India-or Pakistan-related comes into it, yes, you can. Seriously, nothing India-or Pakistan-related. You can, but I should perhaps warn you that posting the way you did here about Muslims is likely to get you further sanctioned even if India/Pakistan are not involved, most likely indefinitely blocked. You'll need to up your game when you write about religion, not just in articles but on talkpages also. Bishonen | tålk 08:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Holy cow! I redacted and revdel'd that tidbit referenced above. From what I've seen, that's true of some adherents of many religions, including my own. And also not true of many adherents of many religions, including my own. If one does not understand how inappropriate such a statement is in a multicultural project, I lack the skills to explain it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so do I. The comment was mentioned by a user in the Dr2Rao AE, and I also linked to it in my ban rationale. Nm, now that it's revdel'd, and hopefully Dr2Rao can remember what they said. Thank you, young Fritter. Bishonen | tålk 10:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Welp, I certainly hope @Dr2Rao: does remember that, 'cause I will. And I must say, I would likely block indefinitely if I saw it repeated. There is a precedence for wp:zero tolerance blocking a user years after making such an edit. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, how do I get other editors to reply about something without being accused of canvassing? A friend told me that I can e-mail editors through Wikipedia but is there a way to do it overtly?—Dr2Rao (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr2Rao, the system is based on other editors voluntarily, of their own accord, taking part in discussions. You're not supposed to "get" them to do it. You could have put a note about your RfC at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics (you can't do that now, since you're topic banned from India-related pages), so as to get a more neutral selection of eyes on the RfC. The problem with pinging people individually is that the group you ping is likely to be mostly people who agree with you. But I'm very glad to see that you understand it's even less appropriate to canvass people by e-mail. You are very right to want to be open about what you do. Hey, talkpage stalkers, I had a notion RfC's were also advertised at AN, but perhaps I dreamt it — they don't seem to be. Anybody? Bishonen | tålk 20:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Yashi, domo arigato. So can I e-mail other editors through Wikipedia now?—Dr2Rao (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, I will remember. How do I get to make my username show up in different colours like yours?—Dr2Rao (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr2Rao, No, that's not what Bishonen said; you decidedly should not email other editors to draw their attention to a dispute in which you are seeking to build consensus. In fact email should ideally only be used for matters that involve private information; bringing things to admin attention when you're worried about the consequences of doing so on-wiki; and to discuss matters that would not be appropriate to discuss on-wiki, per NOTFORUM. RfCs will draw attention normally, and can be advertized through neutral notifications at project noticeboards. The Feedback Request Service (is that what you're thinking of, Bish?) will also draw some editors to them. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this-- --[[User:Deepfriedokra|Deepfriedokra]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(talk)]] --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, how do I use the "Feedback request service"?—Dr2Rao (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr2Rao, you do not use it. It is automated. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, do you sign with 4 tildes, "~" and then replace it with what you posted above or can the signature be made to appear in colour automatically?—Dr2Rao (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I cite references for medical articles on Wikipedia?—Dr2Rao (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures are a setting in preferences (see link at top of any page while logged in). Ask at WP:HELPDESK for technical assistance with that kind of thing. Re references, they are tricky. A good place to start is to examine existing references in the wikitext of an article of interest (what you see while editing the page). Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Bishonen, Johnuniq, Deepfriedokra and Vanamonde93.—Dr2Rao (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein has asked for reactions/opinions here, can I reply there now?—Dr2Rao (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr2Rao - In your original post to this page you said - "You just topic banned me from articles related to India and Pakistan." Sandstein's request is about Pakistan. Are you being deliberatly obtuse? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but since that is not an article and since Manasbose and I were its chief editors, I thought it was allowed.—Dr2Rao (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Re-read Bish's first response to you: You can't edit any page on Wikipedia related to those countries, or discuss anything related to those countries, including on talkpages and user talkpages. --bonadea contributions talk 17:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down? DFO

:::::::: (edit conflict) Yes, please re-read my first reply above, User:Dr2Rao. It might help to read WP:TBAN also, as I already asked you to do in the ban notice. It's quite short. Just read it, please. Your ban is not just about articles. Bishonen | tålk 17:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I didn't notice there were so many Indian weebs on wiki. Lol -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea at all what this means? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog:42, obviously --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: it means we're all degenerates.

-- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, Deepfriedokra, Bonadea and everyone else, should the topic ban be extended to Islam and Muslims too, at least temporarily? Since the topic ban the user has already been blocked once for an edit that was Muslim related. They also seem to misinterpret sources in relation to Islam. And they have a history of making anti-Muslim comments. The Four Deuces also expressed some concern. This addition at kafir doesn't seem justified, and it doesn't appear in the source given. When I asked them if they had actually read the source, they admitted to not reading it. That is poor editing at best, and somewhat disruptive at worst. Maybe a temporary topic ban will help them learn the ropes of wikipedia on more neutral topics.VR _talk 01:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, VR, but for such a topic ban, you'd have to go to WP:AN and request one to be placed by the community. Islam and Muslims do not come under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. But that doesn't mean disruptive editing about these subjects is allowed. I'll take a look at the edits you indicate when I get a little more time. Bishonen | tålk 08:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

If he's going to spam talk pages with hundreds of questions each time he wants to add a reference that he hasn't actually bothered reading, perhaps a WP:CIR block is the most appropriate. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, or a block for disruptive editing; copying over content when you haven't verified the sources for yourself is contrary to core policy, and deserving of a block. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today they changed a neutral wording into a POV one.VR _talk 20:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, VR. They claimed they had copied two edits from within the article, but I can't find it there. That's pretty disruptive, but I'm not going to revert it, since I want to remain uninvolved, i e not edit the article. It's not really relevant to the topic ban. I've given them a final warning for tendentious editing. Bishonen | tålk 20:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Raj-era sourcing question

Hey Bish, I know we have some rules about Raj-era sources about India, I know you have some familiarity with the topic area, and I'm not at all familiar with it, so I'm hoping you could give me a little advice. I'm working on expanding Nain Singh Rawat and have found an obituary of him from 1882 by a British officer) (if you have a Wikipedia library card, source is [1]). My question: what sorts of statements should I be skeptical of? I'm guessing anything involving caste or tribe (it describes him as a "Bhootiah," which I think either refers to Bhotiya or Bhutia), but is there anything else I should be wary of? Or should I just scrap the source entirely? GeneralNotability (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) A good place to start is User:Sitush/CasteSources and it's sometimes worth checking User:Sitush/Indic publications of dubious merit. Sitush has spent a lot of time collecting discussions on the reliability of India-related sources and I'd always trust his judgement on them. He's only editing sporadically at present, but if you're not in a hurry, I'm sure he'd eventually reply to a question on his talk page. --RexxS (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mon Général. Yes, Sitush is your man. Meanwhile, I'll just say that British Raj ethnographers are not reliable sources.[2] However, your source doesn't seem to be an ethnographer, or at least does not speak as one, but from personal knowledge of the subject. So I would have thought that you could use it, just nothing ethnographic from it (such as caste). Bishonen | tålk 10:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, RexxS, thank you both. I'll give Sitush a ring. Bish, my thinking aligns with yours, I just was concerned that there might be other problematic areas other than ethnography. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hlw mam

Mam Bishonen....you are looking after many issues everyday and i hope u still remember you helped me few days ago against a sock by protecting my talk page. I have a request ..... Sitush is not active on wikipedia for many days and talks on Rajput is not coming to conclusion.It is getting longer and longer. I don't want to blame anyone and i also don't want reliable sources to be removed and there are chances that it will happen sooner or later. Also being a student i have a lot of other troubles in my life and regular futile discussion is giving me headache.Many times me LukeEmily and NitinMlk tried to make an another editor with whom we are in dispute to understand but i think its not gonna work until an established editor whom we all respect interferes.

So can we all wait for Sitush to come again and decide what shud be the fate of that article. If you can help here to make all of us wait till arrival of Sitush it will be a great help .Also i promise u ....i and those on my side will accept what Sitush decides.Tq....Heba Aisha (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Heba Aisha, I'm not well enough informed about caste matters to take on what you ask. Pinging a few knowledgeable admins: RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, and Vanamonde93. Bishonen | tålk 17:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Heba Aisha:, messy discussions often take a long time to reach a consensus, particularly when due weight is concerned. Kautilya3 seems to have intervened in this discussion, and it doesn't seem likely that drastic changes are going to be made any time soon; why don't we let the discussion play out? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is because......a number of editors put many reliable sources and reiterated same thing again and again but Sajaypal007 who consider the edits made by LukeEmily derogatory is dragging it long......Also i tried to explain that derogatory words like untouchables etc etc are on various caste articles but things are not working as the main issue seems removal of all those terms which Rajput community can thing of being derogatory.Vanamonde93 this issue can be fully dealt with when an uninvolved admin who is aware of the matter intercept.As none of us have broken the rules yet and we don't want to do so.But we also don't want our changes to be undone as those are sourced from oxford and other top quality sources.Also...Let me explain in brief NitinMlk, LukeEmily and me had the same opinion about the article. ....kautilya is the moderator and others were not interested just made few comments.Sajaypal007 has opposite view.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caste edit war...

...at Banaphar. I wonder if you might care to cast an eye over the recent changes there and decide if anything needs doing? (For reference: Talk:Banaphar#Wrong information on the page) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that, I was just writing up a warning. Posted. Bishonen | tålk 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm, "two minds with but a single thought". I guess that means I'm responsible for half a thought, which is good going for me on a Friday. Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review request.

Hello, I have recently started an article on a stockbroking company. Could you please review it? Thank you :) Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading212 NinjaWeeb (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, NinjaWeeb, I don't think so. It's not my kind of thing, and I'm a little busy. Bishonen | tålk 18:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Your Yangcheon District reversion

I had intended to eventually try my best to make sense of the edit that you ultimately deleted. Since it's still in the history, I just might get back to it, though it's not high on my to-do list. If the article's not on your watch list, please put it there just in case I get around to giving poor Vnaroddrux an assist since I THINK I know what he or she meant to say but I'm unsure that it can be properly sourced. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Kent Dominic. Vnaroddrux can certainly use assistance. Did you notice my discussion with them on their page? My own recent contributions tell the story. Bishonen | tålk 10:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I just read the discussion. You're reverting 500 edits? Ouch, that's harsh. It's bound to get someone's attention. But, to the merits of the Yangcheon thing, I live in Seoul and tried locally to find the root of what Vnaroddrux mentioned and it's beyond everyone's knowledge here. Indeed, I found some contradictory etymological items re. "Yangcheon" transliterations - namely "sheep cloth" - from Traditional Chinese to Korean and, ultimately, to English. My initial thought was that it'd be as easy as Yongsan. Shows how much Korean I (need to) know. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Please indent using colons.) Good luck with the Korean! Btw, I didn't exactly revert 500 edits — I know I pretty much said I did, but I meant I was reverting the revertable edits from the user's first 500 contributions, i. e. edits where nobody else has edited in the meantime. In practice that means I reverted some 100 edits. Bishonen | tålk 15:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Re. style: I've seen most editors revert to the same indentation as their immediately previous comment as I'm doing now and as Alice does in her third comment in indent Example #4.--Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to follow and it saves white space as compared with her second comment in that same example's thread, as I'm doing now. But, hey, I'm I guest on your talk page, so I'll follow the house rules here. Please don't kill me if I revert to habit.--Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think our system of sequential indents rots, and is outmoded by the reply templates and the ability to colorize text. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khant (caste)

Hi Bishonen I think the protection needs to be re-installed for Khant (caste) as content disputes/mass deletion has resumed again. Please have a look. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 19:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Amkgp, but I don't see what good a renewal of my semiprotection would do. The last time an IP edited the article was in March. And surely it's too soon for full protection for content dispute: the content dispute so far consists only in a user removing a section, and you restoring it. That's it. If they should revert in turn, please take it to the talkpage, with an edit summary urging the other user to come there too. Please let me know if an actual edit war should develop. Bishonen | tålk 19:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Any chance...

... of doing some archiving? Scrolling down this talk page to find what one is looking for is a nuisance when done on a computer, and a real pain when done on a phone. If you don't mind my saying so. (Or even if you do.) JBW (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is, perhaps, trying to catch EEng. (I see a comment that interests me, I click the sublink in my watchlist). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You think 120 sections is a lot, JBW? I saw a page with 476 yesterday, starting with a "Welcome to Wikipedia" from 2006, and it wasn't even EEng's. But if you seriously find it inconvenient... OK. Bishonen | tålk 20:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

FWIW:

EEng 278 851,086

DFO 103 206,855

Bish 120 ~350,000 (before) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF ??? JBW (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Question: When a user is blocked indefinitely in Wikipedia, is their account on Wikimedia also blocked? I am enquiring about Mariolovr's recent block. He had uploaded hundreds of images from a website into commons. [3] Normal Op (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Normal Op, no. Every project is independent, so a user blocked on en-wiki can still edit commons, for instance. IPs can be globally blocked and accounts can be globally locked, but that requires a steward and specific levels of disruption.

Incidentally, Bish, I have proposed a topic ban on Mariolovr's talk page. If he agrees to that, would you also agree? Do you think there are any topics I have forgotten to include?

Salvio

16:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: If you had read the numerous conversation I had had with Mariolovr in the last week, and his method of communicating with other editors, then you wouldn't be suggesting this. Normal Op (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Op, it doesn't really matter, since he's opposed to the idea. As such, I am about to decline his unblock request.

Salvio

16:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Mariolovr tried opposing the idea first; when that didn't work he changed his mind, and is now saying he'll accept your topic ban. Salvio giuliano, are you done with him and leaving him to make a new unblock request? In any case, I can't think of any more topics, you seem to have covered the problem area very well, and I'm happy to go with whatever you prefer. Normal Op, you may want to be more specific about your opposition to the idea of a topic ban, with links, or at least page names. Bishonen | tålk 18:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, I'll get that for you shortly, Bishonen. Normal Op (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Bish, Mariolovr has apparently changed his mind. As far as I'm concerned, the topic ban is still on the table; however, I'll wait a litte, to give Normal Op the chance of showing why he thinks that sanction would be insufficient.

Normal Op, please, provide examples of problematic conduct that you think would not be prevented by the topic ban.

Salvio

18:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 14 threads Mariolovr was involved in, contentiously. I'm not even counting the ANI or his many edit-wars which were conducted mainly with edit-summaries (they would be in the edit-history of the articles corresponding to these Talk pages). As you will see from these examples, I wasn't the only editor having similar problems with Mariolovr and his edit style. In my conversations (the ones I am most familiar with) I felt like I shouldn't answer some of the time in order to let the thread die, then M would come back and goad me into continuing the conversation ("you just refuse to communicate with me", "Are we ever going to get back to the original discussion at hand?", "not wanting to cooperate with me", "don't change the subject"). But the convo never got anywhere. Several times he insulted me and I felt like I was in a sparring match with someone and I wasn't trying to spar but kept getting sucker-punched. He was aggressively trying to push his POV at all times, regardless of WP policies/guidelines, and he was conducting his battles on so many fronts that it was exhausting to even read all of what he'd posted since the last time I'd logged in (let alone answer him). He also had a habit of editing his talk page comments after posting them and getting a response, thus changing the conversation for the next person to read. This list is just the ones I already knew about; I did NOT go back and see which other articles he had been doing this same stuff with in the last few days.

Threads I participated in:

Threads in which I was NOT a participant:

And some poor other editor got temp blocked for fighting with Mariolovr. Normal Op (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when I presented policy to him, he either couldn't or wouldn't see how it applied to his edits. Then he would come back and argue how WP policy favored his viewpoint against me/mine. I gave up. Normal Op (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also add that I've just identified that the images MarioLovr was trying to get included in the horse slaughter article are actually from an illegal halal slaughterhouse that was shut down by the french government for violation of slaughterhouse, animal welfare and food safety laws, a fact they completely failed to mention in the addition, captions, talk page discussion and RfC, where they have instead presented them as normal slaughterhouse operations. see my comments here. 192.76.8.79 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you for your research and disclosure about the facts behind those photos. I was unaware that halal requires animals conscious before slaughtering or that these photos were from a halal slaughterhouse AND one that was shut down for other reasons. I knew there was something wrong with these photos but had no idea of that backstory! This makes it even more interesting that Mariolovr presented himself as someone who had worked at a slaughterhouse and presented these photographs as ordinary and typical. Thank you for exposing that falsehood. Normal Op (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction, 3 of the images are from the illegal halal slaughterhouse, 2 of them are from this case in which illegal slaughterhouse operations resulted in 3 slaughterhouses having their licences revoked, and the final image is from this case where revelations that race horses were being slaughtered created a major social media storm. You could probably argue that the last image is standard practice, but 5 of these images show illegal operations and animal abuse. 192.76.8.79 (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These discussions show that Mariolovr's conduct has been problematic and that is why I upheld Bishonen's block. Mariolovr's editing style has definitely been tendentious and pugnacious, but he has only been disruptive in a specific topic area and that could be prevented by a topic ban rather than a full block. It's possible I am too lenient, but, in general, I think that we should try the least onerous sanction that gets the job done before telling someone to go away permanently. And I have also seen that sometimes an editor who is disruptive in a topic area can edit productively in another. Which is why I am still on the fence regarding him.

Now, I also see that he has been accused of sockpuppetry. That doesn't really surprise me, as he looked fishy to me as well, but, as much as I want, being fishy is not enough to support such an accusation. So, basically, I think I'll let the SPI run its course first.

Salvio

11:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the SPI will likely be a dead end for Mariolovr. I strongly believe that he is Zalgo but I can't demonstrate it with diffs this time. But one thing is clear he is not a new user from his editing skills and I guess will be back editing the same articles in the future. On his talk-page he has filed his own SPI and is now saying Normal Op/192.76.8.79 are the same person. This might be an abuse of talk-page use. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Per WP:OPTIONS, "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of their user talk page". I was very amused by Mariolovr's accusation, however I don't need more false crapola posted about me. He has stirred up several other bits of crap, getting other editors involved (who I'd had problems with in the past like he's asking for them to dogpile on me), accused me of having had a topic ban just weeks ago [4] (when it was over a year ago and it has been overturned), etc. His sockpuppet accusation is over-the-top and shows his desire to continue to be contentious. "Getting back at me" for doing an ANI on him isn't going to get his block overturned, so I am viewing this latest attempt as pure vindictiveness. I agree that we'll likely see a return of him in another form, but in the meantime would you consider flipping the option and turning off his user talk page privileges? (He's continuing to edit there. I just saw 3 more edits he made.) Normal Op (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe Salvio guiliano may want to talk with the user on their page once the SPI is closed. RexxS offered some evidence (namely that provided by you yourself above, Normal Op), which the CU hasn't considered yet, and so the SPI remains open. On the other hand, of course Salvio can restore talkpage access when/if he wants to communicate with Mariolovr. I agree that there's too much trolling going on there. OK, I'll revoke tpa. Hope you don't mind, Salvio. Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, great, that worked fine, not. Re-pinging Salvio giuliano Bishonen | tålk 20:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Well, that'll teach me I guess. *facepalm* The next time I'm feeling charitable, feel free to remind me of this train wreck.

Salvio

21:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look out! Oncoming train!

Thank you, everyone, for your contributions to the effort. Thanks, Bish, for hosting this tedious convo on your talk page and allowing us to continue the discussion until a (hopefully final this time) resolution. Normal Op (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your range block

Hi Bishonen. I was wondering if you could expand the range block special:Contributions/2600:1008:b101:5cc::/64 to disallow talk page access? Aasim (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. I've expanded the block to a month, with tpa revoked. Thank you, Aasim! Bishonen | tålk 08:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

No problem @Bishonen! Aasim (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User (Dinesh2069 (talk))

Hello Bishonen, the above user is not listening to neither your words nor my words. Take a look at this edit [5]. User is using words like 'beg' for characters like Indra- king of Gods without any sources. He claimed that we were hurting religious sentiments but the user himself is doing that. This violates wikipedia's 'neutral' policy. He also added words like 'great danveer' to elevate a character without proofs or sources. This shows that he is fan of character Karna. This can be called as fan boy vandalism. The most important thing is he is editing in a wrong way even after being warned. I request you to look into this carefully as you already gave him final warning. Also please look my latest edit over his talk page and please tell me whether I did correct or not. [6] Thank you. Fire star on heat (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review for Restoration Spectacular

I have nominated Restoration Spectacular for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article should be kept intact forever as it contains one the most significant events on Wikipedia: a welcome from Geogre to 'Shonen. --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and have taken your advice

Hi Bishonen, thanks for your message and I've taken your advice and removed the section. Sophoife (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking, Sophoife. Don't leave downers on your page, that's what I think. Bishonen | tålk 16:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

User (Dinesh2069 (talk))

Hello Bishonen, the above user is not listening to neither your words nor my words. Take a look at this edit [7]. User is using words like 'beg' for characters like Indra- king of Gods without any sources. He claimed that we were hurting religious sentiments but the user himself is doing that. This violates wikipedia's 'neutral' policy. He also added words like 'great danveer' to elevate a character without proofs or sources. This shows that he is fan of character Karna. This can be called as fan boy vandalism. The most important thing is he is editing in a wrong way even after being warned. I request you to look into this carefully as you already gave him final warning. Also please look my latest edit over his talk page and please tell me whether I did correct or not. [8]

Hello Bishonen, this user seems to be little rude as you can see his latest edit. [9]. I don't have any personal enimity with him. But he is not editing properly. You gave him final warning and asked me to report you if he persistently edit in a wrong way even after warning. I already informed you. Once again I'm reporting you so that you would take some action on him. He had record of disruptive editing and vandalism. Kindly look into this as you already told me that you would block him if he edits in a wrong way. Thank you and have a nice day. Fire star on heat (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's a little rude, yes, and can't seem to make it clear who he's talking to. I've posted a question about that. But religion really isn't my subject; I'm not comfortable being dragged into it. Any admin stalker out there who knows a little about Hindu gods and sacred texts? Even a little knowledge would definitely be more than I have. Bishonen | tålk 10:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Another rangeblock may be in order

Hey there, Bishonen. I've subtly kept an eye on TurokSwe's IP range editing of articles he has a history of tinkering with on the Swedish Wikipedia, though I haven't said anything about him violating his site ban, as his edits have been innocuous and harmless - plus he hasn't appealed his ban yet. However, I did see that he vandalized Deepfake, which I would consider problematic. Perhaps this would warrant a range block? I don't know; he doesn't edit much, so even a 2-month range block wouldn't accomplish much. If nothing else, it would be good to monitor the situation with that IP's activities. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 01:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Darth. Yeah, I suppose the usefulness is borderline. But it may be good to send a message that we're watching. Blocked for two months. Bishonen | tålk 08:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination of List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" 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/List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" 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. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Blushes]. Is that still around? Bishonen | tålk 15:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Copyright

Hello! My name is Giano and I once used to edit Wikipedia. I hope you are all well. I seem to remember this was the best place too ask a question and can get a reliable answer. This is about copyright - In the USA there is no copyright on photographs of ancient objects such as Rembrandts and antique furniture, my question is, does this also to apply to the UK? Giano (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little UK stalkers, please? RexxS? Bishonen | tålk 18:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Not British, but... it's complicated. In the US simple reproductions of out-of-copyright two-dimensional works do not get a new copyright. Photographing a 3D work can result in a new copyright in the US because there is some degree of originality involved.

In the UK, the standard for 'originality' has traditionally been lower, to the extent that in some cases photographing ancient paintings could potentially warrant copyright protection, if there was some degree of skill and judgment involved. However, it has also been the case that Commons/WMF consider reproductions of 2D works to be in the public domain regardless of country.

So the short answer is, (1) for our purposes there is no copyright on photographs of ancient 2D works regardless of where they are, but (2) in most cases there will be copyright on photographs of 3D works even if the thing pictured is ancient. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikkimaria, that’s helpful, but I am thinking specifically of private publishing in the UK, for ones own use and not for profit, rather than Wikipedia. I have had a professional opinion, but I don’t agree with it, or indeed like it, so wondered what the feeling was here. British museums and galleries seem to be rather protective of their exhibits and professional opinion keen to support them. Giano (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well in that case I'd expect the most conservative legal opinion would be that they are covered by copyright. But recent legal cases suggest things aren't so clear-cut. (Not a lawyer though). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giano: there's a good summary of the UK copyright laws at c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list T-Z #United Kingdom. If you are thinking about photographs that you take yourself, Excellency, then skip down to the De minimis and Freedom of panorama which gives a good idea of what you can take photographs of without infringing the copyright of the creator of the object you photograph. I suspect that Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 will be of interest to you. You might also find some relevance in the 2014/5 advice note from the Intellectual Property Office:

According to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.

Under section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this decision remains generally binding on UK courts. Hope this helps, but I'm happy to do more research for you if you have a particular case in mind. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rex, you seem to be coinciding with my own interpretation. Which is, if one wanted to use a 10-year-old sale catalogue image of an antique item (say a valuable 200-year-old table which has now disappeared from public view) to illustrate a book on the maker of said table, that would not be an infringement Of copyright as the said table has existed in that form for 200 years. Similarly if a museum has illustrated a chair, on its website, by the same furniture maker, that illustration too cannot be copyright. However, I fear the Victoria and Albert Museum may not agree. Giano (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giano: I'm no lawyer, so I may be very wrong, but my impression is as follows. The Victoria and Albert Museum certainly does not agree, and nor do most if not all other UK museums and art galleries; many of them have messages claiming copyright on reproductions in postcards and the like. However, their claim to own copyright has never been tested in court, and a pretty solid proportion of lawyers are very doubtful that any court would uphold such claims. (It may even be that the reason the claims have never been tested in court is that the museums' legal advisers know that they are on shaky ground, and therefore don't ever take cases to court for fear of a judgement which would stop the museums from being able to plausibly claim copyright.) JBW (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giano: The precedent is well-documented at National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. The NPG proved unwilling to pursue their claims of copyright, but it was an unpleasant experience for all involved. The IPO declaration some six years later seems to completely undermine the NPG's stance, but that was all about two-dimensional objects. A photograph of an antique table or chair is much less clear, because the photographer might argue that they made a creative arrangement of angle and lighting when taking the photograph. My inclination would be to contact the museum and the owner of the sales catalogue and ask for permission to use the images to illustrate the book (offering complete attribution, of course). It may well be that they would find the publicity of using their images would be of far more benefit to them than any possible commercial reuse could generate. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, RexxS. Several interesting things come out of that case, including an example of progress being made by collaborative discussion between the parties, which is of course in line with what you are suggesting. I agree with you the IPO declaration "seems to completely undermine the NPG's stance", but the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation seems itself not to have any clear bearing on the copyright position within the United Kingdom, as a central point in that case was the dubious nature of the claim of applicability of UK law to a person residing and acting in the USA. However, my own impression is of a firm of lawyers posting a long and intimidiating letter in the hope of creating a chilling effect but having no will to follow through with legal action when their bluff was called. JBW (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting interpretation which rather follows my own thoughts. Most British museums seem to adopt the scare tactic with little substantiation and no back-up. Perhaps a test case is overdue. Thanks both for your thoughts. Giano (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Giano, did you see this worry concerning RexxS? :-( Bishonen | tålk 21:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

No, I hadn’t, thank you for bringing it to my attention. What a nuisance for him, bloody virus is everywhere so it seems. I have quite strong views on the subject, but here and now is not the time to air them. However, I will say that people like that Trump man are criminally stupid! Giano (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can possibly manage to forgive me, Bishonen, for moving in on a personal message addressed not to me but to Giano, I hadn't seen that either, and I'm very grateful to you for pointing it out. I have a high regard RexxS as an editor and now as an administrator, and the news is most unwelcome.

Giano it's interesting to see you say that you "once used to edit Wikipedia". Back in the days when I first became significantly involved in Wikipedia I used to very frequently see you around, but times move on. I see you haven't lost your sense of humour over the years, as evidenced by your explaining to Bishonen who you are. JBW (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome here on any errand, JBW. Actually I wrote that note to Giano here, rather than mailing him, precisely because I wanted other friends to see it too. Yes, we're all concerned for RexxS. Bishonen | tålk 11:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Dealing with Proud Boys

Hey! I saw your really helpful and reassuring revert on Talk:Proud Boys, and thought I'd drop you a message. I'm thinking that the only way that we can actually head towards a more irrefutable and formalised consensus than the hodge-podge (though still a strong one) consensus across multiple conversations is to have a structured discussion with a bit more oversight - the discussion on NPOV/N and even on the talk keeps spiralling into personal attacks, personal opinions, original research, and blatently biased assertions. I don't really know how this could be done, but if you're interested, I'd really appreciate a bit of guidance on trying to resolve the issues with respecting, or even recognising, the consensus. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ItsPugle. Well, there are already two pink boxes at the top of the page which explain that you need reliable sources before making an edit request, which obviously the indignant members/sympathizers of PB that come to the page don't read (which I can sort of sympathize with — the amount of stuff at the top of the page is off-putting), or else they read them and don't like them. I thought of suggesting an RfC or a FAQ page, but I guess that would only lead to more stuff that they don't read. And I don't really want to semi the talkpage either. That's only done in extreme cases, and then only briefly. Actually, my best advice is for experienced editors to not be afraid of simply removing posts that violate WP:FORUM, with a clear, explanatory edit summary. I hate seeing constructive editors waste precious volunteer time replying to those kinds of posts for the nth time, so I'd simply remove them before that happens. And if the posts are then restored, warn the restorers on their page and/or ask somebody like me to act (for instance with a brief semi). Any talkpage stalkers got a better idea? Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Yeah, great point. I'm not sure if I've just missed the general tone of the discussion when I was reading it or something, but it looks like a consensus has kind of just popped out of the discussion on the talk page (this diff removed the POV tag and hasn't been reverted in ~18h). Now that I know that it's okay to just simply remove posts that violate WP:FORUM, I think that'll probably be what will happen for most of these repetitive stuff. Thank you so much! 🙂 ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a worse idea: tell them to stand back and stand by. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahahaha! I can only imagine the sort of crap we'd get for that 😂 ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This genuinely made me chuckle. Very clever. And apropos given all the disruptive “boys” coming out of the woodwork. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Jeffery D. Long

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Jeffery D. Long, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Please sign your posts, Walwal20. I'm surprised you think a mere large number of absolutely terrible citations make a subject notable — I thought I explained, in my prod, what was wrong with them. Bishonen | tålk 08:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffery D. Long. Bishonen | tålk 14:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen. Sorry, I thought the {{subst:deprod}} template signed it for me. I don't think it makes anything notable. WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletions only, and it does not seem uncontroversial to me. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 16:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor back after a few months

I'm assuming good faith here, but Special:Contributions/98.184.68.246/(talk) is back with the history lesson of the 49-star United States flag. This time it's much more along the lines of WP:CIR than outright vandalism, which is why I'm not asking for the person to be blocked. However, you might want to watchlist Flag of the United States for a week or so in case this editor makes edits that demonstrate "CIR". By the way, the 2 edits this editor has made today have already been reverted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David. It's hard to know what to do. The case seems rather sad, and the person certainly seems to be a long, long way away from being able to edit usefully. I'll watchlist Flag of the United States and perhaps more importantly, the redirect 49 star flag. Bishonen | tålk 14:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hello

It's been a while. Hope you are doing well. Tex (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 294: / Line 294: @@
 I'm assuming good faith here, but [[Special:Contributions/98.184.68.246]]/([[User talk:98.184.68.246|talk]]) is back with the history lesson of the 49-star United States flag.  This time it's much more along the lines of [[WP:CIR]] than outright vandalism, which is why I'm not asking for the person to be blocked.  However, you might want to watchlist [[Flag of the United States]] for a week or so in case this editor makes edits that demonstrate "CIR".  By the way, the 2 edits this editor has made today have already been reverted.  [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])</small></small> 20:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 :Thanks, [[User:davidwr|David]]. It's hard to know what to do. The case seems rather sad, and the person certainly seems to be a long, long way away from being able to edit usefully. I'll watchlist [[Flag of the United States]] and perhaps more importantly, the redirect [[49 star flag]]. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 14:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC).
+== Hello ==
+It's been a while.  Hope you are doing well. [[User:Tex|Tex]] ([[User talk:Tex|talk]]) 18:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)