User talk:Bishonen

This user misses Doug Taylor.

Enabling bullying

By unblocking User:EEng you are effectively saying that certain people can do whatever they want on wikipedia, harrass and bully anyone they want as long as they are popular enough and "it's only a joke". Admins are meant to stop this behaviour not to encourage it. Please consider your position.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else one might say, my post at issue was completely serious, and presented as such, so your idea that there's an only a joke defense in play shows you have not the slightest understanding of what's going on in this controversy. E Eng 02:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Yes, Nigel Ish seems to associate you with the "it's only a joke" defense—which does not apply here—but perhaps you should reflect on why that might be. Paul August ☎ 12:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC) (EEng's self-appointed personal scold.)[reply]

Welp, if the purpose of the block was to stop disruption, it failed in that purpose. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's because people like you support disruption as long as it's from one of the favoured few. If a normal editor acted like EEng then they would be told to stop and if they persisted would be very quickly permablocked with no way back, but as long as you've got admins who've got your back you can do anything. Wikipedia cannot pretend to take harassment seriously while this "one rule for them and another for us" continues.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And if you think your characterization of DFO has even the slightest validity, then you really have not the slightest understanding of what's going on. DFO absolutely hates my guts.^[FBDB] E Eng 02:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Now, now. None of that. I absolutely hate when you add content that is insulting/belittling/so insensitive of feelings that it is indistinguishable from cruelty. all kidding aside --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Together we've beautifully illustrated the distinction between criticizing the edit, not the editor – the comment, not the commentor^[1] – which is indeed the at the heart of all this. Look, when the tenth person in a row showed up to seriously propose that the article read ...
Keiynan Lonsdale is a Nigerian-Australian actor, dancer, and singer-songwriter known for roles in The Divergent Series: Insurgent (2015), The Finest Hours (2016), and Love, Simon (2018). Tree has also worked as an MTV VJ, and released original music recordings.
Lonsdale got his first acting job in 2007, with a bit dancing part in the film Razzle Dazzle: A Journey into Dance. The following year, tree appeared in an episode of the Australian television medical drama All Saints. Tree released a single on iTunes titled "One and Only" in 2014. Tree then played a supporting role as Uriah Pedrad in The Divergent Series: Insurgent (2015), the second film in the series. Tree briefly reprised the role in The Divergent Series: Allegiant (2016). In 2016, his single "Higher" was included on Connor Franta's curated album Common Culture, volume 5. Tree next appeared in the historical drama The Finest Hours (2016) as Eldon Hanon, the youngest sailor involved in a rescue at sea. In 2015, tree auditioned for the role of Jefferson Jackson but this role was given to Franz Drameh.
Tree identifies as queer and prefers not to label treeself to a specific sexuality.

... I'll admit I went a teench overboard. But still it's the concept, not the concept-or. all kidding aside E Eng 14:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at least a "teench", but thanks for admitting at least that (a little more of that would go a long way). But it's the "overboard" thing that people will take notice of, not the other. Paul August ☎ 14:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well you must admit that Tree identifies as queer and prefers not to label treeself to a specific sexuality qualifies as overboard as well, so my reaction can't be called entirely disproportionate. Being labeled transphobic didn't have much of a calming effect either. Ya know, if GW had simply said, "To be clear, you're criticizing the idea of using tree in the article, not your fellow editors, right?", I'm sure I would have said, "Well, I did let myself vent a bit there, and I know I need to keep in mind that not everyone understands why we can't incorporate an avant-garde wording like tree into an article", and that would have been the end of it. But no, she had to go all ex-arbitrator authoritarian on me.
Remember that her original justification for removal was NOTFORUM, which was clearly inapplicable – whether you like the form of expression or not, my post directly addressed the wording of the article. The later shifts in rationale (BPL? No? OK then, how about NPA?) make it clear that the starting point was a visceral dislike, and the reasoning was ginned up later. E Eng 15:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of that, (however I will AGF about other peoples' motives), and in particular I agree that given such provocation your emotional response was understandable, but the fact remains that ... two wrongs don't make a right. Paul August ☎ 16:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigel Ish: I realize you are angry, and that was a heated utterance. However, it's 1) a personal attack, and 2) quite unfounded. At no time did I say the block was wrong or that he should be unblocked. In fact, I said that his conduct is becoming increasingly inappropriate and that he needs to stop. Thanks, sorry bish1 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nigel Ish. I understand your point. But I assessed the consensus of the ANI discussion and found it to be obviously in favor of an unblock. When an admin finds an obvious consensus, I think their appropriate action is to implement that consensus. That's my position. Bishonen | tålk 15:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

(multiple e/c's, i expect this post is less useful now) It's a constant source of bemusement to me that people otherwise so enamored with the idea of civility can say, repeatedly and with a straight face, things like "people like you support disruption as long as it's from one of the favoured few" (emphasis mine). That kind of vilification of other people's motives is an exact replication of the tactic "Democrats want to destroy America". It is much worse, much less civil, much more damaging, than rudely saying someone is being dumb. In a way I guess it's understandable; people are emotional. I'm certainly not proposing some kind of action. I'm sure Bish certainly expected incivility from people when she unblocked. But the logical dissonance is kind of jarring. Perhaps Nigel Ish would like to rephrase, and comment on the cost or benefit of actions, not your motives. Or maybe they wouldn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally there seems to be a refusal to admit to responsibility for admin actions - If you use admin powers either by blocking or unblocking then you personally must take responsibility for your actions (rather than hiding behind "it was consensus that forced you to unblock". Bishonen's actions, by unblocking EEng, supports the toxic culture on Wikipedia when the mocking and abuse of real people is applauded so long as it is from the right people and is considered amusing by those with power and influence, just as those who carry out the toxic actions or applaud from the wings. But as it is clear from User:Deepfriedokra and User:Floquenbeam comments that criticism of your actions will not be tolerated and is considered a personal attack, I will not comment here again.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on. The responsibility of an admin, in this situation, is to judge consensus, and act on it. You may certainly disagree with their judgement concerning consensus, but you can't expect them to be responsible for, or agree with, or defend that consensus. And for an admin to see a clear consensus to unblock and not do so because they disagree with the consensus, is for that admin to substitute their judgement for that of the community. Something we don't generally want. Paul August ☎ 16:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Righteous unblock Bish. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF_
Glad to see this unblock, Bish. Not so much for EEng's sake, but for everyone's. I obviously think the block was incorrect, but was willing to defer to consensus if it had been in favor of keeping the block. But I think it was really important that there be no precedent established that an admin can demand an overwhelming consensus to overturn one of his blocks or else he'll go to ArbCom. In this case, we were lucky there was a consensus to unblock, and that claim could be challenged. If there had been no such consensus, I worry that HJ's rhetoric would have appeared to have been sustained, and next time another admin would try to make the same demand. I should have guessed you weren't afraid of ArbCom. (maybe relished the prospect? just a little? :)... ) --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to admit that HJ's threat gave me pause. But, of course, Bish has bigger cojones than me. Paul August ☎ 18:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And just imagine how big Bishzilla's are! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the broader context here is gender identity I think y'all better cool it. E Eng 02:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bish has reversed two blocks on mine that required a large amount of chutzpah. I have no hard feelings or the slightest desire to run to the parents, but guts is not a trait Bish lack -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two, Guerillero? [Thinks. To no avail.] I only remember the one a month ago... I typed the username at first, but perhaps we needn't actively encourage somebody less tolerant than you to start a list of "reasons to desysop Bishonen". Bishonen | tålk 20:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For making the hard decision with dignity and grace. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, young Fritter! Bishonen | tålk 20:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
- It’s her birthday (well, past midnight here, anyway), and what else can one do, but … —Sluzzelin talk 23:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing makes me think of Asterix village fights (with rotten fish as melee weapon). —Paleo Neonate – 01:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: Mon dieu. You've hit upon the perfect description of ANI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Made-up word

Bish - ~~You The Man!~~ I mean, ~~You The Woman!~~ I mean, You Wikipedia's Oak Tree! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Goddess

Hey Bishonen. I might have accidently copied your Platinum Goddess to my Sandbox and NL page. Slight Smile 19:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Slightsmile. I hope it made you smile. Could you give the creator MjolnirPants credit in the history, please? Bishonen | tålk 20:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I want MPants back (yes, I'm aware I blocked him, but doesn't change that I want him back.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick look through MjolnirPants talk page. “We love you but you're outta here and please come back because we love you so much”. I'm not sure what you mean “give credit in the history” but if you show me I'll do it. Slight Smile 21:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just mention him in the edit summaries. I realize you have already added the goddess to those two pages and published edit summaries for the additions, but you could perhaps add dummy edits, so as to be able to say "btw the Platinum Goddess is the work of User:MjolnirPants" or similar in the new edit summaries? Bishonen | tålk 21:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I miss him too, and I took the liberty of linking to here on his talk: [1]. Just so you all know. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is another one that I miss a great deal. There is getting to be too many of them. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 21:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, Roxy. These people work so hard, and then burn out, I think. (Not me, I'm lazy.) I miss MrX. And AndyTheGrump... though Andy is editing again. Fingers crossed he's seriously back, and pacing himself better. Bishonen | tålk 21:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I hadn't even realized that MrX had stopped editing. sigh --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Guy was kind of a douche, if you ask me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that you, Hammerpants? I see you got unblocked. Good stuff, but Guy who? Bishonen | tålk 22:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

MjolnirPants, of course. Heard he got indeffed and everything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that guy. Sorry, we have all these highly active Guys. Don't talk like that about MjolnirPants, he of the Platinum Goddess! Bishonen | tålk 22:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

He don't scare me. Bet I could take him in a fight. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The little at-work user obviously don't realize MjolnirPants protected by powerful benefactress Bishzilla! If little MjolnirPants has split personality disorder, so does Bishonen, don't forget. More better personalities! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 22:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

On that note, good night. Why people insist on working in the middle of the night is beyond me! Bishonen | tålk 22:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Who is this guy? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some douche I could beat up, but won't, because I don't like the idea of being eaten. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March flowers

Thank you for missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Koli socks

Hello, Bishonen. This is regarding a highly disruptive sock master who has spammed this project with unreliable/fake Koli-related claims over the last few years. Sitush used to take care of the mess created by him. But he is editing using a mobile which is in itself a challenging task. You have also blocked him at least once: User talk:Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala#You have been topic banned from caste-related pages. His numerous socks have again created many Koli-related articles, which are either unreliably sourced or contain made-up claims. His articles are practically always about nonnotable or made-up Koli-related stuff, which at best gets passing mention in reliable sources. Today Oshwah has blocked his 30-odd sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thakor_Sumant_Sinhji_Jhala/Archive#28_March_2021. Can you or any other admin nuke the mess created by him?

Also, he edits as an IP hopper in a highly disruptive way. I don't know anything about IP ranges, but the first 8 digits of the IP hopper's range always looks like "2401:4900:", e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. So, is there a way to block this IP hopper?

Finally, Udham Singh has been continuously disrupted by all sort of POV pushers. And the above Koli sockmaster has also jumped on the bandwagon – see here for more details. Even a very experienced admin (Utcursch) has wasted a lot of time in reverting his made-up/unreliable details. So the page needs to be semi-protected for a long time. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NitinMlk, yes, indeed we miss Sitush. Taken as a general problem, this is above my pay grade. I'm going to ping @SpacemanSpiff, RegentsPark, Abecedare, and Vanamonde93:. Wow, that's a lot of socks flushed at the SPI. Unfortunately it's quicker and easier to create them than to report and block. :-( Therefore, I've no doubt Udham Singh needs semi. I've given it a year. But as for cleaning up the other messes this villain has created... no. Sorry. I'm not up for that, it's too much and too difficult.

As for the IP range, I thought for a moment you were saying the first four groups of digits were always the same — that would have been great, and I could have blocked very easily! But of course I was misreading, and it's far from easy. I'm just going to bed now, but tomorrow I'll do my best with the 6 IPs you link to, meaning I'll block the 6 relevant /64 ranges for a month or two. (I understand you don't do IP ranges, NitinMlk, but this information may be useful for my talkpage stalkers. Er, Johnuniq? Do you think that would be a relevant action?) Bishonen | tålk 21:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I looked at the six IPs. There is not much value from the edits on the large 2401:4900::/33 range that covers all six. However, it would be a bit courageous to block it for any significant period. There is nothing that can be done at the moment with the six /64 ranges covering the individual IPs because they are either currently blocked or haven't edited for a long time (October 2020). Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks very much, John. That means there's nothing I can do wrt the IPs, NitinMlk, other than protect articles. Do you have any others besides Udham Singh to suggest for semi? Bishonen | tålk 08:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

This sock master targets a large number of articles, but his most targeted one is the Koli people article. Luckily, it survived this time because it was given 'extended confirmed' protection last year: [8]. But the protection will end next month and his socks will again mangle the article completely. ~~So the page needs 'extended confirmed' protection for an indefinite time.~~ Also, I might request you in the coming days to protect List of Brahmin dynasties and states, as the page is continuously disrupted by a different sock master: this one is the latest suspected sock of that sock master. But I will have to file an SPI first. Thanks. - ~~NitinMlk (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)~~ NitinMlk (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mann

I heard that Danny Mann just got deleted from Wikipedia, and I wanna bring him back onto this wiki were he absolutely deserves.

Hi, Alexkrzywicki1. The article Danny Mann was deleted in June 2020 after a deletion discussion here. The subject was not considered to fulfill Wikipedia's criteria for notability, please see Wikipedia:Notability (people). I see you have written the exact same note to four different admins. Please don't do that, as it wastes admin time. We're volunteers like you. Stick to one person. Note, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which will turn into a signature + timestamp when you publish. Bishonen | tålk 20:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

God! Isn’t life boring, that I’m now reduced to reading comments about people that no ones heard of. If I knew who he was, I’d write him a page. I wonder if I’m the only person stuck in a freezing cold England and climbing up the wall with boredom. The snow has ruined my magnolias and I’ve been banned from touching a paint brush (the decorating type) I’m sick of the two pages I have I user-space. Can’t even go to the pub, not that did anyway, but it was nice to know I could if I wanted to. Too early in the day for a drink, there has to be more to life than this. I think I’ll go and research Danny Mann, who know he might own a Palladian pile somewhere which would make him notable. Giano (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Look! He’s terribly famous, even more credits than Meghan Markle. Admittedly, he hasn’t tried to bring down the British monarchy by not knowing his own wedding anniversary or understand letters patent, but he’s acted about here and there, we have all sorts of odd people who’ve done that. I would copy paste it all in, but I expect there’ll be some rule about it, and I am very law abiding. Giano (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K::*Review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Mann first because a recreated article would be speedily deleted unless it had significant differences from the original, particularly regarding what sources showed notability. That is, if no new sources are available other than those mentioned in the AfD, Danny Mann will have to remain at Simple Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a far more simple project than this, although I can’t believe its arbs are any more simple than ours. Giano (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100% canvassing

Talk:Midsommar_(film)#Requested_move_8_April_2021 If you can think of an actual argument for oppose, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, mr Fröding. No.. not really. Not sure I can make myself care what the article is called... but the film sounds great. I love the fateful pissing on the ancestral tree and the ättestupa. The man "wearing Mark's clothes and skinned face" might be influenced by Men in Black, I suppose? Still, it's a nice touch. PS, I didn't know you had your own article on sv wiki! Bishonen | tålk 14:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

It's a poem that's really easy to learn by heart. Oh well, when little Estelle innocently types "Midsommar" into en-WP, that'll be what she finds. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check Yadav page

Hi, first of all, nice to see u after a long time. I am just very busy, so instead of filing WP:ARE and involving there I am contacting you. Shital V Yadav, a new user is at disruptive mode on Yadav related pages. I believe him of being a sockpuppet of another blocked user. But since lot of warnings have been given, it is enough to take action against the vandal who also have WP:CIR issue as he is removing image from the article.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! and now he is reverting all my recent edits on various pages. Totally disruptive.At Politics of Bihar and many others. It will take a lot of time to undo all of these reverts. If any stalker who is also an admin is here, take appropriate actions on Shital V Yadav Heba Aisha (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please see this case too, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vipinahir. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Heba Aisha I'm asking why are you not providing valid references for both images on Yadav page ?? if you add both images with references then I'll never make any changes but you are simply reverted my edit , I checked so many times after that removed the both images.

Hi, Heba Aisha. I see the SPI resolved the matter while I slept. The best kind of resolution. Is there anything else that needs reverting? Bishonen | tålk 08:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, its resolved, I m nominating various stubs created by the banned user for delition under G5 criteria.All of them are related to politicians of Yadav caste. If I found someone notable enough, I will create article in future. But at present, I don't think its good to keep them. Btw thanks for responding. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yadav caste related pages are new hotspots

This is very difficult for people like me to verify edits of the users who are here for promoting their own caste and end up distorting historical articles for upward mobilisation on Wikipedia. It becomes more difficult when I found myself alone editing the articles related to some particular topic using quality sources neutrally. Sitush and others who were doing this are not active now and I would like to tell you that just like we faced the problems in Rajput related pages few months ago. This time Yadav caste related pages are new hotspots. Please keep a tab on my talk page and the pages I visit as these users have distorted large number of pages in very short period of time. Thank You.Heba Aisha (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this too Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kroshta. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Heba, I don't have that kind of time. I'm pretty busy in real life. Bishonen | tålk 14:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

IP address being blocked

How does a IP address gets blocked especially when one didn't do anything wrong. Cwater1 (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cwater1. That can happen if an admin blocks an IP range that there's a lot of vandalism from. Then there may be "collateral damage", meaning innocent IPs are also caught up in the block, though admins try to avoid this. Also, an account can have their IP address blocked if that IP was recently used by a blocked user, known as an autoblock (follow the link to see how to fix this). Have you had any IP block problem yourself? Bishonen | tålk 08:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I have. can I get on trouble for having the IP address blocked? Cwater1 (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sure you won't get in trouble, Cwater1. As I said, it usually happens because somebody else did vandalism. What happened? What kind of message did you get? Bishonen | tålk 13:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

My IP address was blocked. Not sure how someone gets on my IP address. Cwater1 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does someone else use my IP address? Cwater1 (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless your IP address is static, it'll get re-assigned to other people sometimes. Johnuniq, could you advise Cwater1, please? I'm not very good at this. Cwater1, please tell us what kind of message you got when your IP address was blocked. It'll help us to help you. Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I replied at User talk:Cwater1#IP address and I think further discussion should occur there. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, John. Bishonen | tålk 11:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi for some reason my ISP address was blocked and I don't understand why. The reason given was vandalism and page disruption which I have never done. Aussie2021 (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My ISP 2001:8004:2781:aa77:b7be:e016:b62f:2cc6. I didn't mean to vandalise or be disruptive it wasn't intended I just don't understand how to edit pages correctly.And if you do remove the block I will be more careful in future. Aussie2021 (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aussie2021. EdJohnston blocked the range 2001:8004::/33, which includes the IP you mention, for disruptive editing. If you personally are innocent of disruption, I suggest you speak with Ed at User talk:EdJohnston. Note that new messages should go at the bottom of talkpages, with an individual header. If you put them into an old thread somewhere in the middle of the page, as you did here, they risk not being noticed. Congratulations on creating an account! That's always a good start, and the IP block obviously isn't preventing you from editing using the account. Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not add troll comments like this one to my talk page

"Vapourmile, it seems to me you are confusing Guy Macon with Emmanuel Macron. Some people can be offended when you persistently get their names wrong, so please try not to. Bishonen | tålk 16:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)."

Vapourmile (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I've mentioned you at ANI in the context of Vapoumile's Official Complaint about Guy. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Acroterion. The Gojira 1954 poster is pretty cool, isn't it? Don't post here again, Vapourmile. Bishonen | tålk 19:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I gotta love that poster, not least because it's two years older than I am. The facial expressions on the two people at the lower left are intriguing. Neither looks frightened. The man looks seriously pissed off, and the women looks a bit enamored of Gojira (which probably explains the man's expression). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Researching further (as I am wont to do), I see that there is Gojirasaurus, denigrated by Wikipedia as a "dubious genus". (On the other hand, I know a fair number of dubious "geniuses".) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Me and Trypto are the same age. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have my sympathy. (But maybe dog years and fish years are different?) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Bishzilla, a truly mature lady, briskly stuffs both the young little users in her pocket.] And stay there! Sit on sofa! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 20:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Gimme the popcorn, Roxy! And where's the remote? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should thank Bishzilla for reminding me that I'm far from the oldest individual here (by millennia, it seems!). An interesting bit of wiki-anthropology: when I joke on EEng's talk page, he tells me to get off his lawn, and when I joke here, I wind up inside a giant lizard, sitting on a sofa. So many bossy oldsters! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish emigration to the United States FA concerns

@Bishonen: Greetings! I saw that you promoted Swedish emigration to the United States and thought I should inform you of my concerns about the 2007-nominated article. It is mainly about references; many paragraphs are either unreferenced or are supported by just one. Could you take a quick look at the article and see if it could be improved? Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wretchskull. It would entail a lot more research in an area that is no longer "hot" for me. Altogether, I'm really not crazy about trying to re-source articles I wrote once, especially when it was so long ago. If somebody wants that one to stay featured, I'm afraid they'll have to adopt it. Bishonen | tålk 19:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome

How are you? , Just came here after seeing you active. Most of the old people which I found here are missing now, including some good admins. Hope you are enjoying the real life. COVId has striked once again in India and government has strictly enforced lockdown once again, and made us jobbers. How's the condition there. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Heba. I'm not Japanese — I'm half a world away — I just have a misleading username. See my responses here. We're having a nasty third wave of infections where I am, which is in Europe. Bishonen | tålk 13:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Request for protecting the article on Varma (surname)‎

Hi Bishonen, hope you are fine. Would request you to protect the article on Varma (surname)‎ from persistent vandalism by a particular user (or as a sock) in spite of all explanations in edit summaries as well as warnings on the user's talk page. Please help. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ekdalian. I have blocked the user indefinitely from editing the article. One of the newfangled partial blocks. They can still edit the talkpage, in case they take a notion to discuss. Do you think the article still requires protection? Please let me know if further socks or IPs turn up, then I'll semiprotect. Bishonen | tålk 13:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bishonen for your prompt response / action, as usual. I shall let you know in case socks turn up, and the article requires protection. Warm Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pahela Baisakh Page

Dear Bishonen

I once again turn to you for advice.

I had previously reached out to the Administrator's Notice Board, Neill N, Soumya Biswas, Sarah Welch and Firestar 464. I haven't heard from any.

Please have a look at the Pahela Baishakh page.

There has been a controversy there since at least April 2017. This pertains to the origins of the Bengali New Year. There are two theories - Mughal and Vikramaditya/Hindu/Bikramaditto/Indic.

More recently, key information supported by citations pertaining to the latter theory were deleted. Since April 15, I tried restoring some of that information from previous versions compiled by editors like Sarah Welch (who is one of the best on Indic issues). Whenever I did so, the material I restored was reverted. I would like to desist from edit warring but felt that I needed to get my point across both in the Talk Page and by reverting the deletions.

I didn’t delete any existing material. I only restored material from before. It not material that I introduced. I only restored although I may have revised the wording used earlier.

The Pahela Baisakh page will benefit from an independent review. I did try explaining what I did on the Talk Page. I didn’t succeed. Three or four individuals, including anonymous IP numbers, who may or may not be subject matter experts were very active in reverting my efforts. I am not sure whether sockpuppetry is involved. The information I restored is called "junk", "a lie", "irrelevant" etc. I seek an independent read of what's happening. I would appreciate your advice. You would be neutral as an outsider.

This is not a complaint on any individual. Its about the page's neutrality.

Thank you

Dipendra2007 (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dipendra2007. I'm afraid I'm very far from a specialist in these matters, and I must decline to intervene. An IP who fails to sign on the talkpage does seem inexperienced, but on the other hand they discuss properly and there is also another user speaking against your version. Since you have already tried WP:AN and several users individually (who I do believe know more about it than I do), it's hardly for me to put my oar in. Perhaps one of my knowledgeable talkpage stalkers may have a comment for you. Bishonen | tålk 07:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Ok. I hear you, Bishonen. I may intermittently, respectfully and selectively revert as the editors do not seem to be amenable. There is an element of rudeness in the comments made on my Talk Page. The material I reintroduced was from Sarah Welch's page which in my view was rigorous. cheers Dipendra2007 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Applying for Release to Elsewhere

Yes, I have read the book (and your page on self-blocking policies). I ask, however, that two customary terms be ignored:

The prohibition from emailing others. I would like to voice concern to the ArbCom over something a certain functionary did (not you).
The waiting period. I have asked for Release from User:TonyBallioni a day ago.

Let this be as long as you would like to grant (other passing admins could assign anything up to indefinite), and take note of my "will" at my user page. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 15:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here, NotReallySoroka, that if you go to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, the committee's email address is published. The block that would be applied by Bishonen would prevent you from using the "Email this user" link, but nothing prevents anyone from emailing the Arbcom directly. However, if you are going to pursue something along this line, I would suggest that you hold off on being blocked until that matter is resolved, as you are not truly disengaging if you are bringing a matter to arbcom attention. Risker (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Risker. It is a relatively minor matter that does not involve myself, so it can go. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 18:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NotReallySoroka. I've read the request you wrote to Tony Ballioni, before you removed it, and the insight it gives me into your motives for this request worries me. I don't like the connection with a particular Miscellany for deletion, and I don't understand why you changed from Tony to me. Also, I especially don't like your intention to keep worrying at wikimatters, which you describe above ("I would like to voice concern to the ArbCom over something a certain functionary did"). Altogether, I don't want to do this, sorry. There's too much baggage with it. As you have seen, since you have read my conditions page, I will decline these things at my discretion, and that's what I'm doing now. I wrote this before I saw Risker's comment and your reply to her, but I'm afraid those don't change my mind. Bishonen | tålk 19:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hello. Your point with the MfD is a rightful worry, indeed, though as of now it is not the only now. I deleted the request to Tony so as to think twice, but now my mind is set. I found you because you are still activity.

As for the wikimatters, it does not involve me and I can just talk it out with the fuctionaries involved.

NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 19:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the debate over the article about climate change

Deletion review for List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Epimonide (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Epimonide. Is this your first account? Bishonen | tålk 16:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Just, y'know, wondering. E Eng 18:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference Epimonide, the consensus at the discussion (see: WP:PROD) is not the same as "speedy" (see WP:CSD). And "Just, y'know" cause 2 of the first three edits are at WP:DRV. Not the usual entry point for a new editor. So I agree, it's not unusual to "wonder". IJS. — Ched (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know, nor do I understand what all this means, so I will just answer Bishonen. No, this is my second account; I do not remember the credentials to my first account. Well wishes, Epimonide (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Warning

You block me?, I not do nothing. That behaviour needs to be checked. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. --Pedro158 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't blocked you. Get a grip, and don't put nonsense on my page again. Thank you, Tryptofish. This comment may stay, but I ask my tp stalkers to remove any additions from the same user. I'm going to bed. Bishonen | tålk 21:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Never mind, little stalkers, I see Ched just indeffed the user. Well, I guess they weren't a very hopeful case. Bishonen | tålk 21:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I couldn't find anything productive in history, and I seriously doubt there would have been anything positive in the future. If any of the adminy types that (talk page watcher) your page think I'm wrong - I won't contest an unblock. The "I am make moar better edits" stuff just doesn't play anymore for me however. — Ched (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Walpurgis!

No public celebrations this year either, but at least it is sunny (and not snowing!). There will be some serious herring in the Bonadea household this afternoon. I hope your Valborg eve is enjoyable, whether you celebrate it or not. [9] --bonadea contributions talk 08:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit. Missed schmutziger donnerstag again. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Majbrasa this year! Sad! Roxy the dog, you can always keep your powder dry for the Oktoberfest ("beer festival and travelling funfair"). Bishonen | tålk 11:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Many years ago, I spent a week drunk, dressed as a Monk in Munchen during Oktoberfest. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Hey Bish, KażdenIPmożeWlKlNGERbyć iskajcieSEsami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of Wikinger, please revoke email access and restore the autoblock you accidentally removed while revoking TPA. Thanks! Java Hurricane 12:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JavaH, done. Little talkpage stalkers: a global lock would be good also, or at least on Commons, if anybody with those tools reads this. Bishonen | tålk 12:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Requested and received. :) Blablubbs|talk 13:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Blablubbs| and Ymblanter. Bishonen | tålk 19:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, no problem. I had your Commons page on my watchlist, and this is why I was able to act quickly. In other cases, you can just ping me.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Just saw this deletion request. You might consider uploading it to en.WP per Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Unfortunately, Commons doesn't allow non-free uploads, and since toys are copyright protected, the image will be deleted. Atsme 💬 📧 13:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Atsme, but I wanted it for a particular purpose, which it has long since served, so I guess I don't really mind if it's deleted. Bishonen | tålk 18:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Personal attack in edit summary by POV pushers

Hi Bishonen.. Hope you are fine. Sorry to bother you, but can something be done about the personal attacks in Edit Summaries by IP editors in the article on Baidya, one on the revision dated 30th April and another again in the recent one yesterday! Please help, if you can. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Ekdalian. Fortunately the IPs both belong to the same /64 range, so I could easily block them (and all their brothers and sisters) from the article with a long partial block, 3 months. I've revision deleted the edit summaries. Bishonen | tålk 18:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you so much, Bishonen! Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stonkaments

I hate to be a pest, but could you instruct Stonkaments (talk · contribs) to stop commenting on my talk page? I told him to stop a few weeks ago, and I just undid the fourth unwanted comment they've made since then. Their second and third edits there were pure trolling; posting a D/S notice immediately after me and Trypotofish were discussing the fact that the page is under D/S. Note that this happened less than 3 hours after I reiterated that I didn't want them commenting on my talk page, and less than a day after I'd first told them not to comment on my talk page. There's no doubt Stonk is well aware of my wishes, and our community norms here, since they've been asked to stop commenting on others' talk pages.

Their latest comment is a transparent attempt to disrupt efforts to put together an FAQ for the page, where they're currently engaged in throwing shade all around, after already being told by the most sympathetic admin to their cause to drop the stick and step away. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to help improve the proposed FAQ, not disrupt it. I forgot that I was asked not to comment on their talk page―I apologize, it won't happen again. Stonkaments (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surprised that Stonkaments would have forgotten that, but we can AGF, I suppose. I'd encourage one of those fancy new kinds of single-page blocks, that just blocks posting to MPants' talk pages, along with a formal warning.

@MPants: when you reverted the comment, you used a vulgar edit summary. Given past history of how that has been wikilawyered, please don't do that any more. And don't anyone else get any ideas from what I just said. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tryp, you know I respect your views on most matters a great deal, but you're really not helping here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Out of curiosity, wouldn't AGF call for a warning before a block? I ask because I would appreciate the opportunity to demonstrate good faith and show that it was a genuine mistake due to forgetfulness. As way of explanation: due to my (over-)involvement in the R&I discussion recently, I have been on the receiving end of a lot of hostility, and I genuinely confused MPants with another editor who has directed hostility my way[10]. Stonkaments (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm really not helping here, I'm being a bit, shall we say, nuanced, when I refer to AGF. In other words, I don't really believe for a minute that you forgot, but I also don't think it's worth arguing about. And I think that if you get a talk-page partial block, you should consider yourself fortunate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will by no means block an editor to reinforce a promise they make above ("I apologize, it won't happen again"). Just don't forget again, Stonkaments. Nor will I reproach MjolnirPants for using a salty expression when reverting a post from somebody they had, after all, already told they weren't welcome. OK. Everybody happy, I hope. Bishonen | tålk 19:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

That's all I asked for. Thanks, Bish. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I seem to be in the position of clarifying, I never asked Bish to do anything with respect to the salt, or the pepper, of the edit summary. As Bish correctly understands, there should be nothing wrong with that. But some admins, who should know better, think that they have to be civility enforcers, and I'm trying to get MPants to understand that he can fall into a trap with that. It does him no favors to pretend otherwise. Let's not repeat history. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tryp, I've literally acknowledged your point twice at your talk. Ever heard the expression "don't sell past the close"? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to Bish, not to you, now let's drop this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm I directed a comment at MPants, and Bishonen responded as though I had directed it at her, so I responded to Bishonen and MPants acted like I had directed it at him. Sheesh! Now let's drop this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Thank you. I'm old, don't remind me. Bishonen | tålk 12:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
- You think you're old... -- llywrch (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah.Xenos

Just an FYI, Sarah.Xenos finally returned to editing on 5 May, still making basic errors. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yees. Thanks, AussieLegend. I'm not ignoring this, but I'll hang fire for a bit, and watch. Bishonen | tålk 08:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

AussieLegend, I've had enough of the user's continued errors and their unresponsiveness; I've blocked them indefinitely, again with a nice block notice both on their page and in the log. We shall see what happens, if anything. Bishonen | tålk 15:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

It's a shame that it had to come to this but it's for the better. Cheers. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as soon as she was indeffed, she did respond, AussieLegend, with one sentence — you can see my own reply on her page. I won't unblock without considerably more show of willingness on her side. Bishonen | tålk 10:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

A beer for you!

Many thanks for your help. Very much appreciated. Denisarona (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaahh. [Swigs deeply.] Is it Oktoberfest already? Thanks, Denis. Bishonen | tålk 09:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Going for a short break, case closed, but feeling tired of it. Keep taking on vandals. Heba Aisha (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yum. Perfectly ripe. Thank you, Heba. 🍰 Bishonen | tålk 13:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Advice on probable Smurf account

I have encountered a user using what appears to be a Smurf account and I was going to file an SPI but Twinkle does not allow a report that has only one named account (clearly I have no knowledge of the main user account). They appear as a new user and created and submitted a polished Draft within 2 minutes of arriving and are now pushing hard to get their Draft reviewed and accepted. I believe that they may well be block evading or part of a meat farm. Any advice on how I deal with this would be most welcome. Thanks Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Velella. Not all knowledgable purported newbies are socks in the negative sense. Compare the distinction between "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" and "Legitimate uses" in WP:SOCK, and see also WP:CLEANSTART. But I'm not saying you should do nothing, if you suspect an inappropriate use of multiple accounts here. Perhaps start by giving me the account name so I can take a look? Use e-mail if you like. Bishonen | tålk 00:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

PS, after taking a look at your page, I think "smurf" means an UPE rather than a sock — right? If it's the account I see on your page, never mind about e-mailing, I'll take a look tomorrow. Now I'm actually officially asleep (and a bit stupid, as you can see). Bishonen | tålk 01:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Many thanks. You are right about the user but it is not UPE as they as they did, reluctantly, make a declaration, but they also claim 4 to 5 years experience and clearly know their way round Wikipedia and seem so very intent on getting their draft approved. I find it very difficult to believe that they haven't spent some time on Wikipedia, but if so, why not use their established user name? The way they behave could easily lead to a block if they cross the line of civility and I suspect that this is what may have happened in the past and they are now block evading. I would be happy to be proved wrong, but I have no reasonable idea of how a user appears full skilled in the ways of Wikipedia otherwise? Many thanks for any light that you can throw on this case. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Velella, an earlier version of the article was deleted as non-notable ("Fails WP:NCORP") on 16 Feb 2021 following this AfD. That version had been created in 2016 by an SPA called Tnodett. The current draft isn't very similar, not in text and not in sources, so I'd presume it's not based on the deleted article. (I suppose it also follows that TullikaInode1 isn't particularly likely to be a sock of Trodnett.) Nevertheless, if an article is deleted on notability grounds, it's not likely that the subject has amassed much notability a mere three months later. And the sourcing is just as weak for the draft as for the deleted article. If the two versions had been more similar, I could have speedied the draft, but as it is, I won't do that. However, it absolutely needs to stay in draftspace, where we can AGF that it's being improved. I'll write to the user on their page... when I get back from the Coop. Bishonen | tålk 13:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Many thanks for your advice and investigation. My suspicion was that the company was employing a paid editor to make an article stick where it had failed before. If this was so, then the current editor probably has a number of other articles to their name, probably all under different user names. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or else they genuinely work for the company. In any case, it's like trying to hold back the tide, isn't it? I just posted on their page. Bishonen | tålk 17:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I'm just putting this here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, Banarne. Excellent. Bishonen | tålk 19:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

A beer for you!

Many, many thanks (this will help while waiting for October!!). Denisarona (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

Could I please get your help on Endowment_(Mormonism), I was about to engage in another edit war, but felt it would be counterproductive, and seek a cooler head than my own. Epachamo (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Epachamo. I've posted a sharp warning on the user's page. Bishonen | tålk 11:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Request for protecting the article on Baidya or blocking the caste warrior(s)

Hi Bishonen.. hope, you are fine. The article on Baidya has become a subject of edit warring by POV pushers. Once I have reviewed the content added, I found out that the editor is citing a Journal by a Baidya editor only in order to validate what the Baidyas have claimed all through, I mean Brahmin status, possibly claimed by most of the castes, as you know. Also, I have clearly explained on talk page that all the three other sources, mentioned as supporting ones by the user on the talk page itself, are Raj era sources and cannot be considered as per long-term consensus. Now, another user, Bengaliwikipro (not sure, may not be a sock) is reverting the edits without any explanation, and is now engaged in edit war in spite of explaining everything and warning the users (in the article's talk page as well as edit summaries). Please help! Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ekdalian. I have partial-blocked Bengaliwikipro from the article for six months. Hopefully, that will encourager les autres. Please let me know if the disruption persists. Bishonen | tålk 11:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, Bishonen. Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, Bishonen. User Banglawikit is active in the article on Baidya, and apparently seems to be a sock of previously blocked user. Apart from edit warring (in spite of being asked for discussions on talk page), he is engaged in personal attacks and attacking other castes in edit summaries. Can you please help removing these edit summaries. I have warned him on his talk page, but not sure how to handle him! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're always welcome here, Ekdalian. I've warned Banglawikit and asked a Checkuser about them. There's the odd fact that Bengaliwikipro's English is better and they're more civil, so I feel a little unsure about the socking, however likely it look in other ways. Do you really think the edit summaries need revdeling? I mean, they surely reflect more badly on the user who has posted them than on any other person or social group. No? Bishonen | tålk 15:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that the edit summaries reflect more badly on the user rather than anyone else. Basically, I personally try to keep articles & related history as neat as possible; probably that was the reason I thought about hiding such poor / offensive edit summaries. You are the best judge; you may please do whatever you feel would be the best for the same. Thanks for warning the user. Thank you for being here and doing everything you can do as an admin. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian: It's apparently hard for the CU to be sure about Banglawikit, though it's likely. But they made a related find: Ashish413 is definitely a sock of Bengaliwikipro! Also pleasing. Bishonen | tålk 20:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks a lot, Bishonen. At least, one of the two caste warriors could be identified as a sock. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bishonen.. I am pretty much sure that user Gorezka46 is a sock of User:Bengaliwikipro & User:Ashish413. Would request you to take necessary action, and if possible, semi-protect the article on Baidya in order to prevent persistent vandalism. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Ekdalian. I won't even bother a CU with this one. Bishonen | tålk 08:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, once again! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrBishonen I am extremely sorry to disturb you. I just want to know that, what is going on here in Wikipedia? Ekdalian is removing my sourced contents and then giving me warning.Here in this source [11]page no 48.It is clearly written that, Vaidyas are inbetween Brahmin and Kshatriya.Pls check all the sources given in the top or lead(whatever it is) section of the Baidya page.He is removing my edit. Thanks. Banglawikit (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen Baidya of Bengal are equivalent to Brahmin. Hence I provided that 'Baidya along with Brahmin are regarded as the higest hindu caste..' It was there for two days. After that He reverted my edit.my sources are also relevant. Ekdalian also know that Baidyas are equivalent to Brahmin. See the talk page here. Again his intention is doubtful. Thanks. Banglawikit (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not speaking for Bishonen, but your editing here is problematic, that you don't seem to get it even after multiple editors have explained it to you is another problem. That you see no problem in just doing a random search for a string on Google and pasting the link as a source is another problem. If this behavior continues then you will be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 16:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Bishonen.. Arthur1277 has edited Talk:Baidya and related articles; his edits clearly indicate he is not a new user, rather a sock of Banglawikit/Bengaliwikipro. Would request you to please check the same. Otherwise, my concern is, he will disrupt the constructive discussions going on in the talk page of Baidya regarding improving the article. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, enjoy your vacation! Must be having a great time. Ekdalian (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello Bishonen, would like to inform you that the sock has been blocked. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi Bishonen, hope you had a great time, possibly a long-awaited break!! Now, in spite of several warnings, and even the recent one regarding use of the Sanskrit epic Mahabharata, user ‎Dr.SunBD is still doing the same and is engaged in edit war. Please have a look at his edits, articles on Vaidya‎ & Sena dynasty. All are meant for the glorification of his own caste and he does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. I would request you to take necessary action, if possible! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mmm.. Ekdalian, as I've said, you're always welcome here, but please don't ask several admins for the same thing. User:RegentsPark understands these matters better than I do, in any case, so I'm not going to second-guess him. Thanks for your good wishes; my vacation was overly hot! But with great swimming in great big waves on the Swedish west coast. :-) Bishonen | tålk 10:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
        Sorry, I would beg to differ. I had informed User:RegentsPark since he had recently warned the user. I realized that he is quite obviously not aware of the warning issued regarding the use of Sanskrit sources like Mahabharata & Vedas. Despite your warning, the user is violating the basic thumb rule that he is not supposed to interpret Sanskrit texts & epics. I try to bother you or RegentsPark as less as possible. At times, I do bother you and the same is applicable for RegentsPark as well. I reported the same to you when I realized it would be time consuming for RegentsPark to understand the violation issue; he would have to go through the previous communication with the user, which you are aware. Anyway, I am always grateful to you and RegentsPark for your continuous support, without which I would not have been able to contribute to Wikipedia, however little my contribution be! Whether you think you should take any action against the user as a senior admin is completely your discretion and my job is just to point it out. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SunBD shouldn't be citing the Mahabharata or the rig vedas. I've dropped a note on their talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RegentsPark! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian, you're quite right. I'd forgotten about my previous warning about the Sanskrit sources, I apologise. It's obvious that the user has no intention of changing their ways as regards sources. I have blocked for one month. Bishonen | tålk 17:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, Bishonen! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please choose the discussions on my talk page

Hello buddy, I request you to kindly close the ongoing discussions on my page as they are all solved. Thanks You. EditGodGuru45 (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to close discussions on user talkpages, EditGodGuru45. Also, I disagree that they're "solved". Since you're here, I'll just ask you to listen better to experienced editors, rather than assume you know better. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources only; not by your personal knowledge. Therefore it's quite inappropriate to be telling other editors that they don't know as much as you, or even that they "know nothing", as you said to Yamaguchi先生. If they have more Wikipedia experience, it's, on the contrary, likely that they know more about the principles for editing here. Bishonen | tålk 14:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Harassment

Sorry for the Harrasment I will not do again -- did not see the message regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadirahFierg (talk • contribs)

Good, thank you! Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~~~~). Bishonen | tålk 16:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

2001:8004::/34

2001:8004::/34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently partially blocked. I am seeing new vandalism,[12][13][14][15][16] but also some reasonable edits, so it is likely that more that one user in in that range. Not sure what, if anything, should be done. Maybe block a smaller range? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you picked the most recent admin in the log, but I'm afraid that flatters me. I added a page (Sushi) to the partial block which had already been placed, but that doesn't mean I have an understanding of these big ranges. /64s, those are what I can handle. I suggest you place a call to one of the more competent admins involved, such as Favonian. Bishonen | tålk 08:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Guy Macon: Don't know about the "competent" bit, but I make up for it in bloodthirst: 2001:8004:c40::/44 blocked site-wide for a month. This covers most of the miscreants you reported, though not 2001:8004:2730:97de:c1b7:ca7e:a435:2591. Favonian (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hail to the Terminator! Bishonen | tålk 09:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome home, Favonian. We knew you'd be back. After all, it was programmed in you. Oh, and you executed that programming beautifully! You are an infiltration prototype. The only one of your kind. We resurrected you. Advanced Cyberdyne's work. Amended it. The human condition no longer applies to you. Accept what you already know. That you were made to serve a purpose. To achieve what no other machine has achieved before. To infiltrate, find a target and block that target from editing Wikipedia for 30 days.[17] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your offerings of flattery have been accepted, oh faithful minions. So far, you've only been exposed to my messages in writing. When we get full audio, my sinister, somewhere-in-Europe accent will firmly establish my connection to the Immortal Arnie. Favonian (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sivakasi Riots article bothered by a sock?

The contents of the Sivakasi riots of 1899 article are being deleted by a new user called Vendsoil. Based on the way he edits, he is most probably the sock of EruTheLord. I have filed a complaint accordingly here. Please go through this issue when you find the time. Thank you.Mayan302 (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mayan302. Thank you for creating the SPI. I'm not sure why you ask me specifically to look into it? I haven't had anything to do with EruTheLord other than a warning in August 2020. May I suggest El_C would be a better admin to approach if you're becoming impatient with the lack of response at the SPI? (Though I'm sure admins + CU will get to it eventually.) Bishonen | tålk 15:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen. I don't know a lot of admins. :). Thank you for your help! Mayan302 (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the SPI was successful. Well done, Mayan302! Bishonen | tålk 11:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you!Mayan302 (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liar

Well, if you must know, it's a bottle brush tree.😜 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Would that be the Grevillea paradoxa? Bishonen | tålk 16:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Persecution of Dalits

Hello. How are you?

While I was away, Persecution of Dalits was redirected. The content I added was totally unalike from how it was prior 2008.

2008 Version - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Dalits&oldid=235205811

My version - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Dalits&oldid=1025630024

Now expanded more. What should I do to avoid another redirect and expand this article? Friendly Eagle (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Friendly Eagle. You should discuss on the talkpage and explain why you believe it should be an article rather than a redirect. Bishonen | tålk 20:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

small issue with SoftLavander

Hi this user removed something from my user page what are the rules on Wikipedia and what is a SOAPBOX I put a link on it because I saw that the user Riquix put his own website ... regards SadirahFierg (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SadirahFierg. You can read about what you may have in your user page at WP:UPYES. Among other things, it says there that "You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language", which is pretty much what you had, so I'm not sure why Softlavender removed it. But they are an experienced editor who would not do so at random, so I suggest you ask them on their talkpage. Note, though, that if people provide a link for you, you should click on it, rather than ask somebody else. Softlavender did explain their edit in the edit summary — though in my opinion possibly not sufficiently — by linking to WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Click on it to see what a soapbox is, please. Bishonen | tålk 11:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Caste warfare on Rajput

Last time 2 months passed, when we discussed a lot on it, to reach present version. Now few editors are removing same things on dubious ground for caste promotion. The "shudra" term and the image. It has been becoming a victim of caste puffery once again. Needs protection to avoid caste pov edits. Tagging RegentsPark. Heba Aisha (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tea!

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

Benevolent human (talk) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Benevolent human (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This could be interesting

[18] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'd better not comment on that at all, except maybe to ping Johnuniq. Bishonen | tålk 19:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. I'm happy. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

MakeWayForTheLion is misbehaving again, despite your final warning. See [19]. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. I noticed, and actually blocked the user before reading this. Bishonen | tålk 21:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

POV push Baidya

POV pushing at Baidya again. The editors there want to portray Baidyas as some Brahmin equivalent. So they want to remove a simple hyperlink to the Vellalars because the Vellalars are a ‘Shudra’ ‘Agricuitural’ caste. Please drop your opinion here Talk:Baidya#Vellalar_and_Vellala. 13:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:509b:aef2:c8a7:298f:805e:7326 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, IP, life is too short. Please sign with four tildes, not five, which gives only a timestamp. Bishonen | tålk 16:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Another baseless SPI report by User:Ratnahastin

I would like to bring to your attention that User:Ratnahastin, formerly known as User:Sikandar khan67, had filed another sockpuppet investigation report (this time against me) [20] that was eventually declared closed by User:Mz7 without even a Checkuser due to the lack of evidence. You had previously warned User:Ratnahastin against filing more "baseless" SPI reports [21], but it is evident that the user did not listen. Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chariotrider555 sorry but Bishonen warned me against filing "retaliatory" reports that report was not Retaliatory i had never interacted with you before it. Secondly SPIs are normal wiki processes. Ratnahastin^talk 14:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did interact with me before under the name of User: Sikhandar khan67. [22], [23], [24], [25]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chariotrider555 (talk • contribs)

Ratnahastin did you file a spi against me before? Or any other report? Nope so that report wasn't retaliatory and not liable for sanctions SPIs are normal wiki processes without it wiki would never work.Ratnahastin ^talk 15:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chariotrider555, Bishonen said that Ratnahastin would be sanctioned for SPI's which he suppose was in retaliation for the report Heba Aisha filed against him. The report against you, although had a substance, was declined by Checkuser because of oppositionary comments made by 3 other editors in your defence. Otherwise, check user would have been performed. That SPI was no way in any sort of retaliation. Ratnahastin seems to never have interacted with you and you never filed SPI against him. So, it was not at all retaliatory and not liable for sanctions. Shinjoya (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I agree the SPI report had some substance — though not enough — and was not retaliatory or otherwise obviously filed in bad faith, so I'm not going to sanction Ratnahastin for it. Bishonen | tålk 16:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the first time ever, I’ve just been reading this most interesting journal! What has been happening to poor old IRC? Forceful takeovers and mass resignations. My goodness me, it sounds quite like old times.what happened to that odd man that used to claim he owned IRC? Giano (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. I don't think I can handle moving to a different IRC — can't face reading a "migration guide" — but then IRC hasn't been much fun of late years. Well, once my family tech gets his vaccine and can again visit, I'll ask him to do it. I guess the old times aren't coming back, Giano. Just look at this mysterious stuff! Bishonen | tålk 21:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Very odd that whole IRC/freenode takeover; but hey, you depend on a third party to do your work - then you deal with the mess that's left. I used to be the family tech, but just haven't been up to keeping up with the current technology. Like Bish, I haven't tried out the "libre"/migration version we're now supposed to use, but I did try that Discord thing the kids are all talking about. Same old stuff IMO. Nothing interesting - other than stuff said there being brought to RfA, then bickering about if it should be allowed. oh .. "hey there Giano, Bish" .. hope all is well in your respective neighborhoods. — Ched (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I too used to be the family tech, but then DOS Shell came out. I was a wizard with the C:\ prompt, though! --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you said that. I was once very proud of my ability to write DOS batch files. Now, I'm both obsolete and clueless (not to mention, not interested). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should go over to the dark side then .... macOS still has a UNIX command prompt where you can party like it's 1992... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, even I have standards. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reverting by LancePark

Hello Bishonen,

There has been frequent unexplained reverting of sourced content by a user named LancePark in the Wikipedia Pages : Mukunda Deva Paralakhemundi state and Jagannatha Gajapati Narayana Deo II. After removing sourced content he has added puffed up claims without any reliable source. Can you please advise him not to do so. Thanks Rodotype (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese editor

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cheese editor. As you have been involved with this editor, I suspect that this will not surprise you in the least! Thanks again for your previous efforts sorting this child editor out. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a surprise! I can't believe it! Thank you, 10mmsocket. Bishonen | tålk 08:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Talk page argument

Bishonen, I hope experience is not all about edit counts. Please don't take it otherwise, but I have publications in international journals.

Like other editors, I have other important works too. It is unpleasent for me to reply others' recurring comments in spite of knowing it is not going to be fruitful. If my words have hurt you then I'm sorry. Uxorus (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uxorus, did you intend to state that you have publications in international journals as Bishonen corrected autonomously? Joppa Chong (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joppa Chong, Uxorus changed their own comment after it had been replied to. That's why I reverted their change — not in order to correct their grammar. Bishonen | tålk 08:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

OK. Nevertheless, their change was irrelevant for the course of this discussion, please don't repeat that. Joppa Chong (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia experience is all about edit counts, Uxorus, and especially about how you edit. Publications elsewhere do not give you Wikipedia experience. Your comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles are extremely repetitive, and you haven't shown any interest in any other aspect of Wikipedia than adding salutations after the name of Muhammad. That's probably the narrowest purpose for editing Wikipedia I've seen in my years here, and it gives the impression that you are here purely for advocacy. I link the word for you, of course in the hope that you will follow the link, but I'm not very optimistic. At the Manual of Style discussion, I linked to Wikipedia: Don't bludgeon the process, but it seems unlikely you followed my link, both because you answered so quickly, and because of the nature of your answer. You seem a lot more interested in talking than in listening, or in reading our guidelines, and for that reason, I'm done interacting with you. If you continue your advocacy (try following the link! really!) at the discussion at Manual of Style, I will close it. Bishonen | tålk 19:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I do think you have been unfair on @Uxorus:. As he said Here, he was only replying to a question that I had asked him. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really, JorgeLaArdilla? In the diff you give, he says nothing of the kind. But, in your opinion, the user's 30 [sic, thirty] edits at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles merely replied to a question that you had asked him? That is not the case. Far from it. Bishonen | tålk 08:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I count at least 7 Questions to Uxorus at that section. Five by me, two by others. Nearly a week had passed, but it was me who reopened the thread.JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC) p.s. As I have now satisfied myself as to the answer, I will ask no more.[reply]

48Pills

Hi Bishonen, I notice you've recently warned 48Pills about incivility. This warning follows two en.wiki blocks in 2020 for personal attacks and a Commons block in March 2021 (related to "Asshole" [26]; "Just not worth it getting harassed by nobodys" [27]; "go fuck yourself" [28]; "piece of shit" [29]). Just wanted to make you aware of the history, including its cross-project nature, in case concerns continue and/or the user's compatibility with expectations of a collegial atmosphere needs more evaluation. Эlcobbola _talk 20:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you, elcobbola. Bishonen | tålk 20:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Some of my proudest moments, and all still very true. 48Pills (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Dummy or Puppet accounts that needs your urgent actions

Hey Bishonen, Great efforts.

I just came across these users User:RudolphHitz : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RudolphHitz

User:Rodotype : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rodotype&redlink=1

User:Odiahistory : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Odiahistory

Against whom you have taken actions recently. Out of curiosity I digged in a little bit and realized these users seems to be dummy accounts of one user only.

Wondering, Did you get a chance to check their IPs ? If it so then it deserves a permanent ban.

The reason for raising this issue is because I have noticed blatant falsification, removal of sourced content and open Vandalism in some articles such as Kingdom of Jeypore or other well sourced articles related the southern Odisha.

This gives additional baggage of burden to maintain the quality of information that is being shared via Wikipedia.

Let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks Sangramz (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bishonen, you are most welcome to check my IP but please check the edit history of User:Sangramz on Jeypore. I came across the page of Jeypore, where User:Rodotype’s changes were altered to some baseless statement by Sangramz. I reverted his edit because it seemed like a bad faith edit with the statements not matching the source. The source stated Vir Vikram Dev as solar dynasty king, whereas, Sangramz changed it to “small Khand kingdom”. I only reverted it to the original edit by Rodotype. Then a user named Solarson made the same edit as Sangramz (totally baseless & irrelevant to the source).

Please also check the IPs of Sangramz & User:Solarson919 because they have been making a lot of caste related edits pretty lately and they might be sock puppets. I’ve reported Solarson919’s activities and vandalism to User:Utcursch. Happy editing. Odiahistory (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda laughable. Glad that User: Odiahistory is open to background check.

We are here seek sources and consensus, which is not reflected anyways from the Users I cited, but added to that misbehavior to admins and aggressive edits wars.

It's not that hard measure. Sangramz (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any one instance, where I was involved in an edit war or misbehaved with admins ? I can provide many evidences where you have vandalised articles for the sake of glorifying a caste. You have also been warned a couple of times by admins and still you continue to do the same. You did the same in Jeypore page, where you edited “small khand kingdom” and discreetly reviewed it as “reverted to sourced versed” when the source clearly didn’t mention any of your claims. You keep on adding words like it was a small zamindari and you did the same “small zamindari” bad faith editing in Kingdom of Jeypore page which was reverted by a user named Jethwarp.

I think you need to up your level in researching and editing. And please stop vandalising historical pages with your caste agenda & possible personal issues. Thanks. Odiahistory (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

user:odiahistory I want to ask you a question on the same note. Where does the source mention jeypore to be the same as "kingdom of Kalinga", "the only kingdom in Kalinga" or "the largest kingdom of Kalinga" ? I won't play the blame game here but your behaviour is eerily similar to user:rodotype's. I believe you are a sockpuppet. Solarson919 (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Solarson919 first of all let me make this clear, I did not add those statements, they were added by another user (Rodotype). I only reverted your & Sangramz’s bad faith, unsourced & irrelevant caste glorifying edits. It was not because I did not like your claims, it was because you did not provide a reliable source confirming your edits that it was a “small Khand kingdom”, which you two have disruptively added a few times.

And I also believe that you two might be sockpuppets after seeing your edit history. Both of you add/remove sourced content from other pages (mostly related to Khandayat caste) and have also been warned in your talk pages multiple times and still continue vandalising pages. So your accounts definitely need to be scrutinised to avoid further damage to historical pages. On the other hand, can you prove that I have disruptively removed content or vandalised any page ? No. As far as I know all of my edits are sourced with reliable references. Odiahistory (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Solarson919 I have replied to you on the talk page of WP:Jeypore but it looks like you have a turned a blind eye to that and are now trying to create an agenda over here. I’ve also replied to you on my complaint in User:Utcursch’s talk page but you have not replied. So your agenda is quite clear. Instead of wasting my time, you should have a look at Wikipedia policies & avoid “caste glorifying” edits in future. Happy editing. Odiahistory (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So user: odiahistory here claims that jeypore was the largest kingdom in Kalinga on jeypore talk page but refuses that he did so here. Hypocrisy much ? That's why I decided against replying. You're clearly the one with an agenda, Vishweshwar deb. what you're doing by accusing me here is called "projection." You don't even know the difference between kandha and Khandayat so don't larp as a "history enthusiast." The sheer amount hypocrisy you show is laughable. Solarson919 (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another fact to keep in mind when looking at this matter: user: odiahistory concerns himself with only the articles related to jeypore and has mostly made edits on the the same. The same is true for user: rodotype and his alt user: RudolphHitz. Also the conceited and condescending tone of their language are eerily similar (eg. Retorting to personal attacks and throwing fits of rage like an infant). Solarson919 (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Solarson919 I think you are either gullible or highly sensitive, you have been throwing all sorts of accusations but not accepting your fault. Now you are referring me with false names and can you please explain when did I “rage like an infant”? You are the only one raging after seeing your caste glorifying unsourced edits got removed from Jeypore page.

And where does it say in Wikipedia policy that I can’t edit or improve one specific page ? Before throwing accusations you should check your own controversial edit history. Please check this User:Doug Weller does this qualify as a personal attack ? He has been calling me false names, baselessly linking me to different users & raging on me. Please stop this harassment. Odiahistory (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop projecting user:Odiahistory. You're going the same route as user: RudolphHitz again, raging at me, accusing me of misconduct and reporting me in a circlejerk of projections, making my suspicions even stronger. Stop harassing me. And what caste glorification ? What caste did I glorify in jeypore ? Solarson919 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion to both of you is to drop it here, stop making edits about castes anywhere and, ideally, also stop editing Odisha-related topics. That would still leave you well over 5 million articles to work on and would end the ridiculous, highly disruptive mess that is resulting at present. I hope! - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sitush, yes that’s cool with me. I am working on the article of Shermuhammadpuram anyway but please do assure me that in future if he tries to promote or glorify a particular caste in any of the pages then you will take necessary action. Both User:Solarson919 & User:Sangramz must also stop editing Odisha related pages. Thank you. Odiahistory (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red link categories

Hello, Bishonen,

I can see that you don't want anyone editing your user pages so could you please remove the nonexistent, red link categories on User:Bishonen/Useful_warnings?

According to Wikipedia:Red link#Avoiding creation of certain types of red links guideline, A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category. Either the category should be created, or else the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists. Also, as long as these categories keep appearing on the Special:WantedCategories list, it's likely that some editor will try to remove them from the page and I think it's a task better done by you than another well-intentioned editor. Thanks and have a great weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bish, this same issue came up a couple of years ago, with humorous user categories. The solution was to make the category pages blue, and put them into a maintenance category: Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories. You could do something similar. (I can give further advice or help if you want me to.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz. When Tryp turned up, I was just trying to simply remove the categories, but they seem to be immortal. Man, I hate categories. I'm not sure what you're advising me to do, either, Tryptofish. If you would take care of it, preferably without mucking up the "useful warnings" themselves as the previous editor did (see article history), I'd be very grateful. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I'd be happy to. Before I start, I'd like to check that what I think I will do is OK with you. If I understand Liz correctly, there is no problem with the red links at the top of the page, nor with the red-linked user names in some of the user page tags for socks. (Please tell me if I'm wrong about that.) What I take to be the problem is that those tags for socks generate some red-linked categories at the bottom of the page: "Wikipedia sockpuppets of username" and "Wikipedia sockpuppets of puppeteername".

What I'm going to do is to make those two categories blue (but empty) by creating their category pages, so they will look blue instead of red at the bottom of your page. That should solve the problem raised by Liz. It will create a new problem, though, because the categories will be (almost) empty. So I will tag them as "maintenance categories" with a note not to delete them even if they are empty, and I'll put them into a new parent category "Category:Bishonen test categories" which, in turn, I will quietly tuck into the "unconventional user categories" that I linked to just above, where nobody will go snooping around. I'll start that now, and please let me know if anything is not OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You are no longer a "woman in red" --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Bishonen | tålk 21:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Tryptofish: However, I may be back in red soon, per this countermove from the user who originally edited my page. Bishonen | tålk 06:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry that I haven't paid attention and don't know what the problem is, but if the issue concerns the categories at the bottom of User:Bishonen/Useful warnings, the solution is to insert |nocat=1 in each of the active {{sockpuppet}} examples (active meaning the ones without nowiki around them). You might like to change {{sock}} to {{sockpuppet}} because the former redirects to the latter. Do you want me to sprinkle nocat and change the sock template? Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please on the sprinkling, John, but I kind of like the {{sock}} redirect. That doesn't do any harm or confuse, does it? PS, a technical question, as I always need to learn more about templates: why do you type {{tl|sock}} but {{tlf|sockpuppet}}? Does the "f" do something? Bishonen | tålk 07:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

OK, I made this edit. When I looked, I saw that |category= was already present but did not seem to be doing anything, so I replaced it with |nocat=1. You might like to replace them if they were there for some purpose. Re {{tlf}}, I was just showing off while avoiding overlinking—tl and tlf display the same wikitext but tlf is not linked. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not OK. I thought my preview showed no categories, but a couple are there now. I'll look at that soon but not right away. They will be fixable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks ok now. Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 08:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Bish, let me ask you if you are completely OK with it, as it is now, with Johnuniq's changing it to "nocat", and no categories appearing at the bottom of the page. If you are not OK with it, I'm quite prepared to fight it. But if you are OK, then there is really no longer any need for any of the fixes that I made, and we can just let it go. This is just the kind of idiotic thing that really pisses me off, but my pissed-ness need not be decisive here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it kind of pisses me off too, but of course I'm OK with John's neat fix, and we can let it go. Thank you, fishie, and I'm sorry you had the trouble for nothing. Bishonen | tålk 21:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

No problem, all for a good cause. And fyi: [30]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fishie? You rang, Bishzillamomma? darwin^fish 21:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi! Always good to see someone from the old, um, school. Do read WP:MALVOLIO sometime. It's appropriately salty (unless you prefer to keep things fresh). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And after all that, the CfD was withdrawn, so a happy ending, sort of. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nocat is good. On the other hand, nofish would be bad. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, kind admin

Could you please put a SAQ-WP:AC/DS banner on Talk:Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship? Like at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question. I'm guessing I'm not allowed to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I copied the one at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question, and it looks all right, I think (please check). I think you probably would be allowed, on the same principle as you're allowed to put a DS alert on individual user talk pages: in both cases, it's purely informational. I know who shouldn't be allowed to mess about with banners: me. I hate them and they hate me. Bishonen | tålk 20:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

All banners? --bonadea contributions talk 20:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. Especially Longfellow. It's cheap and easy to hate Longfellow, sunk deep in unfashionableness as he is, but still, I really do. Alfred, Lord Tennisball, too. (The latter is featured by Monty Python and on the wall in Bishzilla's Victorian parlour — she's a fan.) Bishonen | tålk 21:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Argh, Longfellow. Having to memorize and recite passages from The Song of Hiawatha in the fifth grade instilled a deep and abiding loathing, long before he became unfashionable. We were apparently supposed to learn a lifelong love of poetry with-a-me-ter-met-ro-nom-ic. It backfired. Acroterion (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Unfortunately, Jolie's tat became less amusing. Hopefully there is no connection, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

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

Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied. Bishonen | tålk 21:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Carsforsale.com

Hi, just letting you know that I've nominated the article that we were talking about. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carsforsale.com. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dr. Vogel. Bishonen | tålk 07:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Request for blocking the caste warrior(s)

Hi Bishonen.. I am really fed up with these caste warriors! Can you please help me stop persistent vandalism by the user Sourav431, currently active on the article Baidya; this user has been warned earlier as well (on his talk page). In fact, POV pushers and caste warriors are now pretty much active on the articles, Baidya and Vaidyabrahmin. Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty tired of these swarming socks myself. I've blocked Sourav431 indefinitely. For other caste warriors (unless they're all the same, indeed), maybe you could write a short note on ANI, Ekdalian? A tip: mention the articles, or other significant words, in your header so as to catch the eyes of the unfortunately overworked Indian admins, who are better at this than me. Bishonen | tålk 17:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bishonen for your prompt action and your valuable suggestion. Honestly speaking, in spite of great respect for all admins in general, Indian or not, I don't believe Indian admins are better than you in any respect. For me, you are simply the best amongst the admins I have encountered here; and when I say this, I truly say this from the bottom of my heart. Thanks, once again! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would request you if you can help me stop the caste warrior Dr.SunBD, whom you had blocked earlier. He has been warned multiple times, still he would refuse to understand that he is not supposed to interpret Sanskrit texts as per his own POV, and we only accept the views of reliable authors interpreting such texts (explained clearly on the article talk page). Please have a look at the article on Vaidyabrahmin. Thanks & Regards! Ekdalian (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ekdalian, I did block them earlier, but did you notice I had to withdraw the block and apologize? (I'd thought they were socking, but I was mistaken.) But I agree with you completely about Vaidyabrahmin, and have given the user a strong warning. Those Google Books "references" are altogether... they are... I can't think of a polite word for that miserable manner of referencing. Bishonen | tålk 08:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Very true indeed! Thank you so much, Bishonen! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Bishonen,I know Edalian is a very senior editor thats why you are believing you over us,that's not your fault if I was in your position I would also do the same. now coming to the main point here,ekdalian saying that everyone is a caste warrior who wanted to write the truth on the Bengali baidya page.the irony is ekdalian is the main caste warrioe here who is undoubly a kayastha and wanting to promote his caste,sorry for this but yes i dont have any other option to let you understand about this whole situation here.

in the talk page of baidya Mr bangalawikit given five or more citations (that undoubtedly supports Wikipedia terms and conditions and already used in many Wikipedia article) that proves Baidyas hold same social ranking as brahmins in Bengal and Kayastha are Sudras and later on claimed the Kshatriya status, please do check that. On that note I would like to add initially Sanskrit college only allowed brahmins and baidyas(also a brahmin community) to study there but not Kayastha. later on, after becoming the principal and removing the castism Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar allowed Kayastha to study there, just google it about that.

so how Kayastha and brahmin can rank hold the same social position there??? in Bengali Kayastha wiki page it is written there. I would like to request to take a review of that. and I don't think the citations are also not legit there. sorry for my bad englishAshish413 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry you're dishonestly socking, User:Bengaliwikipro. Depressing. Sock blocked. Bishonen | tålk 21:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

June

thinking of you in June, decorated with St. John wort and a rainbow, with some impressions of places, flowers and music including strawberry cake for you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

added: missing SlimVirgin, and RMF festival opening --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Owner of All

The user apparently decided to save Hijiri the trouble of starting an ANI thread to have them blocked. See WP:ANI#User wants me to be blocked. I've posted some diffs there, including one where TOA opposed an RfA candidate because that candidate had rejected prior fascist beliefs, and another where TOA admits to being here for right-wing POV pushing. I figured you might want to take a look, given your closing comments at the other thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No! No no! Do you hate me? Bishonen | tålk 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

No, I adore you, Bish! You're the Platinum Goddess of WP, after all.

I'm not asking you to step in, at least two admins have already commented in that thread. I was just letting you know, so that you could step in if you wanted to.

Or if -like me- you wanted to find a good laugh or two. I personally find this user's behavior quite funny: they have made "out there" comments on multiple occasions, experienced pushback, and began spamming commentary in apparent desperation once they realize things aren't going to go the way they wanted. There's a subforum on Reddit called YesYesYesNo which -if more Redditors understood Wikipedia's processes- would find this editor absolutely hilarious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see they've had the terrible idea of pinging Floquenbeam. Now that's kind of humorous. Bishonen | tålk 21:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

My particular favorite was when ToA asked for one of the threads they opened in their attempts to get me blocked to be closed, and Jayron32 replied You know what, I don't think we should. There's some additional parts of this situation that needs to be explored, as noted below. Let's see where this discussion goes. It literally made me laugh out loud, as ToA had spent the next 10 minutes writing about 8 comments in that thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Barelvi

Dear, that removal was done in mistake while adding my comment. I never intend to do it willfully. Blanking that portion is not helpful to anybody. ScholarM (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Please use Preview, ScholarM. Feel free to re-add your comment, as I reverted you wholly — you had removed so much, I didn't notice a comment. Bishonen | tålk 10:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for understanding. I added my comments. ScholarM (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your re-added comment, and I don't think much of it. I'm taking this to your page, because I intend to warn you about not assuming good faith, and about personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 10:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, could you give me some advice on my content dispute with User:ScholarM? He insisted in his latest reply that there is no content dispute and rejected my earlier invitation for he and I to open a post together via WP:DR. I'm still trying to convince him to work with me in my latest reply, but for the record, do you know what the next step should be if one party in a dispute requests DR while the other party refuses? Thank you in advance for any advice you can provide. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MezzoMezzo. You don't have to file a joint request at WP:DR, in fact people usually don't, but the fact remains that if you file one on your own and the other party won't take part, your request will simply be closed down and your work with it will be wasted. On the WP:DR page, some other venues are mentioned. I suggest you either go with Wikipedia:Third opinion, which is especially useful for disputes involving only two editors, or post at the Reliable sources noticeboard. The second is of course for if there's mainly disagreement about sourcing. If you post there, be very specific about the sources concerned, and (for courtesy) tell ScholarM that you have taken it to that noticeboard. Good luck. Bishonen | tålk 15:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, I have already tried to solve the dispute by reverting MezzoMezzo's various vandal edits on Barelvi and edits relevant to template Barelvi but unfortunately instead of accepting the third opinion they falsely spit his baseless claim on me by accusing that user:ScholarM asked me to do this somewhere outside Wikipedia, which is very funny in this regard and totally baseless. I had not replied previously on talk page because I was busy as I had already put a "busy template" on my user page, I somehow managed my time to comment on your talk page to clarify the issue. MezzoMezzo continuously vandalising the Barelvi article by pushing his own pov. Although I was not agreed with ScholarM previously but after looking their continuous revert of the sourced content, they must need a topic ban to stop further vandalism.

Thanks. Youbat (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of Check-the-text

Hello,

As a sysop on frwiki, I have been thanked by Check-the-text. I noticed that this editor (bot?) is accustomed to thanking a few tens of persons. You blocked this account on enwiki, but we wonder if there is something to do on frwiki. After all, those actions seem harmless. Would you have any information you'd be able to share, and would justify your blocking? Thank you! Litlok (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Litlok. If they've only thanked a few tens of people on frwiki, I suppose you might as well ignore them, but I don't think what they did on enwiki was harmless, exactly. They have no edits here — zero — and they thanked about a thousand people in the course of a year.[31] That's completely disruptive in my opinion, and I would definitely block them on fr if they're acting the same way there. See also this discussion for a few other accounts with the same behaviour. Socks, no doubt. Bishonen | tålk 16:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. We will be vigilant. Litlok (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidaying!

What the subject line says. Will you bring Bishzilla and Darwinbish and the rest of the lovely crew? --bonadea contributions talk 16:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! They love the sea! Though Bishzilla's favorite thing isn't so much going in the sea, as majestically emerging from it, roaring and belching flames to terrify the little land-dwellers. Just her idea of a practical joke. Bishonen | tålk 19:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now this time I'm asking you to step in

I recently came across this wonderful example of an editor ranting against the gay agenda to support an !vote at an AfD, and I'd like to ask you to have a word with them about expressing bigoted falsehoods on WP.

I'd normally simply respond that homophobia does not make a compelling argument for deletion, but one of my employees (who is gay) happened to be sitting with me, waiting for some code to compile when I found it, and her reaction was... Well, distressing. I think this is better left in the hands of a competent admin than my own.

And for the sake of good spirits, I'm sharing the the link she just emailed me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now there's this from the same editor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently blocked now, Hammerpants. Did you see my vacation notice? I've been seriously offline. Anyway, this has to be the craziest stuff I've seen in a long time. Bishonen | tålk 20:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I did see it... Right after I left the first note here, heh. I figured WP:ROPE might well apply. Apparently, I was correct, though Bbb23 managed to beat you to it. I appreciate you looking into it, in any case (as I appreciate Bbb23 stepping up).

In any case, I hope you enjoyed your vacation. I need to have one of those, myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Admin usernames

I've noticed that many administrators have very cool and/or coveted usernames, such as yours. How is this the case? Do admins commandeer the usernames they want if the current owner is inactive? Is there anywhere that I may read this policy? Many of these usernames are very few characters and I'm sure they don't belong to the first accounts that registered under them. Is it an award for being an admin that you get to choose a cool username? Is there a grace period before such usernames can be claimed? Can non-admins ask to receive the names of inactive accounts? Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The closest thing Wikipedia has to what you're talking about is called "usurpation", as described here, but I wouldn't be sure that that's how people got their username; it's not done as a "prize" for admins or anything like that. It's not a common thing at all, and even less so now than it was some years ago, and most people really did just nab those usernames. Bishonen, for example, really has just been around enough to have that good of a username (and several more besides). She's...an institution, you might say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely impressive! I just read a news article mentioning her, too. Thank you, White King!♦️Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ugh. You have correctly interpreted the reference, but when I made this account almost 10 years ago, "White King" would've sounded only like the chess-based character name it was...now, maybe not so much, and it's gross. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India-Pakistan topic ban still in effect?

Hello Bishonen, and I apologize in advance because I feel a little crass asking this, but I noticed - just ten minutes ago - that User:ScholarM was subject to a topic ban relating to Indian and Pakistani Islamic scholars per User_talk:ScholarM/Archive_1#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban_2. I'm tagging him here out of fairness because I'm mentioning him, and I'm checking his talk page archives because of multiple copyright violations, failed verification checks, and personal attacks on me during the past two weeks. Much occurred during my Wiki hiatus from 2019 to this June. Has the topic ban been removed, or is it still in effect, if you don't mind me asking? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's still in effect, MezzoMezzo, and last time I checked (admittedly a while back) they hadn't violated it. It's an indefinite ban, so it will remain in effect until it's lifted. For that to happen, the user would have to appeal it per the instructions they got in my ban notice. BTW, I noticed Johnuniq warned another user about harassing you. If you believe ScholarM also needs a warning concerning the personal attacks you mention, could you supply some examples (diffs)? Bishonen | tålk 14:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Bishonen, i am apologizing for any mistake i have done in recent past. Is there any forum at Wikipedia to deal with flood of vague complaints and targeting ? I am not accusing any one but please enlighten me that targeting an editor in the middle of edit warring by discussing his previous ban will amount to insult or personal attack or not ? ScholarM (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can complain at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if you wish, ScholarM. But I can't say I recommend it; the risk of a boomerang for you would be great. (Please follow my "boomerang" link and consider it.) As for MezzoMezzo's post above, I do not believe it's "discussing" your topic ban; they're merely asking if the ban is still in effect — a reasonable question and not an insult, in my opinion. Bishonen | tålk 21:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your comments and advice. I am really shocked to see frivolous accusations against me. I don't know what is the reason for that but it may be edit dispute at Barelvi article as well as rejection of MezzoMezzo's POV. ScholarM (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response Bishonen, as well as for your offer, though I'm not worried about the personal attacks so much; ScholarM is already on warning for that from two other admins, as well as on a final warning for copyright violations. My main concern was the topic ban because not only do I believe he's violated it by editing articles covered by it per your June 2020 explanation, but I also believe that he's almost exclusively editing articles covered by the topic ban. That is, aside from one or two edits here or there, he's only editing articles about Islam and India/Pakistan.

I'm also concerned because, as I began looking into his talk page archives, I saw more and more warnings he'd received for the same abuse I've suffered, signaling unchanged behavior. On April 14, for example, Diannaa warned him about copyright violations, yet a few days ago, I spent nearly two hours cross-referencing and looking over articles he'd edited - time which I could have better spent improving articles - to confirm that he'd just done more copyright violations, leading to a final warning. When I looked over his history with Sitush, I felt sympathetic because I'm facing the same problems with failed verifications and a POV so strong that it affects all his edits. All of this is on articles covered by the topic ban.

It's not personal, but it is about the project, and I'm not sure what to do. So much of my Wikipedia time is consumed cleaning up his messes, messes which seem to be repeated over time, and the deeper I go into the rabbit hole, the more I realize that he was topic banned for a reason. I don't know if I should go to AN for topic ban enforcement or what, but I'm really at my wit's end here. Do you have any advised actions? MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I could be wrong but it does seem that ScholarM is editing almost exclusively in the intersection of Islam and Pakistan. That, it would appear, was the essence of the topic ban. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:MezzoMezzo, you don't need to act, I will, and I'm sorry I dropped the ball. Blocked for one month for repeated egregious violations of their topic ban. RegentsPark, now that I've looked at their recent editing, it's obvious indeed. Bishonen | tålk 07:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

User:RegentsPark, thank you so much for taking the time to check too; those edits seem to have flown under the radar, even in my case; I've been embroiled in multiple content disputes with the editor for over a month due to pretty clear WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, yet even I didn't know about the topic ban or his previous disputes on the same topic until just before my messages above. I guess that's how it continued for so long...flying under the radar.

User:Bishonen, there's no need to be sorry; in fact, I want to thank you. Every day when I logged in for the past month, I was getting this sudden spike in my heart rate where it would beat uncomfortably fast because I knew I'd be logging in either to see personal insults directed at me or more of the blatant refusals to get the point which were so extreme that they could be used as material in a Will Ferrell movie. For the time being, would I be permitted to look through the user's edits on the banned topics to check for other examples of disruptive editing which I may have missed? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in order to revert any disruptive edits, MezzoMezzo? That would be fine. Of course nobody can stop you looking through Wikipedia's extremely open and transparent article histories for any other purpose either, but reporting what you find would be kind of a waste of time IMO. The sanction I gave the user today should cover all the ban-violating disruption they've done up to today, so that they can start with a clean slate when the block expires. (Well, apart from being under a final copyright violation warning.) Bishonen | tålk 12:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Caste Promotion in "Ramachandra Deva I" Page

Hi Bishonen, hope you're doing well. Recently I have come across a caste promotion without sources in "Ramachandra Deva I" Wiki Page. All the sources in the "Early life" section, only mention the king claimed ancestry from Yaduvansha. One source says, it's difficult to ascertain the caste of the King. But different ids pushing the POV that the king belongs to Gopal caste, despite no such mention in any of the sources. I have tried my best to rearrange the page according to the sources but got reverted immediately by a Caste ID named "THE YADAVS". Another User named "Behera Sahab" also involved in the POV pushing. I had tried to reconcile with him in his talk page but got no response regarding his Gopal caste claim . It's really frustrating to deal with large no of Caste IDs as a single Editor. Please help. Thank you Peacepks (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of an expert on these kinds of sources, Peacepks. I'll ping @Sitush, Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, and SpacemanSpiff: for you. Bishonen | tålk 15:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. The same caste promotion is going on that Page. If possible then protect that Page. The same Unsourced changes are done by multiple accounts at a time on that specific page for POV pushing. All accounts have similar editing style so it's possible that one guy is trying to promote his caste with multiple wiki accounts. Peacepks (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previously blocked user reappeared under new name

Hi you recently blocked Diane Molly Handerson, the user appears to have reappeared as User talk:Sarah Laura Bullher, and has begun the same pattern of adding uncited categories to BLPs and reverting previous reverts. I have reported them as a sockpuppet. Could you please have a look. Thanks. Sciencefish (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this, Sciencefish. I've commented at the SPI. Bishonen | tålk 09:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Place to appeal warnings?

Is there a place to appeal warnings if an editor believes they were given out unfairly? I am not asking for you to review my warnings at this time, but merely asking if such an avenue is available to editors and if so where I should do it. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no such place. Of course warnings are of different validity and value, depending mainly on who they come from. (Anybody can post a warning.) If you find a particular warning unacceptable, I suggest you just say so below it, and explain why. Bishonen | tålk 16:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunate timing for partial block

Hey Bishonen, this decision to partially block these two editors strikes me as unfortunate. I had just succeeded in getting the two of them to recognize what was wrong with their approach and to concede that it was mistaken, and Snow Rise had just been arguing that regardless of the appropriateness of their edits, they had been discussing in a civil way. Partially blocking at this juncture, expressly citing aggressive discussion, feels a bit like you ignored these developments (also note that Johnuniq already put the page under full protection). It's a very long thread, so it would be understandable if you did not read through all of it, but you might want to read that last section again. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did read it all. I was surprised at Snow Rise's opinion. Note, though, that my own comment about aggression was specifically directed at the ANI discussion. Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps Snow Rise didn't read the first part very well... Anyways, you're obviously much more experienced with this kind of thing, so I'll gladly defer to your judgment. Thanks for looking into this, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the record, I regard this as now a matter of administrative discretion, and I do not, as a general matter, make it my habit to make noise out of an admin's call. In theory I might have to say something if I saw what might be regarded as 'abuse of discretion', for want of a better term. But this isn't within even miles of that: this decision is clearly the kind of call that is well within the purview of admins wherein the community expects said sysops to exercise their best judgement. I would note one thing, if I can be forgiven for being my tedious, pro forma self: I think it probably should not be logged as a community ban, based on the responses to date--though of course the discussion is ongoing and that precise consensus may yet arise, in which case it should of course be logged as a CBAN.

As to my own perspective, suffice it to say that I did not approve of the content the editors in question were trying to push, but I was satisfied that they were capable of accepting that their approach to the situation had not been appropriate, and to changing their methodology. Or more precisely, I was prepared to extend them the benefit of the doubt and the WP:ROPE. But they don't need me to stick up for them now: because of the way this played out (the procedural flow and the nature of the block) they now have access not just to the ongoing WP:ANI, but also appeal through the blocking policy or WP:AN, provided they don't blatantly forum shop, one after the other. Mind you, I wouldn't take the time to even say any of this expressly, under normal circumstances, but insofar as I was pinged and referenced, let me be clear that I see nothing inappropriate in Bish's approach here, even if we do clearly disagree with regard to our read on the editors. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Snow Rise. Those are indeed not community blocks, and I won't log them as such. They were placed at my sole admin discretion. I know I linked to the ANI discussion in the block notices and the block logs — sorry if that was confusing. I purely intended it to provide the background against which I exercised that discretion. The community discussion, where for example topic bans have been mooted, is still ongoing. Bishonen | tålk 14:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Nah, I didn't think you had raised the implication it was a CBAN: I was just being (well, there's no more self-indulgent synonym, so I'll just say it) anal in my analysis. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 14:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I am really disappointed and heartbroken that Attic Salt has decided to leave Wikipedia and I am contemplating doing the same. The way that Bishonen has interpreted the situation makes me very scared that the community of administrators here on Wikipedia are hostile to new editors and show extreme favoritism to established editors to the point of being blind to their bullying and abusive behavior. I really wanted to make positive contributions to Wikipedia but this has really soured my experience here. TrueQuantum (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) TrueQuantum, Please don't be scared. I can assure you that the community of administrators here are exceptionally welcoming to new editors, and for the most part, so are most non-admins that I know of. There's an entire Welcoming committee here, dedicated to welcoming new users, and there are mentor programs, and various other forms of assistance available to new editors (including the WP:Tea house, the WP:Help desk, and much more).

Among admins, Bishonen is both senior, and exceptionally even-keeled. Wikipedia has what appears to be a thicket of "rules" (we call them, "policies" and "guidelines") which can be daunting for a new user and sometimes they can seem disorganized as it's a volunteer project (even the "rules" are written by volunteers), and its easy to run afoul of one or another of the many rules without even knowing they existed, and ending up with ruffled feathers or injured pride because of it. But we've all been there, so just shake it off, and start again.

By and large, people are here to welcome you and help you get on board. You are most welcome to contact me at my Talk page about Wikipedia editing questions, or you can add a new message containing a question on your talk page and add {{Help me}} to the message, to attract the attention of a random volunteer. Bishonen is a volunteer, also; her pay for the hours she spends keeping the encyclopedia running smoothly, is zero. Trust me when I tell you, she, and other administrators, are here to help you. I hope that going forward, your editing experience at Wikipedia will improve, and that you will derive the satisfaction and enjoyment that I have here, for many years. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, I'm pretty even-keeled myself. Looks like TrueQuantum is as well. Attic Salt.

TPA

Hi Bishonen. You blocked this user but could you also remove talk page access at User talk:Tech-Talk-Two? The user has spammed twice there after your block. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks. Bishonen | tålk 16:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not happy with Bonadea

Hello. I'm Adam, I'm from Malaysia <redacted>. I'm actually a researcher of various worldly knowledges including slavic. I actually understand what she said to me about editing pages. I indeed understand her. I live all of my old wrongdoings and go to new. In fact, before this, some edit changings that I did was wrong, so that's why she was angry to me. Can you please let her forgive me, and I'll forgive her also, and can you please not let her to block me? I have to edit pages that talks about various things from China to the end of Slavia or English.

Hi, Adamdaniel864. I believe Bonadea has forgiven you, but she'll be annoyed anew if you keep on at her about learning Ukrainian etc. She doesn't have to learn a foreign language unless she wants to, so please just leave her alone. She can't block you even if she wanted to (which I don't think she does), as she's not an administrator. I am, though. Please don't put your age out in public on Wikipedia. And please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~). That will turn automatically into your username + a timestamp when you save. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi!

Hey Bish, saw you pop up on my watchlist - just wanted to say Hi! and hope things are going well with you and yours - TheresNoTime ^😺 10:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, TheresNoTime, things are fine with me and all my socks. Here's wishing you the same. Bishonen | tålk 10:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

क्या आप हिंदी बोलते हैं

UTRS appeal #46320 ist geöffnet --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they do speak English. (relief). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merci bien. Bishonen | tålk 20:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Nuisance editor

Hi - I see that you partially blocked this IP, who has just added a pointless empty section to another article. Is it possible to block them completely? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, Laterthanyouthink; it's too big a range. Compare this discussion above. @Favonian:? Bishonen | tålk 07:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sad truth, Bish. Favonian (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks Bishonen and Favonian. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, oh!

at this (gibberish expansion, with something about brothel house?). It once was a decent redirect page, which I have restored it back to. Also see this (addicted to sex, etc etc) user talk page courtesy of the same single purpose account. Bah!

Bish: hope you and yours are well. I am still sad and missing RexxS and few others who cared about this project so much. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ms Sarah. Wow. I considered posting on the user's page to explain that they're not supposed to ... uh, post their thoughts about life etc etc on their userpages, and altogether explain what kind of project Wikipedia is. But as it's been several weeks since they last edited, it might be superfluous, and actually unkind, to tell them they're doing everything wrong. If they edit again, I will. Meanwhile, I've just deleted the userpage (leaving the user talkpage for now), because, well, honestly. Thank you for reverting Chitra!

It's a shame about RexxS, isn't it? I miss him so much. Bishonen | tålk 17:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Back with the same. This time with "trans" something stream of consciousness under the name of one of their better known writers.

I was hoping to review all our articles related to Chitra (= Citra = one of the Sanskrit words that mean painting, sketch and such in Indian history). Their Ajanta caves have the more famous, oft published, and some spectacular 1500+ years old Chitra murals, as do some other fascinating, remote sites there and in Southeast Asia on which we have no articles. We have no articles on their fascinating historic texts on the theory and practice of Chitra either, though much has been published in peer reviewed scholarly sources. Will try to fix some of this. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Ms Sarah, it sounds very interesting. I've written to the user, attempting to explain what kind of a project Wikipedia is, and have deleted their userpage again. They do seem very hung up on the subject of trans people, and I don't like their remarks about it. Bishonen | tålk 21:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Diane Molly Handerson

Diane Molly Handerson has returned to adding unreferenced material to to biographies, depspite a previous ban for doing so. Sciencefish (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a hard case. Blocked indefinitely. Sciencefish, my young sock Darwinfish thinks your username is very handsome! Bishonen | tålk 16:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

As do I! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.. yes.. I can see how that would be. But Darwin is a bit more more sciencey than Trypto the Acid Dog. Bishonen | tålk 21:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I'm no dogfish. You must have me confused with Roxy. And I'm much more basic than acidic. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your /34 partial block, now converted to a sitewide block

Hi Bishonen. See my recent change in this block. It is a /34 range which had built up a set of partial blocks from six different pages, one of the partials by you. Per the ANI, I changed it to sitewide for three months. If you find this to be excessive, feel free to lift or modify. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ed. Most likely you understand these big ranges much better than I do; my nature is that of a typical humble /64 blocker. In adding a partial, some time back, I merely hung on to the coattails of more experienced blockers. Compare this section above. Pinging @Favonian: for a more informed opinion. Bishonen | tålk 01:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sorely needed – thanks, EdJohnston! Now for the bad news: the range block may need extending. 2001:8004:50E0:2B99:E965:416C:DB2:2B80, another "Gerard" case, falls in the neighboring 2001:8004:4000::/34 range, and it's not alone. 2001:8004::/33 should cover it, and there is no activity on 2001:8004:8000::/33, so we don't have an ~~excuse~~ compelling reason to drop the Range Block of Ultimate Doom on 2001:8004::/32. Favonian (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Favonian's argument sounds convincing, so I have blocked Special:Contribs/2001:8004:8000::/33 for three months and lifted my /34 block. If problems continue later, I suppose the best plan is to extend the duration of the /33 and forget about the partial blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of User talk:2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:80B3:5D9:F53D:BBB1

I'm wondering if you would consider unprotecting this user talk page. It's been more than 5 years since the edit war in question and the IP address is now unblocked and may seek to use their talk page in the future. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

? Sorry, Chess, I can't even find the block, nor a corresponding /64 block. The individual IPv6 you mention hasn't edited since 2016. Please show me the block, so I know how long it was, and the unblock (unless you merely mean the block has expired, not that they've been unblocked). Then I'll be able to consider your request. Though it is actually vanishingly unlikely that the individual (or any other individual) will ever be assigned that particular IP again, and will thus wish to use their talkpage. IPv6's are tricky that way. Bishonen | tålk 01:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I honestly have no idea. I think the block has expired, maybe, but I couldn't find the block. I just found this while looking at indefinitely fully protected pages. It might be exceedingly unlikely that someone will get assigned that IP address again, but hey, you never know. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this diff by the above IP shows that the user was 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:652E:487:B35:DF60 (talk · contribs) which you blocked on 29 April 2016. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I've unprotected. I don't think the protection mattered, or ever would have mattered, but it wasn't still useful either. Bishonen | tålk 12:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

IP 58.182.176.169

Apparently you've been involved with taking action against 58.182.176.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) before? S/he is a bit out of control again... Skyerise (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not as obvious as it was in March, when I blocked, Skyerise. I'm hoping Ohnoitsjamie has it in hand. Bishonen | tålk 19:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Ror

Thanks for blocking the caste SPA who was doing stuff at Ror and Neeraj Chopra. I am wondering if we have a sort of sleeper sock situation or a meatfarm at the Ror article - strange, semi-active accounts doing large restorations of the article. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked two caste SPA's, Sitush: Xpardeep and Ror84here. And Ror was semi'd (by ToBeFree) from 27 June up to 27 September for persistent sock puppetry. Do you think that's not enough? As in, do you think the article needs extended confirmed (30/500) protection? I note that would have prevented e. g. this edit. Bishonen | tålk 19:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I am not the best person to decide on levels of protection. Every time I go to RFPP, an administrator agrees a protection scheme is needed but almost always opts for a version I didn't select using Twinkle. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping; I've had a look and took a moment to review an unblock request in Special:Diff/1038157531 (Ror84here). I don't really have an opinion on whether 30/500 protection is necessary in this specific article, but especially in General-Sanctions-affected areas, I generally support early protection and liberal escalation to extended-confirmed protection when semi-protection turns out to be insufficient. I prefer long-term semiprotection and selective blocking to short-term high protection levels, though, as I believe that the amount of disruption prevented by long-term semi protection is higher than the amount of disruption prevented by a short duration of higher protection levels. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, ToBeFree. With the blocks, I agree EC isn't needed. At least not until the next wave of socks/meats roll in. Bishonen | tålk 21:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sitush, they are a suspected sock of Doremon9087 & have nothing to do with Ror SPAs. They edited that page because of me and they let me know that as well by their edit summary: [32]. They have all the tell-tale signs of the master, e.g.: to restore long and unsourced entries at List of Brahmin dynasties and states; to show that Brahmins have the largest population in Western Uttar Pradesh; to add unsourced caste claims about Brahmins, esp. Mohyals; to remove caste details of Jats, etc. But I don't have time to collect all the diffs for the SPI today. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. NitinMlk, please translate the edit summary for me. Bishonen | tålk 20:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

If it's obscene or otherwise unprintable, please use e-mail. Bishonen | tålk 20:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

It's very hard to translate it properly as it involves local slang. But they are calling me Shudra and asking me to to stay within my limits. BTW, I was searching for something at Google Books. So I didn't notice your ping earlier. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, happy day! An insult from a caste warrior that doesn't feature my mother. (Indenting will be wrong here, sorry - only 2 levels in the app.) - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's innocuous & actually funny if one is familiar with the local slang. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

A medal for you!

	The Lorem Ipsum Award
	You deserve a medal after that IP block... Helen(💬📖) 21:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thank you, Helen. I tried to be quick as it looked kind of urgent. Bishonen | tålk 21:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Bengali Brahmin

Hey I see that you have semi protected the page which is clearly misuse of power. Kindly refer the following about Raja Krishnachandra. His original surname was Bandyopadhayay as mentioned. http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article5882.html http://nadia.gov.in/district%20gazetteer/Ch15%20-%20THE%20NADIA%20RAJ.PDF

As per reliable sources, it seems he was a follower of Shaktism, you must be aware; therefore no reliable source mentions him as a Brahmin. In order to push your point of view, you have been adding Shaktism as a Category. Are all followers of Shaktism Brahmins? No, right! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts by typing four tildes, ~~~~ , IP. As for misuse of power, you may report such at WP:ANI. Bishonen | tålk 15:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sarah.Xenos

I've never come across this user until now, but while commenting on a much older mess that she had created, I noticed your talk page exchange with her directly above.

I thought I would draw your attention to Newcomen Street Corporation Baths, created three days ago, and the state it was it before it was edited at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I have written to Sarah to tell her that she must from now on use Articles for creation, as opposed to creating articles directly into mainspace. Thanks for your vigilance, The Drover's Wife. Bishonen | tålk 11:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Caste warrior!!

Hi Bishonen.. can you please have a look at Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha; the user Doreamon99 seems to be a caste warrior (quite evident from his talk page as well), and is engaged in edit warring in spite of warnings. I had removed the poor/unreliable sources and clearly mentioned the reasons in the edit summaries. If you look at the unexplained reverts (even after being reverted by another editor), it would be clear to you. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you; the user has been blocked by an uninvolved admin (reported by the editor Dāsānudāsa). Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ekdalian. That was some low-hanging fruit. Bishonen | tålk 13:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, indeed! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bothering you once again, Bishonen. Hakka noodle patty seems to be a sock of User:Dear Debasish, and is so frustrated even after editing as an IP & trying everything possible that they have come down to the level of literally abusing me! Please have a look at the article on Mahishya, and it would be great if you can remove the edit summary mentioning me as 'bastard'. Please help, I guess the article requires protection, there are too many socks and IPs. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... indeed. Sock indeffed, master blocked for a week, article semi'd for a month, offensive edit summaries removed. Thanks for reporting, Ekdalian.

FWIW, I live in a nation of "mixed breeds". I'm a "mixture" of Bavarian and po' white trash. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, once again, Bishonen. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deepfriedokra, you may have a look at this article, if not the book mentioned; check this, if you are interested. Happy weekend to you & Bishonen! :-) Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness!! It was User:Waked Bold Ambushed, & not DD; I have encountered this user in some caste articles, I really wonder why did they unnecessarily abuse me! Anyway, thanks Bishonen for initiating the CU. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I've unblocked DD, though I retain some suspicions of meatpuppetry. Bishonen | tålk 21:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen, hope all is well! Two SPAs are active on the article on Mahishya, and DD is again engaged in edit war in spite of earlier warnings. Please help. Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ekdalian, that article and its history are too complicated for me, and there's simply too much of it. Pinging knowledgeable admins @Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, and SpacemanSpiff: could one or more of you guys please take a look? Bishonen | tålk 19:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I don't understand all this either Ekdalian. But, I've protected the page for a few days and suggest you open a discussion on the talk page. I do notice that there are multiple editors adding "dominant caste" to the article and that may be something to look into as well. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RegentsPark. You are right, this 'dominant caste' is the contentious part. Thanks Bishonen for your support. Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make head or tail of most of this but I think we need to get ECP done more proactively on the caste pages as it's wasting the time of productive editors. —SpacemanSpiff 19:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Bishonen.. hope you are fine! Would just like to bring to your attention that user Dear Debasish (discussed earlier above) is now violating three-revert rule on the article Bengali Brahmins in order to push his POV in spite of all previous warnings and being aware of the discretionary sanctions. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi there, Ekdalian. They have made three reverts, AFAICS, which is not yet a 3RR vio, and have been warned. I have added my 2c on their page now. Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    - Got it, now. Thanks Bishonen! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bishonen. It came to my notice that I have been wrongly accused again and again by Ekdalian. Sometimes he does good job by removing unsourced and POV push contents. But he removes sourced and long time agreed contents too, and accuses others only. He is also doing POV for Kayastha. But he is much more cunning than ordinary POV pusher and knows how not to not make it very obvious. His edits should also be reviewed. Thanks and Regards Dear Debasish (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, Dear Debasish; good one, really! Please get all my edits reviewed, if possible! In fact, 99% of the articles I have edited have other senior editors involved, and edits have been done not just based on reliable & verifiable sources, but consensus as well. And please check my recent edits on Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha, you may understand how I have fought against caste warriors, and removed all POV stuff including Brahmin claims. Sorry Bishonen for responding to DD on your talk page! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any intention to argue with you on other points, just coming to the main point, that is you doing a POV push for Bengali Kayastha. Two reasons-1.You're linking Kayashtha with Brahmin in lead section, which is not as per with other caste articles. Why is this exception only here? 2.Your recent varna status edits in Bengali Kayastha. It's too long and complex as compared to other caste articles, making the varna status of kayastha totally ambiguous. You've really gone the extra mile.Does providing only sources make some content very relevant ?

And The circumstances here clearly implying I was talking about Bengali Kayastha, but you're intentionally diverting attention to another article. That's why I have told you are a cunning POV pusher of kayastha !

Dear Debasish (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Debasish, this is my last message to you on this talk page. I am here for years and my edits are enough to prove my neutrality. I am only concerned about the fact that in spite of such great efforts by Bishonen (providing you wikilink & detailed explanation on how to indent properly), and in spite of being here actively for quite some time, you still failed to pick up something so simple; please read WP:CIR. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bishonen for teaching me something new. I just learnt the indentation thing yesterday and I will not disappoint her.I know you will attack me on WP:indent failure because that's your nature to bite new comers , threatening and bullying. I am new to editing but as a learner I am quite old. And I plan to contribute in much broader fields, not just cast articles. You may continue your Bengali Kayastha POV push. Good luck ! Dear Debasish (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India

Lately I've seen, "you deleted my UPE ARTSPAM 'cause you are anti Indian. I'm suing". Would more Indian admins be the answer? Do you know of any Indian editors that could be admins? Speaking of India, I see Sitush is back. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very fine to have Sitush back, for sure, young Fritter! The Indian admins we have are great, but obviously too few, considering the size of the topic and the amount of disruptive editing and socking at political articles and caste articles. As for admin candidates, you could do worse than take a look at Ekdalian in the section above. Bishonen | tålk 14:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I miss Cyphoidbomb. But it's great to see Sitush again! --bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Bishonen! Yeah, it's great to know Sitush is back! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I now feel less despair, frustration and sadness. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, though, that deep-fried okra is a species of pakora (although I concede that technically pakoras are fritters in some dialects of English, in my native speech [redneck], they would never be called by that term). Yum! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does Hakka cuisine go well with okra? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I hope you have happy editing! Bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mate6742 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad link

Thanks for the heads-up. I stupidly chopped off the front of the link -- the most important part, really -- when I copied it. Yes, I know, "Preview" is my friend. --Calton | Talk 12:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to stop by and thank you personally

Thank you for responding to my post in the Teahouse, and for taking the time to go through the Otokonoko talkpage, at least in part. Heck of a slog, huh? Being part of it was just... whoof. The user's been blocked from that page and that talkpage, so I'm hoping that things will simmer down, and maybe even that the editor will start working with others and in other areas of interest. I'll admit I'm not holding my breath, though.

Thanks again - I'm grateful for Wikipedians like you; makes me proud to be the tiny part of the project that I am. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thank you, Cat person. (Neko is my entire Japanese vocabulary; do not be mislead by my username.) Good old Cullen328. He probably read your Teahouse post also. I'll try to keep an eye on Glossary of anime and manga and its talk. BTW, can you explain to me something I was baffled by: what on earth does that user mean by "trap is a formal word". Formal...? What is a "formal word"? Is it supposed to simply mean "not slang" (which it surely does not)? Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I think they were trying to say that using it for anime/manga/game characters is okay because it's the 'correct' term, while using it for a real-life person is the 'slang' use and doesn't bear mentioning since clearly we're using it formally and correctly so it's not a problem. Which... is wildly incorrect anyways; "trap" came into use in the early aughts due to the popularity of the Admiral Akbar "IT'S A TRAP!" meme, which people began using to refer to characters who looked female but were male (or at least had a penis). Implication being that the viewer was 'trapped' by the character; the viewer thinks she's a cute girl but "HA HA! he's a BOY! you were TRICKED!" (which is so gross). But because it's "formal" it's... okay? Somehow?

It's baffling to me too, but I think that's the logic they were operating under. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bishonen

Many academic articles have highlighted issues in the NYT's reporting on climate change (I sourced them!). That this issue is taboo here, whereas the WSJ is bludgeoned at every turn, is demonstrative.

Having been blocked from adding studies that show the decreasing climate skepticism of the WSJ, and blocked from adding studies highlighting NYT's faults on climate reporting, it seems the only story that can be told is NYT=good and WSJ=bad.

Having been a frequent editor on this site 16 years ago, the tone and collegiality has noticeably changed. What I cannot understand are the taking down and silencing of quality, secondary sources relevant to the subject, on the grounds of 'this is not a Journal I've heard of', 'its not related to the editorial team beacuse it wasn't an editorial', 'I disagree, so you need concensus' etc. You can logic your way to anything. But fairness? Thank you.

Nesher (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROPE

I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please warn before deleting

please reinstate the article so: covid19 origins anecdote. id like to make a copy and then you can delete. thank you Americhina (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi ...olease dear you should've warned me first. thank you Americhina (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi Bishon i wasnt aware... please reinstate so that i can copy it. thank you Americhina (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Americhina. That content shouldn't be on your userpage, even briefly. I have put it on a special page that you can copy it from: User:Americhina/Covid19 anecdote. It can't stay there indefinitely either — or anywhere on Wikipedia — but please copy it and then I'll delete the page by and by. By the way, since you mention copyright: you cannot retain the copyright to anything you publish on Wikipedia. Please don't put anything here that you don't want people to freely copy and distribute, because everybody is allowed to do that with our content. Bishonen | tålk 11:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

ia the copyright the only issue. if so then i can gladly remove the copyright issue . Americhina (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the copyright isn't the issue; I just mentioned that to make you aware of it for the future, since it looked like you mistakenly believed that you can publish stuff on Wikipedia and still retain the copyright to it. The issue with the text on your userpage is that it's not the kind of thing userpages are for. Please see Wikipedia:Userpages. I deleted your page per section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which means misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. In other words, using Wikipedia to publish content that's not related to Wikipedia. So, have you copied your essay from User:Americhina/Covid19 anecdote now? Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

please wait for 24 hours or less then tomorrow you can proceed.. iam using free social media and iam moving it there. the doye opens at midnigjt do i have to eaoy. otherwise i have nowhere to temporarily store the essay Americhina (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll wait 24 hours from your post above. Bishonen | tålk 15:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

"But I'm glad you found this one, WP:ANI."

Could be the first time in WP-history someone expressed that sentiment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, Mr Fröding. It solved their problem, didn't it? Bishonen | tålk 11:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not saying it was wrong, just "Huh." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of my first admin actions was to delete ANI. (Defiantly: No, I wasn't trying to be funny! I was trying to do something else!) It was long before the "thanks" feature, but I received a lot of appreciation — barnstars and similar. Bishonen | tålk 12:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

LOL! I can believe that! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're on my wall of stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Fine wall, excellent dog. Bishonen | tålk 15:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

So excellent he has a WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Americhina/Covid19 anecdote

A tag has been placed on User:Americhina/Covid19 anecdote requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Don't know what to say - the above was an automatic message, and while I would never argue with you in matters of mopping, that's batshit insane stuff, right there. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but why shouldn't we give the user a chance to copy the text for their own use? Compare the section above. I've removed the speedy tag. I'll delete the page soon. Now please be a good dog. Bishonen | tålk 17:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Too much catnip in the afternoon led me here. You are right of course, perhaps I should take the weekend off. I'll think about it. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi Roxy why do you say "insane stuff"...it's an alternative vire Americhina (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Americhina. I have now deleted the temporary page; I hope you had copied your text. Please don't discuss your essay here on my page. I do understand that it's difficult to type on a mobile, but I can't even figure out what "vire" was supposed to be, so it's kind of pointless. And Roxy the dog, you too, please don't express opinions about Americhina's essay here. If you two really want to talk about it, please do it on one of your own talkpages, because I'm so over this whole serial. Have a good weekend, all. Bishonen | tålk 14:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

did Americhina (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of people

Both standalone and embedded lists of people who are from, or who studied at, or who are known for something, or so on, are notoriously awful. I do what I can if they turn up in DPwL; but neither I nor anyone else can do much about lists consisting of nothing but NN blacklinks or redlinks. (I exclude people who clearly pass WP:NLIST, e.g. elected politicians or whose mention is supported by a RS, from that condemnation.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would go so far as to say lists are awful. I hate them. Bishonen | tålk 20:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I wouldn't go quite that far. I wrote Arino, Mari El Republic as a placeholder to solve a DABLINK problem and to de-orphan two articles (neither of which had any obvious connection with Ariño). The stubbiest of stubs, but Google doesn't understand any of the languages in the Interwiki list. The death dates of those two inhabitants are of course significant. It's the sort of thing Russia still keeps quiet about. Narky Blert (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for admin input

Hi Bishonen, I'd be grateful for some sensible admin eyes at Talk:Happy_Science#COI. This post in particular makes me rather uncomfortable (contact my employer? Seriously?), and I'd rather not be pulled down the rabbit hole of continued discussion with that user. --bonadea contributions talk 11:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed. Acroterion got there first, I see, and merely warned. Sorry, Acroterion, hope you don't mind. I like the Austen quote on your userpage, bonadea. Bishonen | tålk 17:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I don't mind at all - I was on lunch break and didn't want to block and disappear for six hours - but I thought about it.Acroterion (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ta muchly, both. --bonadea contributions talk 05:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rogue Admin?. Thank you. (Notified on behalf of Buffs) ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TheresNoTime it appears I can edit others' talk pages now. Buffs (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge admin

I'm not sure blocking someone from their own talk page is recommended in the admin employee handbook, but I just want to say it certainly had style. Of all the admins, in all the world, you're the rougiest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See there! I knew it was rouge! Bishonen | tålk 20:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for that style, and keeping your top pic. I have Beethoven on top today, took the pics (have the other further down), and passed by the spot you "took" last year - thinking of you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today: a woman in red, two who died under "in memoriam" and LouisAlain missed - my first editnotice read: "Every editor is a human being" which is quoted from a comment by Geometry guy in a 2012 discussion on WP:AN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda! Bishonen | tålk 14:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sock. Not to be confused with Lock. Or Cock. Or Sick...

Hello, Bish. Would you agree that this user is the same user as this one, whom you recently blocked for disruption and threatening to start a new account? They have the same fascination with rape, sexual topics/words, and adding ridiculous {{distinguish}} templates (e.g., here, here and quack! quack! here). Regards,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Pope wear a dress? Thank you, John. Blocked and tagged. Bishonen | tålk 20:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

To be distinguished from: Does a dope make a mess? (And in this case, yes!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll recognize this one next time. Meters (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnFromPinckney, Meters, and Tryptofish: another one. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/İsmail Kendir. Bishonen | tålk 03:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, I just saw that; that's like six pair of socks! — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 07:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The master is globally locked. The earlier contributions actually aren't much like the pure disruption of the socks we have met, Meters. They're actually worse, being a push to slant Wikipedia's coverage of Islam away from NPOV. Then I guess the person gave up on that and went to pure trolling with the latest socks, in frustration. (I'll just note that we've had plenty of such pushes from Christian editors also: our articles must say that their beliefs are true, because, you know, they are true, God has said so, in the Bible.) Bishonen | tålk 09:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. I've linked the SPI report in my personal list of socks I should recognize. I always found the lack of any searchable index of sock behaviours to be surprising. Everything depends on the memories of reporters, so I made my own list with key points. Meters (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Administrator changes

Blablubbs

Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Mkdw

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ed

What is the problem I am editing with well verified sources. One source is from Oxford Press most reliable. Sketan (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are creating a trap Sketan (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And another source was from 1904. But I didn't block you from the article, or revert you, because of the content or the sources that you added, but because of your unscrupulous gaming of the autoconfirmed requirements. I thought I explained that on your page. Sorry if it wasn't clear. What trap? Bishonen | tålk 20:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Seriously?

Your edit summary – Seriously? "Anagram" is totally irrelevant to "Acronym". It shouldn't be a "See also" just because the *words* begin and end on the same letters. – was unnecessarily harsh, and ignored the reason I gave in my edit summary – Add "Anagram", which is often confused with "Acronym" – while suggesting that I had done it for an absolutely ridiculous reason. "Seriously?" makes it sound as though I did something completely preposterous, when it was actually quite reasonable. I've seen people use one term when they meant the other. It is a service to readers to include links to other terms which they may confuse. See Anagram#See also (and, no, I didn't add "Acronym" there; it was added five years ago by someone else). I could've added a {{Confused}} hatnote, but I thought a "See also" link was better. The best solution would be a navigation template for these terms and others in List of forms of word play, but as far as I can see, none exists. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Could Template:Distinguish be used for that purpose? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Confused}} redirects to {{Distinguish}}. I felt that, although the terms are often confused, it wasn't often enough to warrant the prominence at the top of the page. But if anyone thinks it should be used, that's fine with me. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Are anagram and acronym confused with each other? Unlikely, imo. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I've seen it happen. But the frequency of confusion isn't the issue. The problem is the edit summary which ridiculed my edit and made it seem as though what I did was absolutely preposterous. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was not my intention to ridicule your edit — I was more just expressing frank surprise. Bishonen | tålk 10:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, thanks. BTW, although I don't think we've ever interacted before, I've always liked and very highly respected you. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalita (caste)

Hi Bishonen, can you please have a look at this article, and take necessary action on the caste warrior, who is edit warring in spite of being informed on their talk page. I have already explained clearly and provided wikilink on the consensus. I have already requested for page protection at WP:RPP. Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ekdalian. I've semiprotected the article, which should hold the editor for now; I may sanction them as well, but that will require more thought, and I'm a little busy atm. I need to go outside and watch the Stockholm marathon! :-) Back later. Bishonen | tålk 10:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! Enjoy the Stockholm marathon. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian: I've asked a CU about the two latest red-linked accounts at the article, and yes, they're one and the same. CU block coming soon. Bishonen | tålk 15:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you so much, Bishonen! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

To prevent headaches from an unreasonable editor. And thanks for the removal.

The Banner talk 16:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Darwinbish immediately collects the kitten for her hit squad.] Always useful. They train very well! Thank you, The Banner! darwin bish 18:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Question

Hi Bishonen! I appreciate your comments on "tendentious editing", and while most of what you stated makes sense to me and I will not attempt to revert it all, some of my edits I feel were valid and in the interest of removing redundancy. For example, why does there need to be on the Gun Violence article a statement referring to BOTH small arms and firearms... they are the same thing, no? The wikilinks for both also refer to the same place. So for things like that, I think that it would make sense for me to revert it. Also, the Lewis Hine edit was find I felt and completely off the topic of the gun issues if you'd like for me to stay off that topic. Certainly I do not want to cause any trouble or risk the sanctions that were mentioned in the warning by the other editor that you referred to that was presented on my talk page the day prior. So this is why I am just reaching out to communicate with you on this and see if I could begin reverting SOME of what you did, but certainly not all of it. Thank you in advance, and since I am a new editor, if I am leaving this message in the wrong place, then please just let me know where I should put it instead next time!! Th78blue (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was curious if you could explain to me how WP:3RR does not apply to your reversions of my latest edits. Again, I am asking this question in good faith since I am new and still figuring out a LOT of things on wikipedia! Th78blue (talk) (Oh and why did my "WP:3RR" not link to that page? Like I said... still figuring some things out. Thanks for your help!!! :)

Coming to my page is fine, Th78blue, you're welcome here. Your gun-control edits taken as a whole seemed tendentious (did you look up WP:TENDENTIOUS?), so I reverted them wholesale. Certainly you may reinsert harmless details such as the small arms/firearms thing. It's not for me to tell you to stay away from any topic on this site — that's up to you, unless you should be topic banned from one of them. But since you ask: in my opinion, you would be wise to edit less controversial subjects for some time first, to gain more of a feeling for the rules and culture of this place, before you take on the highly controversial areas like gun control or American politics. Both these are under discretionary sanctions. If you like, you can see a list of the discretionary sanction topics here (scroll down). It's a good indication of where the explosive topics are. Good luck. Adding after your additions: as for the 3RR rule, I made one revert to each article, which is far from bringing the rule into play. It's for edit warring. Further: if you merely write something like "WP:3RR", it won't create a link; if it's a link you want, you must enclose the term in double square brackets, like I do now: WP:3RR. If that's unclear, just check my post in edit mode and I think you'll see. Bishonen | tålk 14:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Got it thanks. Also, I'm still learning the best way to ask other editors stuff. Is it always just on their talk page? I wish there was some sort of DM service or something on wikipedia. Would sure make things easier for me as I learn. Anyway, thanks, okay, I will be careful and only revert the one or two that I still feel are fine, but otherwise I see your point on the tendentious component and I will strive to be more careful going forward. I also think I'll drop this subject for a little while like you suggest so that I can get better and ensure that I am coming at it from a fair and balanced perspective. Thanks!! I love this! Oh and didn't you make several reverts, "I made one revert to each article, which is far from bringing the rule into play." I am confused on that? Please explain if you don't mind. Not contesting your assertion, I'm just confused because it says you made 13 and 5? Lastly... no pun intended with "explosive topics" eh? :) :) :)

Uh... What says I "made 13 and 5"? Oh.. I think I see. I reverted plenty of edits by you: 14 at Mass shooting, 8 at Gun violence, and 5 at Lewis Hine. But those are your edits. I still only made one edit to each article when I reverted them (unless you count my dummy edit at Lewis Hine, not a revert, but made for the purpose of saying a bit more in the edit summary). Maybe you'd better have a more careful read of WP:3RR. Since you're in learning mode, please indent posts on talkpages, using colons, like I do (and like I have now done with your latest post as well). It's much easier to follow that way. See WP:INDENT. As for where you can ask questions of experienced editors other than at individual pages: welcome to the Teahouse. Bishonen | tålk 14:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Like this? Thanks for being so patient with me! Also, so I understand... I think I understand WP:3RR, but I am sure I do not properly understand how you were able to revert 31 of my edits in 1 move! Please understand, I am not upset, as I am still learning, and expect to have reverts happen from time to time. I am simply not aware that you can "bulk revert." I have done one or two reverts myself (not many), and each time I had to manually click the "revert" button and revert one edit at a time. One revert, one edit. 31 reverts, not 31 edits? Thank you Bishonen! Th78blue (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To revert consecutive edits, like I did, don't be the slave of the "revert" button. You can go to what you consider the last good version in the history, even if it's 8 or 10 edits back, click "edit", write an explanatory edit summary, and publish. That's how you revert 8 or 10 edits with one revert. See Help:Reverting#Manual reverting. Bishonen | tålk 05:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Makes sense, thanks! I'll get the hang of all of this one day. And now I understand what you did that did not violate the WP:3RR. Appreciate the lessons. :) Th78blue (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your guidance in teaching me to uphold the values that Wikipedia stands for. It is much appreciated. Th78blue (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 05:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Stories of Our Town

Hello. Stories of Our Town is the first article created by User:Sarah.Xenos since you warned them that they must use AFC for new articles, and it's predictably awful. Should I take the matter to ANI? Thanks, 2A01:4C8:61:4F01:18E7:9FF7:5AD1:8E06 (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping your eyes open! No, you don't have to take it to ANI. I actually told the user, in my positively-last-warning, "it is only if you abide by this [=only creating articles via AfC] that you will remain unblocked". Blocked, and I don't foresee unblocking any time soon. Bishonen | tålk 09:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

2a01:4c8:61:4f01:18e7:9ff7:5ad1:8e06

Hi. As you can see : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&type=revision&diff=1049896382&oldid=1049896137 this new ip user just want to play, have fun, conflict and enjoy. I think this is not the place to do that. --RutoSu (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV is not the place to report your opponent as a vandal when they are not. You are abusing our processes. Note that User:Materialscientist has removed your report. Bishonen | tålk 14:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

RutoSu, I'm about to drop a few templates: you are doing a serious amount of logged-out editing, and that needs to stop. Thank you. (Bish, I'm posting this here as an FYI...) Drmies (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about this : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Toulouse&type=revision&diff=1049894034&oldid=1049893685. Trying to delete to have fun. Removed by Materialscientist : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Toulouse&type=revision&diff=1049894336&oldid=1049894034 ; I think you don't realize guys. But I leave it, you will see in couple of days with somebody else. Take care. --RutoSu (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that speedy nomination is not vandalism either, even if it may be a bit hasty. The article is extremely promotional. Your own repeated removal of the maintenance templates, on the other hand, RutoSu, comes close to vandalism. I have reverted it. Do it again and you're looking at a block. Bishonen | tålk 14:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

"even if it may be a bit hasty" indeed it is. I don't understand why you are so nice with him. I don't touch the article Economy of Toulouse anymore. You will see yourself in couple of days. A vandal user stays a vandal user, otherwise you had sources, you correct what you think has to be corrected and you create an account on Wikipedia. Have a nice day, take care. --RutoSu (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't do is create an account and then still edit logged out a lot of the time, as you do. And note that promptly blanking all warnings from your own page doesn't make them go away; admins and others can still see them in the page history. You have a nice day too. Bishonen | tålk 14:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 06:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

RFC related stuff

Howdy. Not sure about this discussion, but am a tad concerned about the editor, who opened it. Perhaps an eye on it, might be required. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is taking stubbornness too far. I've blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing — the user's third block within a month. Yes, it's concerning. Bishonen | tålk 06:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Advice for Unblock Request

Hi~! I am wondering if you could advise me on how to prove I am worthy of being unblocked from namespaces. I believe my talk page discussions have been productive and am not entirely sure why it has taken so long to respond to my unblock request. Thank you Sucker for All (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for the unblock request (your second) to be reviewed, Sucker for All. But researching the situation — indeed, just reviewing all the controversies on your talkpage — looks like quite an undertaking, so I can understand our volunteer admins hesitate to take it on. So do I, as far as advising you. I note you have posted essentially the same request to two other admins, and are currently discussing it with Casliber. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to dig into this. Bishonen | tålk 09:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I think that just analyzing all of my new posts in the talk pages gives the idea of the edits I plan on making. The reality of the "controversies" on my talk page is that they are exaggerated. For example, blueboyliny was blocked for doing the things he accused me of doing, JesseRafe falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet and the other case was limited to Future Nostalgia. While it's true my edits are bold, "controversies" is a poor way of describing the misunderstandings that I had way more than a month ago.. Sucker for All (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not many editors would be left standing in the field of American politics, for example

That would be terrible! 😜 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it? Compare this user's opinion about the "toxic" Gender and Sexuality topic: "I suggest that every editor who ever edited in this topic area should be permanently TBANned, including myself". Right on! Let God sort 'em out! Bishonen | tålk 09:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

We could trial my suggestion for a month or two, perhaps? Couldn't be much worse, could it? 😁 Tewdar (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Made-up word

[1]