Jump to content

User talk:Bishonen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeilN (talk | contribs) at 18:06, 28 May 2015 (→‎Writer Freak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sadness
I'm sad that Giano and his aunt have left the project. Much of the colour has gone out of Wikipedia for me. Bishonen | talk 13:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]


Oh thank God for that

You are slightly returned to us. Even half a woman is better than know woman at all. Perhaps you can now talk some sense into the sisterhood here! Giano (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It feels good to be so promptly welcomed! But, my god, sweetheart, it was largely sisterhood-related issues that got me so sour I left. Them and Sandstein. [/me leaves again, this time for good.] Jk, but seriously, no. Bishonen | talk 21:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Fear not Mrs Bishonen, I have decided to join the sisterhood of Gender Gap myself. Once I've advised them to discarded their dungarees, perm their hair and put on pretty frocks, they'll find themselves high earning husbands and be as happy as can be. Is there a page where we can sign up, I'm having problems finding it by myself. Oh yes, we need to find poor Mr Sandstein a young lady - that's what he needs. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
High-earning husbands, Lady? Are you perchance married to Chris? - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Mr Sitush, you are amusing, but it is true that darling Christopher did have a thing about my very svelte figure sheathed in my best diamante encrusted crimson evening gown. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. I seem to have wandered into le salon mesdames. Could someone point me to the smoking room and have the footman bring me a brandy and cigar? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd be very happy in the Victorian drawing-room on this page. The ambience is snug to a fault, with a smoke-emitting dragon and a richly aromatic Bigfoot in residence. There is no ventilation bar the catflap, and cuban cigars are always on offer. See talkpage. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
And because of that Bigfoots also lack stealth!--MONGO 19:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vulgarity is not the same as wit Mongo! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FGM

Hi Bish, I wanted to thank you again for helping to keep FGM and the talk page stable. The article made TFA yesterday, and I honestly don't think that would have happened if you hadn't found a way to keep things calm. All the best, Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I missed it on the front page! [Goes to check it out.] Looks great. The credit for that beautiful article is all yours, Slim. Yes, you succeeded in making it beautiful despite the subject. Bishonen | talk 14:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, Bish, I appreciate that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

I am glad to see you back, Bishonen. Wikipedia needs you. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks P, that's nice to hear. Bishonen | talk 14:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Ditto. Hello my dear Bishyfishymywishy. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And hello to you, drmiesiepie. Thinking of changing my name to DarwinDish! darwinbish BITE ☠ 23:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Well, you are a tasty bite, even if you're not Danish. Which reminds me, today I was asked in class where I was from. "Dutchland" was proposed. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bish! Welcome back Remember that your talk page is still semi'd! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks, froglegs, I thought I'd just leave your semi to run its course. I'm not around that much, and my little friend is an annoyance to the stalkers. Bishonen | talk 22:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Recent block

Hi Bishonen. For info this edit removes your block template from their talkpage. I'm 99% sure you're not meant to remove a block message (can't find the policy right now). Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine, thanks, Lugnuts, it's the 1% that's got it right: blocked users don't have to keep up the notice as a mark of shame. The only thing they're not supposed to remove is declined unblock requests plus a couple of odds and ends which don't often come up. In this case, I suppose the user may have regretted his own silly comment, and have chosen to remove the whole issue. That's his right. Compare WP:REMOVED. Bishonen | talk 19:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

デニッシュ戦争! ! !

Post-battle carnage from initial skirmish of the First Wiki-Dano-Swedish Danish War of 2015

It's the Scandinavian grudge match we've all been waiting for... Sharpen your kanelstænger kanellängder and lets get ready to settle once and for all who the Supreme Lords of Scandinavian Pastry Trivia truly are.

FIKA FIIIGHT!!!

Peter Isotalo 23:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the article should be illustrated with a fair-use image of Princess Leia with a Danish on each ear.[1] Actually I think the phrase was in Spaceballs first. No? Princess Leia in a gold bikini with a Danish on each ear, every teenage boy's dream? Bishonen | talk 23:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Or, no… not Spaceballs so much. I was conflating stuff. There was a bit from Friends in there.[2] Man, they have huge Danishes in America! Bishonen | talk 23:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
And yet no problems with obesity, at least if Friends is to be believed. MastCell Talk 00:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Thass 'Merka!
Peter Isotalo 00:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, "on each ear"? You sure have chaste images of boydreams. Everyone knows fikabröd belongs on da buzom.
Peter Isotalo 00:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Hail Columbia, Fuck Yeah!"


Ok I see you're in it for the fun of it Peter, and you to Bishonen. I was slightly suspecting that, just from the issue you picked, the lack of insight on the subject and the general rudeness of your comments. Your comments on the specific page and issue cannot be taken seriously from now on.

In addition, I have to say, that this is a really bad administration of your WP-contribution over all. Not only are you wasting peoples time on an issue you don't even care about, you are at the same time making fun of it. I see no other option than labeling your actions as "Wikipedia terrorism" and any further engagement from you on this issue, cannot be taken seriously.

When I find the time, I will report this. Wikipedia should not be a platform for time-wasting pranks and people who are here to contribute in a constructive manner, should not be wasting any time on incidents like this or find themselves ridiculed. RhinoMind (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinoMind:: actual terrorists kill and torture real, innocent people every day. People bemused by the "controversy" over a pastry are not engaging in "Wikipedia terrorism", and saying they are makes you look like someone who has lost their grip on reality. You should remove that slur, and apologize, before people choose to no longer take anything you say seriously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam No I will not do any of that at all. I even find your comment rude and without any proper empathy for those who are hurt by actions such as this unacceptable behaviour. However, I will gladly discuss with you, what defines "Wikipedia terrorism". It is actions that attacks good, honest constructive Wikipedia contributors. Often for no reason at all, call them "innocent victims" if you like. It is actions that deliberately scares off good, honest constructive Wikipedia contributors. And it is actions that works "behind the stage", using Wikipedia's own rules and guidelines to make the damage. It is often committed by Wikipedians who knows the ropes of Wikipedia very well. In this case extremely well. As said I will gladly discuss this further with you, you are most welcome. RhinoMind (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are also welcome to find another term than "Wikipedia terrorism", but this is not just a simple controversy. It is completely unacceptable. RhinoMind (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've got chutzpah, I'll give you that. Calling people "terrorists" in one breath, and complaining that someone is being rude to you in the next, shows an impressive ability to ignore one's own imperfections. No, I don't think interacting with you further would be of any use whatsoever; you've already provided me with very useful information: the kind of human you are. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, everyone calm down. The exchange here is ironic banter. It's a common occurence here on Bishonens talkpage. @RhinoMind:, I apologize if this seemed like I was engaging in provocation for the fun of it. That was not my intention. This was merely a commentary on the irony of two Scandinavians debating the merits of pastry. It was just a way to make fun of my own participation in a heated debate about something relatively innoccouos. Take it as merely fooling around. And please see this as separate from discussion about article content.
Peter Isotalo 19:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question

You posed a question as to a possible sock master to Alesgeriy on AN/I, but it was closed before I could find the name. Judging from Alesgeriy's broken English and pro-Turkish bent, it could be EMr_KnG. I'll let you be the judge. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks likely enough. Pinging Dougweller, who blocked their sock Erim Turukku in November. Compare this ANI discussion, Doug; what do you think? Thank you, Mr Bear. Bishonen | talk 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I'll look tomorrow, took a quick look today but it has to be decided on behavioral grounds as CU is stale. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Doug. I wasn't asking you for the sake of your magic CU powers, but because because you blocked Erim Turukku (on behavioral grounds, not for socking) in November 2014, so if you've got the time, maybe you could look to see if Alesgeriy strikes you as the same person. If you haven't, which I would certainly understand, I think I might as well indef them myself. Even if they're not 100% sure a sock of EMr KnG (who is globally blocked, btw), they're definitely a sock of somebody, and somebody not readily distinguishable from EMr KnG / Erim Turukku. Bishonen | talk 00:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I've looked. Sock, yes. Whose? Not sure. Not easily distinguishable, not clearly identical. I'm not much help. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all right, I'll be the Abusive Admin, I know you can't. It must be so dull to be an arb, poor Doug. Say goodbye to all the fun scandal instigation! Bishonen | talk 16:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
(Adding.) Alesgeiry hasn't edited after the 72-hour block, so maybe the account has been abandoned. Kansas Bear, have you happened to notice a new user editing similar articles, who might be their latest identity? Especially, an account created on or after 9 February? Bishonen | talk 17:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Well, this IP has added back exactly the same categories(Babur, Selim I, Mehmed the Conqueror) Erim Turukku was pushing before his block. The same IP has also been edit warring on Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century and List of Turkic dynasties and countries, apparently using a few incarnations, 31.200.14.171, 31.200.12.36, 31.200.8.227, et.al. The more interesting question, is this IP actually user:Mehmeett21, logged out? Both the IP and Mehmeet21 have the same interest(s) and share the same POV. Have we stumbled upon another sock of Erim Turukku? Perhaps an Admin should be asking Mehmeett that question? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is also a tell-tale POV is the addition to the Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century, of the Hunnic Empire, Xiongnu and Hephthalite Empire. A POV which Erim Turukku and EMr_KnG both shared. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's very helpful. (But terribly complicated, groan.) I have full-protected Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century for a week because of the edit warring. The IPs 188.158.xx are accusing Mehmeet21 of being the person behind the IPs in the 31.200.0.0/19 range. I'm not sure, as I've seen Mehmeet21 reverting some of those IPs, for instance here. Do you have any comment on that, User:Kansas Bear? I can't say I'm well-informed about the topic. Do the IPs and Mehmeet really have the same POV? And Doug, could you check Mehmeet21 against that IP range, please? I think the indications are strong enough to warrant it. It would feel quite good to block the fortunately not very big 31.200.0.0/19 range if it turns out to be warranted. Those IPs are supposedly static, but he keeps jumping to new ones. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Not warranted. Anything's possible as CU can't determine if it's the same person in 2 different locations using 2 different computers, but CU shows no relationship. Thinking about it now, I probably should have said I wasn't going to do it, because if there was, I couldn't make the link. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, but if you found a connection you could have blocked, even if not publish the link, couldn't you? I know that's even more hypothetical. Anyway, I've told all of them, however many they really are, to try to come to consensus on the talkpage. Yeah, that always works with nationalist warriors. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

(which I think you are supposed to do after 8 indents). I guess I could have blocked, I haven't made a CU block before (ie one giving that as a reason)> Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Bishonen's question, both the IP and Mehmeet knew about the Xiongu being listed under some obscure article/template as Mongolian.[3][4] Both were intent on having Huns, Xiongnu and Hephthalites listed as Turkic while blantantly ignoring the multiple theories concerning their origins.[5][6] In this case it may just be the same POV not the same person. Mehmeet is in Sweden, I believe.
What is very clear, is that user:Madyas is definitely the IP. Same POV pushing and oddly, the same category pushing as Erim Turukku. Here Madyas has added Hunnic to the template of Turkic topics and template:Turkic peoples. Sorry multiple windows open! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a move edit summary of Mehmeett's in Swedish, in fact — made me rub my eyes. I won't ping any more, poor Doug, but if you see this and would like to CU Madyas and the IPs, go ahead. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
They also both insist on Tuoba states as Turkic despite it being disputed, see this edit by Madyas and this edit by the ip and this by Mehmeett.Rajmaan (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite striking, Rajmaan. I'll sleep on it. You too, Doug? Two of those three are very recent, not sure you saw them when you looked. Do you think it might be reasonable to block both the accounts and the 31.200.xx range per WP:DUCK, as obviously coordinated, whether or not there's actual socking? Answer by e-mail if you like. Bishonen | talk 01:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
What was decided on user:Madyas? His recent addition of Attila and Al-Farabi, are clear Erim Turukku/EMr_KnG-type edits. Is it necessary to do the whole SPI routine? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Sorry it's dragging on, Kansas Bear, but either Dougweller will get a chance to check, per his note below,[7] or I'll most likely end up blocking Madyas myself per WP:DUCK. Attila, indeed. Bishonen | talk 05:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Ok. I was just curious how it was progressing. Thanks, Bishonen. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P. S., Kansas Bear, Madyas has been blocked for a week by Future Perfect at Sunrise, for disruptive editing, not socking. That may be the way to go, since it's quite hard to be sure of the socking issue (I'm pretty sure Madyas has used another account — at least one — but which one?), but those potential sock/meatpuppets are all disruptive in any case. If you should see a new-created account or new IP picking up where Madyas left off, please let me know. And I'm very glad FutPerf has involved himself, he understands these subjects better than I do. (Not much of a compliment for anybody — I should rather say, he understands them.) Bishonen | talk 15:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The one-week block of Madyas (talk · contribs) seems reasonable. After I was alerted on my talk by 188.158.116.74 (talk · contribs), I have tried talking to Madyas at User talk:Madyas#Complaint about your edits at User talk:EdJohnston. This did not result in any change in his behavior. There may be a question what to do after the one week block expires. If it's too laborious to figure out the socking issues, a straightforward block for disruptive editing or edit warring could be the way to go. The guy has a bee in his bonnet about 'Turkic' and never waits for discussion to end in his favor. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ed. Well, it's too laborious for me. Perhaps an SPI is needed after all (groan). Dougweller has it on his list, but he's awfully busy. Who'd be an arb? On the other hand, I agree Madyas is eminently blockable without worrying about whose sock he is. If the one-week block doesn't cool his ardour, I'd be quite prepared to go with indef per NOTHERE and CIR. Bishonen | talk 16:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, I went for "only" the week block because I just couldn't figure out who was supposed to be a sock of who, though I seemed to remember there had been some prior disruption in the area. If anybody points me to a link showing concrete similarities with previous accounts, I'll be happy to indef immediately – or just indef on CIR grounds, as you rightly say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fut, you might check out these diffs [8][9][10], provided by User:Rajmaan above. Bishonen | talk 13:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I keep thinking I'll find time, then something else comes along. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFD not deleted

Hi, you closed this as delete but probably forgot to delete the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My god, yes. Apparently I was so impressed by my feat of closing an AfD (a first for me) that I went straight into self-congratulation mode instead of finishing the job. Thank you very much, TopGun. Bishonen | talk 07:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Haha.. :D No problem! --lTopGunl (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing that you don't know the difference between New York Times and New Yorker (or have any idea what the article said) and yet you were "closing" a discussion. Could you be less full of yourself. Go ahead have me blocked. TyrionLatif (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the New Yorker, was it? Even less reason to be impressed by that reference, then. If you want to be blocked, you'd better tell me your main account and I'll oblige. (If by now you can even remember your "main" account.) It's hardly worth my trouble to block yet another trolling throwaway sock. Bishonen | talk 12:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Please protect this too

List of Turkic dynasties and countries --188.159.144.219 (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I have time. It looks a little complicated. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Hello again. It's actually a little too complicated for me. I was hoping I would be able to determine consensus and close the RfC, but it doesn't seem very decisive. I've posted a note on the talkpage, just to warn people that I will protect if there's any more edit warring. Bishonen | talk 19:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your attention. Please full-protect that article. My revision is the last accepted revision before endless edit warring. --188.158.116.74 (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Active sanction removal

Well, I stand corrected on the matter of removing active sanctions from talk pages. Since I was sure that had once been a guideline, I had to track down the debate here. Anyhow, thanks for the edification. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it comes up every now and then, and at any given time, at least half the people seem to think that policy is as you thought. It's surely a good thing, though, IMO, that people don't have to wear a block notice as a mark of shame, as long as they don't intend to appeal but just to wait it out. It's logical, too: not all admins post a block notice all of the time, so why, randomly, hold the ones that do get posted so sacrosanct? Bishonen | talk 19:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Cyphoidbomb: A very recent example here. Because the user blanked the decline and some discussion but did not re-appeal the block, the removal is OK as far as I'm concerned. I assume they're letting their block expire or whatever. They could also have removed the block notice as far as I'm concerned. So long as they don't try to re-appeal, because that would be equivalent to admin shopping. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Ms. Bishonen - I hope you are well. I see from your talk banner, that you've had a wee bout with the yuckies. Hopefully the twins are taking good care of you and getting you back to your ever-cheerful self. *Hugs* from Ched. :-) — Ched :  ?  22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, the twins! I'd forgotten those uncontrollable socks! Thanks Ched, now I feel worse than ever! Bishonen | talk 06:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Aw you lovebirds, nice to see you together. Have a Danish pastry on me. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh heavens. All great respect for the most honorable 'Bish family, but I'd never want to run afoul of Giano and his aunt. (still wondering how ANYONE could forget about the twins though) — Ched :  ?  12:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
rrawrrRR ... 'Zilla eatum funny looking cupcake. (*chomp, chomp, gulp*) Mmmm ... good. Zilla thank little user Drmies — ChedZILLA 12:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What twins? Giano (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, haven't you heard of the blessed event, Giacomo? The darling little twins ! We're all very happy! Or, well, Bishzilla and Bishapod are very happy. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

User:Mehmeett21's massive sock puppetry

Someone report this user on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. He should be banned from this topic (any Turkic, Euroasian, and related historical articles). --188.158.116.74 (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this section higher up on the page. Note that User:Dougweller is a checkuser. Bishonen | talk 06:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for protecting an unreliable/false revision!

You did very well! Please revert his edit. --14.52.61.218 (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may well not have been the best revision to protect on. Administrators don't pick and choose when they protect for edit warring, unless there's obvious vandalism; they're actually not allowed to take sides in a content dispute. It's a pity people on both sides ignored my warning. One way of getting more knowledgeable eyes on the article might be to post on the Neutral point of view noticeboard. If that generates convincing arguments, and thereby a consensus (which doesn't necessarily mean a large majority) I'll certainly unprotect early, and block anybody who edit wars against consensus. Note that a CheckUser, Dougweller, found, above on this page, that that there's no technical connection between Mehmeett21 and the 31.200.xx IPs.[11] Dougweller hasn't replied to socking concerns about Madyas, below in the same thread. He's probably extremely busy (being an arbitrator) — you might get another CU by opening an SPI. Sorry, I realize it's complicated. I'll also keep an eye on the talkpage and see if anybody gives good reason for me to either block or revert. So far nobody has even tried. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I am quite a bit busier than I expected to be, as I have ended up being the only drafter on one of the current cases. I hope to get a chance to deal with this and stuff on my talk page, but I don't know when. Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century

I'm trying to noinclude the notice so it doesn't show up in all the articles. The articles are showing up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@'Shonen: Anything between <noinclude> and </noinclude> only shows up on the template page itself and not on all the pages that make use of the template. We want the lock to show up on the template page of course, but not on all the other pages, so Ricky did right to put the <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the {{pp-dispute}} that you added. Sadly Twinkle doesn't realise it's a template page and doesn't provide the extra stuff for you. It might also be worth considering that page-protection for templates could be set at the template-editor level, as not all admins might feel comfortable answering edit-requests, but template-editors can't help out if pp is set to "Edit=Allow only administrators". Just a thought. --RexxS (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry. Your edit summary misled me, Rick. Bishonen | talk 13:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Terrorist reported

Konditori i Påarp - check that out -typically what an average small konditori would sell, bullar, wienerbröd and småkakor; and outstretched palms.

It's on, I guess.

Peter Isotalo 16:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was ANI for the Danish pastry. What I don't understand how can the Danish guys - just don't get the fact that other countries also eat "their" pastry. If you go in into virtually ANY Swedish patisserie and confectionery shop - the main pastry they selling it is wienerbröd, you can buy them everywhere and everybody consumes it. It is absolutely THE most popular pastry in Sweden, comparable to the French croissant, or the American cheesecake. Each and every Swede eats it and it is one of the absolute major pastry consumed in this country. Well kanelbulle might compete with it - but nothing else. Absolutely a staple food in Sweden. It is Sweden's national pastry really. And then come theses guys and say - why should we pay attention to this? It is in a way hurting the deepest feelings of every real Swede. And this we are quarreling about, it is just absurd. Incredible. I don't give a damn about patriotism, but this is a thing that is sacred. Hafspajen (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wienerbröd- maybe it should have an own article, yeah, wienerbröd is a red link. Sad that we can't agree about making a single article on the topic, but we can't work together that's plain. I really think we should start an article, it is notable enough. Hafspajen (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I bet half of those people eat wienerbröd, wienerbröd is HUGE in Sweden. The most consumed, most popular and best liked pastry that exists in whole Sweden. Hafspajen (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But then of course we are not allowed to write most popular, so how would anyone know? Hafspajen (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cute images from Påarp and Sundbyberg, thanks. You don't actually have to go to a konditori, as I'm sure you know — you can buy very nice fresh-baked wienerbröd in Pressbyrån, which says a lot for their popularity. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Pressbyrån?? Helgerån. Wienercaféet you should try, Wienercaféet that makes fresly made wienerbröd every day - and so did for the last hundred years. Hafspajen (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pressbyrån Danishes are definitely not for a livsnjutare. :-)
Main article: North Germanic languages
Continental Scandinavian languages:
  Danish
  Norwegian
  Swedish
Insular Scandinavian languages:
  Faroese
  Icelandic
Hafs, I suspect that those ridiculously oversizded muffins might actually be more popular. If only because for 7-11 and other dull established, it's about as difficult as packing a bear turd into paper and blasting in an industry-grade microwave oven it for a few mintes. But in finer konditorier, it's definitely a standard item.
Peter Isotalo 20:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Sweden there are only a few types of cakes eaten regularely and on a everyday basis and 30-40% of it is precisely this wienerbröd- that is sold and baked - every day.

It is not a periferic thing - it is - one of the most popular cake ever. Each and every caffé has a huge supply of it, and those people have probably never ever been in Sweden, if they don't understand it, it is just something sacred and big. It is like saying to an English that the Westminster caterdral is of no importance, and Shakespeare is a local rhymester - poetaster. Hafspajen (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But hey, WHY do we have to write about winerbröd? Everything is DANISH, wienerbröd has never even existed. IT IS ABOUT THE dough. Hafspajen (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the rest of Scandinavia and what they eat and do be important when Denmark is the middle OF THE UNIVERSE? Hafspajen (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, hey, Sweden is crap, of course. Hafspajen (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the immortal words of Omar: no doubt. 'Sall about the dough.
Peter Isotalo 20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is no other articles on wienerbröd except this. And those guys tried to exterminate the Swedish, Norvegian and Finnish part and go on messing about their own sort of Danish wiener - that is actually more like 5 different types of cakes - very different from the other countries wienerbröd they those guys eat, different from all the rest of Scandinavia - the part that actually doesn't exist even in their mind.
  • We don't have pubs, we have caffés. We don't go to pubs but we go to caffés - and what do we eat there? Wienerbröd! This is the HOLY - Fika (coffee break). We do that every day. All the time. Hafspajen (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fika is considered a social institution in Sweden; it means having a break, most often a coffee break, with one's colleagues, friends, date or family. The word fika is both a verb and a noun. Swedes consider having a coffee an important part of the culture. You can fika at work by taking a "coffee break", fika with someone like a "coffee date", or just drink a cup of coffee. As such, the word has quite ambiguous connotations, but almost always includes something to eat, such as biscuits, cakes and even sweets, accompanied with the drink. This practice of taking a break, typically with a cinnamon roll or some biscuits or cookies, or sometimes a smörgås or a fruit on the side, is central to Swedish life, and is regularly enjoyed even by government employees.[1] AND THUS WIENERBRÖD is a holy sacred institution too, because nobody drinks only the coffe. But coffee AND wienerbröd. So that's it. Hafspajen (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Goldstein, Darra; Merkle, Kathrin (2005). Culinary cultures of Europe: identity, diversity and dialogue. Council of Europe. pp. 428–29. ISBN 978-92-871-5744-7.
I bet they tried to add wienerbröd to the article when they discovered it was a red link and gave up. I am upset. Hafspajen (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a major Swedish ritual. Hafspajen (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, a second thought - the Danish don't like the Swedes. Hafspajen (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now this: Category:Talkpages decorated by Hafspajen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page Hafspajen (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Joshua Jonathan created it. Bishzilla was admittedly quick to put her pocket talkpage in the category. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
No? -sigh, this is not my day. Thought only admins created categories. Hafspajen (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. There's a whole new field for you, Hafspaj! Bishonen | talk 11:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

left|120px|Freedom!

Non-violence!
Not just your day, Hafs. Our day! For on this bleak winter day, the good, honest, humor-loving users of the Nether-Western Territories of Wikipedia rose up, and with one voice cried: "We will stand for this tyranny no more. DELIST!"
Peter Isotalo 13:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, mr Konditoriterrorist, but that's more an appeal to the nominator, isn't it? And they have not responded. So I worry that a literal-minded closer will close as "Delete", because, you know, there's one Delete and zero Keeps. Or, perhaps more likely, that it'll be relisted with the "to generate a more thorough discussion" template thingy. I know, it wouldn't make any sense, but is that any guarantee? Bishonen | talk 13:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Seriously? Do people actually pull that kind of ruleslawyering shit...?
Peter Isotalo 13:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you new here? But most people don't, no. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Should've been "do people actually still pull". But I guesss I'm still a dreamer...
Peter Isotalo 17:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tröstfika
At least I had me a wienersemla yesteday. If you know anyone who's good with image tweaking, it could use some yellowing-down.
Peter Isotalo 14:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Björnkram. Hafspajen (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492 know just about everything about image fixing... maybe, Peter if you ask nicely he can make your semla less yellow. Also, how are you going to get it in the article, that's a mystery. A plain wiener was no good there - a wienersemla will make everybody freak out. I still think you should create a plain wienerbröd article, there is plenty to write about in it. Hafspajen (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask my Danish sister-in-law about pastries, but she's coeliac so probably has never eaten any. Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hafspajen (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked editor back

No idea who this actually is but they're back. --NeilN talk to me 21:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose it's some indeffed user. All I know is they're this range too. I suppose those 3-month blocks have made them realise that IPv6's are quite easy to keep out, so now they've moved on to ordinary old-fashioned IPs. Blocking is more a gesture; we can revert and deny recognition, that's all. Until such time as Wikipedia puts a stop to all IP editing. This guy's disruption is comparatively minor, actually. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bpandey89

Bpandey89 (talk · contribs) seems still to be at it, pushing their POV by synthesising unreliable Raj sources etc at Talk:Bhumihar. You posted a discretionary warnings note on their talk back in September but they are clearly not giving up on it. Is it time for them to be directed away from articles about a caste of which they are a member and towards, say, articles about pastries? - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've started writing up a warning to them, to explain that there's a limit even on talkpages, but I have to run now; back in a few hours. Also working on a request for discretionary sanctions for pastry broadly construed. It's really the only thing when you have a hot topic like that. Bishonen | talk 12:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Warning placed. Now to the discretionary pastry sanctions, and perhaps a request for a full case to deal with Floquenbeam's abuse of tools on the Danish pastry pages. Bishzilla has what she refers to as "the entire cute little arbitration committee" in her pocket, so there shouldn't be a problem. And Peter, I noticed you drooling over the wienersemla image above (please don't lick my page); don't you think it might be better to stick to subjects that don't excite you quite so much for a few days? Bishonen | talk 15:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
You mean like sulcus intermammaria? With descriptions of cleavages as "elegantly sloped in alignment with Hippie chic" or "buffed, pumped and engorged" still present I'll have nooo problem.
What do you prefer, Bish; sloped or engorged?
Peter Isotalo 16:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bish. If ever I get round to working out a lead for User:Sitush/sandbox3, it should go a long way towards resolving queries regarding the Raj census operations. As for pastries, although French rather than Danish, I always liked the dicdef for an éclair: "A cake long in length but short in duration". - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is WP:SITUSH policy yet? It would read:
  • 99% of admins really have no clue whatsoever about caste-related stuff, and lack the initiative, time, intelligence, or desire (or a combination of two or more) to find out. So the approriate rule of thumb that any admin can follow when asked to do admin-y stuff related to Indian castes is "do whatever Sitush says".
This is so obviously the wisest approach that I would normally go ahead and create such a page, but since I'm calling out Sitush by name, I figure that would probably make him a target of some kind, and wouldn't be cool.
I'd recommend creating WP:ERIC for grammar and style questions, WP:MAGGIE for copyright questions, WP:CRISCO for image questions, WP:RAMBLE for In The news questions, etc. etc. I've probably forgotten some obvious ones. Like WP:BRAD for ways to assume more good faith than is warranted, maybe (Aaack! that's a blue link!), or WP:PETER for pastry questions. Most subject areas probably have a go-to person, we should just enshrine them in policy. And use WP:BISH for everything that doesn't have a specific person listed. Unfortunately, WP:FLOQ would really only be useful for questions about being a smartass...
I top-posted this above the stuff from Bpandey below because this is more of a general philosophy of Wikipedia, and (as described above) I have no idea what's going on with this specific conflict. Except that based on past history, Sitush is correct approximately 99.5% of the time in matters like this, and is thus probably correct here as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen , you are telling that i am putting up unreliable source of british raj. you should know that the legends mentioned in article page about babhans have also first appeared in british era and in british document. If you are so sure then please find out any credible text stating such legends or myths, earlier to british era. All those myths originated during british time and spread all over. Babhan word and it's mention in ashokan edicts is not at all propaganda or partial view point. it has never been written or mentioned in wikipedia page. babhan is a pali word found in ashokan edicts [1]. Many of the authors like C. A. Bayly, willium pinch, Susan Bayly, [2],are not colonial authors whose materials have also been disregard. please go through the citation before commenting on anybody. What ever i have written on the talk page is not at all my view but it is view of the books and documents which i have cited on talk page. One of the author has told that bhumihars were termed as shudra in early british census record like kayasthas led them to form caste movement but none of the british raj census which i have cited have mentioned bhumihar as shudra(please verify it and do not get confused with bhuiyar and bhumihar therefore stick to babhan word). I have always been polite and i do not want to show any kind of disrespect to any human being or even any creature on this planet. Only one request i want to make please go through the citation and talk page before making any view regarding me.

  1. ^ https://archive.org/stream/Indo-aryanRacesAStudyOfTheOriginOfIndo-aryanPeopleAndInstitutions/Indo-aryanRaces#page/n173/mode/2up
  2. ^ https://archive.org/stream/Indo-aryanRacesAStudyOfTheOriginOfIndo-aryanPeopleAndInstitutions/Indo-aryanRaces#page/n5/mode/2up

Bpandey89 (talk 21:39, 19 February 2015)

Hi again, Bpandey. Floquenbeam is correct that admins don't know much, especially not in areas like caste. It's not my job to do independent research in the area, or to edit the article. I do have some understanding of policy, though, and I would like you to respond specifically to these 2 questions:
1. Have you clicked on the policy links I gave you and read the policies, at least the first paragraphs of them? If not, why not? If you have read and found them hard to understand, please ask. If you have read and disagree with them, please go away, because the policies are obligatory. They're not suggestions that you can disregard.
2. What's the matter with your sig? Why did it link to your talkpage, before Voceditenore corrected it, and especially, why is the timestamp off by (in my timezone) 5 1/2 hours (plus one month), as the History shows it is?[12] Did you write in the date and time by hand, as they are in your timezone? That would be very confusing; please remember Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and the clocks round the world all show different times. On the other hand, no.. I can't believe it's still January in your timezone! Please let the software handle the signing, by either a) typing 4 tildes ( ~~~~) or b) clicking on the little "your signature with timestamp" icon in the row of icons just above the edit field. Please use one of these methods. Then the timestamp will be adjusted to the person reading, and to all the other timestamps on the page. Or, well, you don't have to respond to this question, it doesn't matter what went wrong; just please read what I say, and follow my instructions for signing.
Finally, though I'm indeed no expert on caste matters, I couldn't help but notice that you refer, above, to a history book from 1916 as your authority. That's obviously ridiculous. Look, I'm only going to say this once more: please listen to Sitush's good advice about reliable sources in this field. Oh, yes, did you read the brief guideline WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which I have already referred you too? Wasting everybody's time is disruptive in itself, if it goes far enough, and you can be blocked for it. Bishonen | talk 18:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

hi Bishonen , it is quite unfortunate that you are diluting the point by circling around the main objective. On talk page if i have made some mistakes in writing a date do not make me a culprit possibly. You have already told that you are not expert in this topic neither do i but my persistent effort to know and collect materials and my research on this topic has made me much aware of this specific caste. what ever i have written is not at all my view point but it is the materials from standard text and renowned historians which i have already cited. I am not at all pushing my viewpoint but i am writing the viewpoint of historians with proper book citation. The communist writer (aswani kumar) has also cited many early 19th century as well as 20 th century literary work. Most of the discoveries regarding ashokan edicts were already done during early 20th century so it is not at all mocking to use the book i have cited above.[1] In wikipedia many of the aspects are taken from a single source ashwani kumar, who is not at all a historian. His book is more focused on the plight of so called Dalits and overemphasized violence of babhans. You can find out many instances opposite happened but merely he has been mentioned such in his entire book. you are alleging me to be biased or pushing some view point but i want always be neural covering all the corners whether it be negative or positive. Sorry for inconvenience which i have made to you but honestly speaking, i have written all this even after going through the policies you gave me to read. I deeply regret that nobody is there to listen neither me nor my citations. Bpandey89 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=7CyND7ebqUAC&pg=PA209&dq=babhan+and+ashokan+inscription&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M2XnVO3IMoOpuQTsh4KABA&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=babhan%20and%20ashokan%20inscription&f=false

Block

Thank you for imposing this block. As you may have seen from this SPI, I have been harassed relentlessly since the beginning of January. It is a shame it cannot be proved. This is just an FYI, btw, not a request for comment! ~ P-123 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for this block too. I had half a mind to ping you about this long-term vandal/POV-pusher (having seen your earlier block of the user), but decided to wait for the next time the IP edited. You saved me the effort! Abecedare (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, in both cases, though I have a nagging worry about yours, Abecedare, because it's supposed to be dynamic. Maybe 6 months is too much? But it has obviously been used by the same individual for a whole year now. Dynamic schmynamic. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The same person has clearly made all the edits from that IP since March 2014. So obviously their ISP's DHCP lease period is pretty long and effectively they have a static IP (esp. given that the current user did not/could not change their IP during the previous 2 week block). And in case the IP does transfer to another customer within 6 months, and that customer decides to edit wikipedia and that customer does not have a pre-existing wikipedia account, hopefully they'll ask for an unblock or a chance to create a user account instead of just giving up. Haven't completed the Drake equation style analysis of all that happening, but I'd hazard that the term of your block is quite reasonable. Abecedare (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the user has shifted to 198.166.54.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (same ISP; geolocates to 30km away, although that is always rough in my experience). Don't know if they still have access to IP 68.145.238.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but if they do continue to use 198.*, maybe 68.* can be unblocked. No immediate action needed. Abecedare (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for info, a DHCP client will normally ask for a renewal of the current lease before it expires and the DHCP server will normally re-allocate the same IP address. That's how a dynamic IP address can stay the same over repeated lease periods as long as the client stays connected. HTH --RexxS (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple questions, but per wp:beans - I think I'll email it. (tomorrow) — Ched :  ?  04:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ban....

Why was I banned? I wasn't vandalizing the page I was making it look for detailed more accurate as its missing Key information and important facts and material the stuff added by David A. With the theories given aren't in marvel and he is taking real life theories into fiction I was simply being a contributor. Beyonder (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

You were blocked for edit warring, see this discussion. Also, I read the history of the page, and I'm afraid I agree with Origamite and David A that your changes introduced grammar problems and made the text harder to understand. But that's not the main point: edit warring hurts the project, and persistent edit warring is a blockable offense, whether or not you're right about the content. Please see WP:3RR. I'm sure you're a good-faith editor trying to improve Wikipedia, but edit warring is simply not allowed, and you had been warned about it. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

There is always a boudoir somewhere

Thank you very much, Hafspajen. I'd like all my amiable talkpage stalkers to come and have tea with me in it. Even so, the one you put in Bishzilla's pocket[13] is unbeatable. Don't you think so, dear Lady Catherine? Bishzilla is pretty good with the taste and elegance, but she'll always defer to your judgement. Bishonen | talk 00:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, well, this is more the official afternoon-tea salon. The pocket is for cake-orgies...:) Hafspajen (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah dear, little Mrs Bishonen how sweet of you to invite me to your boudoir. How charming it looks. I always admire those who can do their own upholstery, and I don't agree at all with those who say that shabby chic is passé - anyway that's not really chic is it? It's so nice to see that you've found a fellow Nordic to converse with and lure into your boudoir. Sadly i can't remain to tea with you because between you and me (par devant les servants) Stackars Eric är offer för några hemska kvinnor med millitant attityder. So I have to attend to that. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The poor men of our era. And if it's not dåärdetspanjorena. Hafspajen (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dude

dude,

i am kurd. my family is kurdish for thousands on years.

turkey is establish as country in 1923. prior to this it was

ottoman empire. in the ottoman empire there were only kurds, jewish,syrians,bulgarians, greeks and armenians.

you blocked me for a month, bcoz i'm helping you to correct an article?

kurds are fighting for independence. we are going to have free country, independent and free. why you are blocking me to tell me that i'm nationalist?

dude, you are not going to win a noble peace prize you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is referring to this junk. Still WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN talk to me 12:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re-blocked for 3 months by User:Materialscientist. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The IP is absolutely dead wrong! Ms. Dudess, aka Bishonen and her entire entourage, especially Bishzilla, are hereby awarded the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE for spreading peace and harmony and bringing light to dark corners of the globe!--MONGO 16:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost big enough medal for Bishzilla! Thankee little MONGO! bishzilla ROARR!! 16:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

While noting the obvious errors of even basic facts in the original posters comments, specifically regarding the "only" phrase, I am more than grateful to see that, perhaps, we might have talked Bishzilla into wearing something. Now maybe we can talk her into wearing a little bit more than just the medal? I am reminded of a joke Peter David once wrote about She-Hulk about how the, um, amount of distraction that character supplies can be rather problematic, and that problem tends to increase conversely to the amount of covering worn. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Freezingly.] Bishzilla great believer in modest attire. Wear all-over spiderman suit at practically all times. Hope little John Carter not venture hint at occasional private disrobings during moments of sweet dalliance.[14] Would be most tactless and brutish. [With growing indignation.] John Carter offensive masculinist discourse frighten away all of delicate sensibility! No wonder gender gap! [Huffily, Bishzilla unwraps the medal and eats the chocolate. Feels a little better.] Women need chocolate![15] bishzilla ROARR!! 18:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
John Carter little perv who is noted for having, um, fallen in love with Dejah Thoris on first sight, which happens to have been when she was completely unclothed. John Carter also frankly delusional little idiot who seems to think he bounces between planets for no readily understood reason. John Carter will try to remember to take all the prescribed pills on a more regular basis. I sowwy. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Bishzilla softened. Never carry grudge, in contrast to saturnine Bishonen.] Little John Carter seek enlightenment, study Feminist Hulk. bishzilla ROARR!! 18:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, women need chocolate. I've saved one for later tonight - she'll enjoy my last Rolo. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better be chocolate in that thing...
Peter Isotalo 17:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Next time I post in Bish's talk page I shall start with dude... and finish with ...dude! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like a proper Internet marine. "Dude, yes, dude!!!"
Peter Isotalo 17:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is proper attribution needed?

"eggshells armed with hammers." - can I use that? :) — Ched :  ?  14:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not attribution to me, anyway! It's an internet meme about typical message board interactions. Originally coined of a type of thin-skinned battleship with big guns; I can't find the Wiki article where I read about those ships, but here's a link. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Hmmm ... guess I'm not too old to learn new things. I thank you. — Ched :  ?  15:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection at article Sony Pictures Entertainment

Hey pal. I need to have the Sony Pictures Entertainment page protected from ongoing vandalism. Certain IP users have been changing the article without giving a certain reason. I already warned two IP users and yet, one user didn't find an article why abbreviations shouldn't be allowed on a Wikipedia article after I notified the user. Perhaps you can help. King Shadeed (talk) 11:44, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, King, I don't mean to go bureaucratic on your ass, but you'd better take it to WP:RFPP. I just don't understand the subject well enough to make head or tail of the issues. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
(Oops, tripped on my DSL cable again! Ughh, I need a longer one and to route it differently!)
Dear sister Bishonen, the "king" is just whining because he errantly thinks that if someone removes his "precious" abbreviations as a way of cleaning up some clutter, it's supposedly "vandalism," even though it really isn't. He says he wrote that article, so perhaps a good lesson in WP:OWN would suit him.
75.162.181.141 (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Slavery Index

Hallo Bishonen, Alessandro writing! No, don`t worry, it is not because of what you are thinking that I am coming here :-) Some months ago there was a flood of edits on many nation articles (also Switzerland :-))), which were spammed with info about slavery on their territories. The problem is that the used data are highly controversial, since they come from a private foundation, the Walk Free Foundation which, according to its critics, used questionable methods to generate them. This led to the block of users (see for example here). Now, since a couple of weeks, the whole story started again (on Uzbekistan, Haiti, and a few other articles), this time pushed by user User:3rdWorldkid (another sockpuppet?). I reverted its edits and left a message on its talk page, but I don`t know how the thing is going to evolve, so it would be good if you could take a look on it. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex! If they persist after your warning, I think we need another ANI. The previous one was a little inconclusive,[16] with nothing decided about Walk Free. Perhaps the WF foundation needs adding to the spam blacklist after all. You notice that 3rdWorldkid took part in that discussion, so they're supposedly aware of the issues. Lying low for a while and then starting up again is not cool. (I see Zarcusian reinserted the text at Uzbekistan, too, probably in good faith, as an IP had reverted 3rdWorldkid without an edit summary.) Bishonen | talk 09:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks! As detective, you are better than Montalbano... :-) I could not find this ANI. Yes, I will start another ANI if it will be the case. Unfortunately the scheme is always the same: someone takes a real issue, creates a subjective ranking about it, and this becomes a world standard...THe NZZ wrote a great article about this mania (or business?) some months ago, but who reads a Swiss newspaper? :-). Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[With false modesty:] I just came across it in 3rdWorldkid's contributions. As a thankyou for the compliment, I've removed the silly "Camilleri is an atheist" in Andrea Camilleri. Check out the source given for it..! The category is for public, militant atheists. Dawkins is an atheist in that sense, yes, Penn Jilette is an atheist, but Camilleri? Who are the religious categorisers who keep teasing out private half-acknowledgements and add that stuff? Probably just nerdy gnomes who think they've found a corner where they can "help Wikipedia". Bishonen | talk 13:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Baciamo le mani Donna Bisciona :-) I am glad that you know Camilleri too. He is a wonderful writer, and his first four Montalbano books are real little jewels, giving an insight of Sicily and the Sicilians (the RAI Montalbano serie is also very nice). About the index, the 3rd world guy answered here: from his answer it looks like he is working for this organisation. I read the critical paper about this index, and after that I think that the related article should be deleted. For the moment, I added a referenced "Controversy" paragraph. Salutammo Donna Bisciò :-) Don Alex2006 (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rather unclear answer, isn't it — maybe a language problem. "I have the feeling they have selected me"? Perhaps he means rather that he feels chosen to do this. "I am in sympathy with their cause" doesn't sound exactly like he works for them, either. I dunno. Good controversy section! Bishonen | talk 09:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
In German there is a good adjective for this: "auserwählt", that is "the chosen one", "the elect". I also think that he feels himself called to fulfill this mission...Let's hope for the best, since I could cite a couple of cases in history where this kind of "call" brought (and still brings) several problems to the mankind. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bishamonten

Bishamonten in 1536

Hafspajen (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Bishzilla is intrigued by handsome manly face, but doubtful too.] Hello there little cousin Bishamonten! bishzilla ROARR!! 19:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
What are the chances that a new account might appear if I bang on this here nipple gong?
Peter Isotalo 01:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Just say when..."

Self blocks

As your name appears on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, you may sign at the newly revamped Wikipedia:Block on demand page, along with comments and a link to your requirements page, if any. I hope I did not err in sort of reviving that page. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea there ever was such a page! It's a very good idea to revive it, and I'll sign, sure, but I think there should be a bit of discussion on talk first. For instance, I wouldn't want it to be a policy proposal (that just seems cumbersome, because no such policy is needed today), but more of an info page. I'll comment on talk, but wouldn't you like to post there yourself first, to kick off, SD0001? The last post right now is from 2013. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Well, I've made a note on WT:Block on demand. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Actually, I intended you to leave your sign at the relevant section here in the same manner as others have done at WP:RRN#Editors willing to be asked to nominate a user. I have also notified almost all of the other admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. When are enough names there, the category link should be moved to the see also section. Yes, no policy amendment is required, as the category until now served the same purpose. SD0001 (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understood where you wanted me to sign, but, as I said, I think there should be a discussion about the status of the page first. I mean, I don't want to sign a proposal for a new policy, as I'm not in favor of such a proposal. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Two IPs harassing my talk page

Hey. I don't mean to bother you, but I need two IPs blocked from harassing me on my talk page, saying I vandalized the Sony Pictures Entertainment page. They are: 75.162.207.17 and 75.169.16.76. It appears to be the same person. King Shadeed (talk) 11:30, March 2, 2015 (UTC)

And the same as 75.162.181.141 higher up on my page, I'm sure. I've semiprotected your page. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
They are the same person, just as this one is. I accidentally tripped over the too-short cord that connects my internet router to the service jack, and that changed the address. I need to get a longer cord!
But, Bishonen, you just cater to this hypocrite as if it's "okay" for him to falsely accuse someone of "vandalize" his page just because they put a warning on his page, even though that is the exact thing he did to their page! Don't give in to these spurious requests so easily, please.
Plus, he has a bad habit of trying to WP:OWN articles just because he wrote them. Please do something to curb this nonsense.
Thanks, 75.162.203.151 (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC) (for now, until I trip on the cord again)![reply]
Shadeed, I kinda agree that this shouldn't be called vandalism.
With that said, IP-user, edit warring over petty stuff like this won't ingratiate you with experienced editors.
Peter Isotalo 01:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users can remove what they like from their own talkpages and you don't get to restore the removed post. Doing so is harassment, and no, it's not allowed and is certainly not "the exact thing he did to your pages: he warned you once, as is reasonable. Please don't make it a virtue that you make extra trouble for you opponent by flitting from IP to IP, making extra talkpages that need to be warned. That may not be your fault, but it's not KS's fault either is it? And you, not he, have the remedy: If you want to take responsibility for your own edits, and give other editors a chance to have one user talk to discuss on, there's nothing to stop you from creating an account. Don't restore removed usertalk comments again or you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 04:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Okay hold up. Was THAT for me?? If so, I get warned by an IP user that's using multiple IDs by not looking up reliable sources or taking it to the talk page and I get blamed??? That doesn't sound right. He didn't take it to the Talk page on the SPE NOR SPT page, but I did on the latter name. Whoever that IP user is for using multiple IPs is doing is creating an edit war with ME so that I would get in trouble!! And whoever that user is that is using the same IP that starts off with "75" needs to be investigated. King Shadeed 01:19, March 3, 2015 (UTC)
I believe Bish is on your side here, Shadeed. I might have obscured that with my comment, though. Sorry about that. Didn't mean to trivialize the pointless talk page violations by the IP-user. I just wanted to note that short personal messages are usually better than templates in these kind of situations.
Peter Isotalo 07:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • King Shadeed, not sure you're talking to me, but for my part I wasn't blaming you for anything. Do you flit from IP to IP? Do you need to create an account? No. My comment was for 75.162.181.141, 75.162.207.17, 75.162.203.151 and 75.169.16.76 (=all one person, which they don't deny). They restored removed comments at your talkpage, which is harassment, and that's why I protected your page against harassment. I'd quite like to block them, but it's pointless with IPs that change with every post. I can't investigate who is using the IPs, I don't have the tools for it. Checkusers can't do that kind of investigation either. Bishonen | talk 09:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I was just making sure. I was confused. All's forgiven though. I was like "Hold up! What did I do??" But thanks fellas, I appreciate your help. And Bishonen? Sorry about annoying you or something of another. I was trying to find an administrator to help me out whenever something turn into a mess. I mean I LIKE editing here! I've been here since '06. Though, I still got a lot to learn here, heh-heh! And Peter? Thanks for your help too. King Shadeed | Talk 11:58, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

Bish, by "the exact thing," I didn't mean the restoration. I meant just posting the warning in the first place. I wasn't thinking about the other thing. Even if I managed not to trip on my cord (really gotta get a long cord and reroute it--and not accidentally break the little tab on the plug that helps keep it plugged in!), there would be no point in blocking me, because just doing what I've done with this so far isn't really block-worthy. Okay, I know you're an admin. and shadeed and I are not (although he acts like he thinks he is), but that really doesn't seem like something a person should be blocked for.

And no, Peter and Bish, I'm not making it a virtue that I... blah, blah, blahh.... I wasn't even thinking about doing that... but hey, thanks for the idea that I could use down the road! Anyway, I'm not making up the tripping thing as a kind of convenient ruse for trying to make reverting look like it's being done by different people so that shad will look like the one who should be in trouble. I wouldn't even have known that I could change my IP address that easily had it not been for that tripping (the first one being a long time ago), so I wouldn't have thought of that for just faking him out. But no, I didn't trip the cord out after every posting.

Oh, but thanks, Pete, for agreeing that calling the removal of an abbreviation shouldn't be labeled as "vandalism." And Bish, shad was already falsely accusing me of "vandalizing" on his talk page before I reposted the warning. So I was like, "Oh, really? So just every posting you disagree with is 'vandalism'? Grow a bit of skin!"

Besides though, guys, if one user is warring with another, then that other is warring too! It's not a one-way road!

Even then, what about shad's articles with all of these abbreviations just to have abbreviations on them? Are those so important? If so, why? For example, why is it "so important" to clutter up the lede of something like One Magnificent Morning and Sony Pictures Entertainment, etc. that they must be protected for *any* length of time?

75... or 65.whatever.I.am.now.... 65.130.207.32 (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, let's get something straight here, whoever you are, I didn't falsely accuse you. You DID what you DID. End of discussion. Have a nice day. King Shadeed | Talk 20:01, March 4, 2015 (UTC)

Dcrsmama's talkpage

They're pretty intent on removing anything negative on their talkpage. I think we may as well not get too freaked-up about it, but if they attack then an eventual ANI may be appropiate. Or not. You're the sysop! —George8211 / T 21:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They can remove whatever they like on their own page, but if there are any more edit summaries like that, or other further disruption, I will be the sysop, don't worry. (If I'm awake. Bedtime is approaching in this timezone.) Bishonen | talk 21:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Blocked.[17] ANI, bah. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Consider revoking talk page access... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification, EvergreenFir. I've removed the strange copypaste from the Reliable sources noticeboard, but no, I won't revoke tpa as yet. I don't believe in doing that just because they're claiming they're right and everybody else is wrong. A blocked user is allowed to vent, as far as I'm concerned. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I wonder, it this [18] a personal attack? I think so, and I would like to remove it, but, well, I don't usually mess with others' talk pages. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, please leave it, Dbrodbeck. I blocked them, I have no problem with a little abuse, as long as it's only directed at me. People don't like being blocked, it's human. I've replied, though (after some hesitation) and I've also revoked tpa — not for attacking me, but for re-inserting crap that I had removed once. Bishonen | talk 14:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for replying. I left it figuring hey, if it didn't bother you, no worries. Thanks again. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likely to be a long-term project ... aka, Another True Believer. Just another Wikipedia pharm schill. 14:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of some sort?

Might want to check out the talk page of Pakistani Nice country (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It has a sock template on it and links to a diff related to another user. Can't make heads or tails of it, but it's related to you so thought you might recognize it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

indeffed for multiple reasons. I removed both the forged Bishonen sig and the "sock template". (why does such silliness always seem to find you Bishonen? Perhaps the "gif" on your edit page? .. :)) — Ched :  ?  06:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ched! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bish -what an editnote

File:I samma ögonblick var hon förvandlad till en underskön liten älva.jpg

Hafspajen (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Giano and Bishonen, portrait of a friendship! A just and profound picture of a somewhat unequal relationship! Bishonen | talk 15:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
What a charming picture of my nephew; he used to look so lovely at that age in his little sailor suit; he's still so very angelic. Now, I can't stop here gossiping to you - I'll be late for my Swedish class so it's "Jag har en gul smörgås i min barnvagn" for now. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DS notice

Hi Bishonen, would you consider putting a discretionary sanctions notice on J. Scott Armstrong pursuant to WP:ARBCC? While Armstrong is a marketing professor, a substantial part of his notability arises from his criticism of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, his offering of what he views as a wager on climate change, and other activities related to climate change. If I should be asking somewhere else (maybe WP:AE?) just tell me off. Thanks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't in the Climate change category; I'm trying to figure out if it would fall under those sanctions. The principle is apparently the same as for WP:TBAN. Check it out: only climate-change related parts of the page would fall under the sanctions. Thinking about it. My god, I hope it won't take a clarification request. (I'm dead.) Talkpage stalkers? Please? Bishonen | talk 10:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page stalker) Your conclusion is correct; however, since this person is still alive, his biography is also covered by WP:NEWBLPBAN. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, useful.. or, well, that one doesn't have a talkpage template or alert code or such-like, does it, Salvio? I don't see one. So how am I supposed to alert people they might fall under it? We're always being told it's important to use the correct early warning system before sanctioning somebody per discretionary sanctions. Yet another DS headscratcher. Bishonen | talk 11:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I believe the templates should be {{subst:Alert|blp}} for user talk pages and {{Discretionary sanctions|blp}} for article talk pages... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks very much. OK, Boris, I've added a couple of templates to the article talkpage, with a note about how the CC sanctions apply only partially. I guess it's all more of a formality, as it would be an unusual editor who read all that stuff at the top. There's a forest of it. Anyway, now you or anybody can add user alerts using {{subst:alert|cc}} and so on, if there should be reason to. Bishonen | talk 12:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Bish, Salvio. I have reason to expect this article may heat up so it helps to have all the formalities in place. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider

This from QuackGuru was horrible. I don't know how much experience you have with disability, but to those of us who do, it's awful, and User:John is 100% right that it's blockworthy -- for anyone, and certainly someone who should know better given a block log and much experience. My initial reaction at ANI was overly hot and ABF, and I struck it and am sorry. My revised comments are here under "Support block per John".
P.S. Just read article on your username-sake; was surprised it didn't have more art.... here's a start at least. [19] --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) What exactly did you want 'Shonen to reconsider? Sanctioning QG, instead of warning him? You're really not the most uninvolved editor to be going around trying to sweet-talk admins into getting rid of your opponents for you. You might note that striking a comment implies disavowing it. You didn't strike your comment, but merely hatted it, implying you downgraded its relevance, but stood by it. If you really are sorry about your overly hot reaction, then actually strike the comment. Folks might be tempted to take your contrition more seriously then. --RexxS (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining that. Yes, by hatting, I was indeed intending to disavow the whole thing, so now have struck as well. Otherwise, my (non-struck) comments at ANI speak for themselves: this, and this too. And right now am feeling about as disinclined to "sweet talk" as I can remember ever feeling on WP, so kindly spare me any pokes, veiled or not. Thanks! --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 02:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Middle 8. I'm not changing my opinion about a warning being the best action, and I was rather glad to see Kevin Gorman deferred to my call and thus didn't block directly. But of course I won't object to a block if consensus develops for it. I note, though, that A1candidate and you, who are both agitating for a block, have previously shown your interest in getting rid of QG on the alt med articles. Perhaps not because he pushes back against your POV there, but, well, the agitation coincides with the fact that he does push back. Bishonen | talk 10:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I know you've struck out your sentences about my callousness and nauseating hypocrisy on ANI, but it still seems a little soon to be making nice about bishōnen just 12 hours later, here on my page. It strikes my ear hollowly. Bishonen | talk 10:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Caucasian male with tousled blond hair to the jawline, head turned to the left.
Björn Andrésen at 16 years of age during his audition for the role of Tadzio
Yes, I can see how you might imagine I was trying to "make nice" by pretending to have an interest in Bishōnen, but actually I'd recently watched the (extremely creepy) documentary Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys, and found the former to be an interesting contrast. And that actor whose photo I added, Björn Andrésen, really does have quite a striking face, like a Greek statue, just as the novel said.
The stuff I wrote (and later struck) was mainly aimed at editors generally failing to understand disability and showing double standards, and were written while I was furious about QG's attack. Being accused of lying about one's disability is especially offensive, moreso than being accused of lying about other stuff. Grokking this is part of disability awareness and I don't see much disability awareness in that ANI thread. Nothing new there; it always takes time to appreciate how things look to a disadvantaged minority. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 14:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to add, FWIW, I know you're cynical about my motivation and probably think I'm a CPUSHer, but it's not because of QG's content preferences that I've supported sanctioning him in the past. It's his methods, which (per many editors) include a facto IDHT. In this case the reasons I supported a block were the severity of the offense (cf. #3 under WP:BLOCKDETERRENT) and, cf. #2, because QG's been warned a lot lately [20] and will probably just keep pushing the envelope.
I wonder why you didn't wait to let another admin do the block that User:John asked for, and which Kevin Gorman said he would have enacted? Was it important to you that QG not be blocked? If so why? He's been warned now five times in three months. Failure to use stick where carrot won't work to spur a course correction does nobody any favors. This is true even if it's unseemly for me to point it out. Which I'm done doing for now... --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did want to get my opinion in before somebody blocked, yes, you're quite right. Not to prevent anybody from blocking, of course — I couldn't — and I rather expected somebody to do it in any case. But if somebody chooses to defer to me, that's up to them, and surely it must mean that they didn't feel strongly about blocking, which is their affair (Kevin's affair in this case). You know what, User:Middle 8? I agree QG is a rude insensitive bastard. I'm just not one to block for rudeness, much. Those blocks seldom do any good. In my opinion. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Bishonen, I see where you're coming from. Turns out my ABF-ish tantrum was completely off-base with respect to your views; sorry again for that. Interesting, your observations with blocks for rudeness; I wouldn't have guessed but at same time am not surprised. BTW I forgot to mention in above comment that I wasn't any longer wheedling for you to reconside, just explaining my take/motives. Happy editing! --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW/FWIW, I changed my !vote to say "Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future". The less I say about sanctioning QuackGuru the better (both for drama and, ironically, the likelihood of a sanction if deserved). For example, had I been wise enough not to open RfC#2 on QuackGuru, Guy's AN thread likely would have resulted in at least the impetus for some sort of behavior-change. Wu wei and all that. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

Hello, I do not believe we have crossed paths before, and I'm writing on your talk page only because I've been pinged in a comment above and we're both involved in a dispute regarding QuackGuru. I think these disputes could be quickly resolved as long as as there is honest and direct communication between both parties. Therefore, what I would like you to do, is to clarify your comment about me so that I could understand the context behind it.

This is important because you appear to have implied that I had shown an interest in getting rid of QuackGuru on the alt med articles in the past, but I must point out that merely presenting diffs of an editor's misbehavior is not equivalent to showing a desire to get rid of them. Up till now, I have never asked for QuackGuru to be blocked or banned anywhere in Wikipedia because I do not believe in enforcing such forms of serious restrictions without a good reason. Perhaps I do not have a strong memory and I may have forgotten where I have done so. In that case, could you remind me of where I had "shown my interest in getting rid of QG on the alt med articles"?

I am confident that you will respond to my request for clarification to avoid a misunderstanding and give me the answers that I respectfully seek. Thank you. -A1candidate 16:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think 'Shonen may have been confusing you with the editor who filed
or the one who signed up to this request "I foresee no lasting remedy short of a lifetime topic ban for science and health, broadly construed." at:
or perhaps this one "... recommend that QuackGuru be given a lengthy topic ban on all articles relating to pseudoscience and/or alternative medicine, broadly construed" at:
No doubt once she's realised you've "never asked for QuackGuru to be blocked or banned anywhere in Wikipedia", she'll get back to you. --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, RexxS, please marry me, you saved me all that digging, on a day when I don't have the stomach for it. A1candidate, what RexxS said. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Biographical infobolloxes

O-hisashiburi de gozansu.

Back when I last checked WP:MOS (or something similar), there was, I believe, a mention of the ability of an article creator or a Wikiproject (or both, or similar) to disallow (or at least discourage) the later addition of Template:Infobox person and the like: clutter that may well help the reader of bios of footballers, "Playmates" and the like but that for more substantial people merely duplicates, emphasizes trivia, grotesquely simplifies ("known for"), and in other ways dumbs down the resulting article. Now that I look for it again, I can't see it. Did I merely imagine this permission, or is it alive and lurking somewhere I haven't thought of, or have the forces of dumbitude prevailed and disposed of it? -- Hoary (talk)

(watching) I believe that it is a myth. Nobody here can "allow" or not allow anything in a collaborative project that anybody can edit. Some people love bollox, some hate it, I find it useful. When someone who hates it removes one, added by a new user (who is ignorant to love and hate and the complexity of the situation) to an article of someone who loves it but is not permitted to add one, by the power of arbcom (yes, that can happen in a collaborative project that anybody can edit) we reach the farce of a farce ;) - In case you remember that there was something about classical composers, read the projects recent friendly discussions, - but better listen to music by Handel ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To make farce farcier: I was taken to Arbitrary Enforcement, possibly because the above remark ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The actual policy (reaffirmed by Arbcom in 2013) is The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Individual editors and individual Wikiprojects are expressly forbidden from announcing that all of "their" articles should or should not have an infobox, although in some fields (most noisily classical composers) there's a broad consensus that infoboxes in their current form are unhelpful, while in stat-heavy fields like sporting biographies there's an equally firm consensus that an infobox should be included unless there's a good reason to leave it out.
Certain editors, on the other hand, are specifically barred from adding or removing infoboxes, to try to put on a lid on the tendency of infobox skirmishes to escalate into full-blown shouting matches. – iridescent 11:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, all. Of course nobody "owns" anything ... except that in a very few ways they do, in effect, do just this. Try the series of (infobollox-irrelevant) edits starting here, their summaries, and the talk page: as we see, the creator of an article can fix its spelling and date order in perpetuity. My inner autocrat would like to create articles with no bio-infoboxes and have them stay that way, but I suppose the only chance for this is to have the relevant WikiProject agree that the things aren't necessary; and unfortunately this WikiProject is moribund. I suppose I should be grateful that most of what interests me is of no interest to popular culture, so I don't have to worry about additions of tidbits about "references" within Grand Theft Simpsons or whatever it is. -- Hoary (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of an article cannot fix the style of its spelling and date format in perpetuity. The rule is that articles' spelling and date format are decided first by whether the subject has "strong ties to a particular English-speaking country"; then by the style that the article has evolved using (if consistent); finally, if none of the previous applies, by the style employed by the first major contributor who introduced that style. Even then, the style can be changed by a consensus of editors at the article - but it would have to be a strong consensus to survive challenges because consensus can change. Wikiprojects have no authority to make policy for individual articles where a broader policy already exists - and that broader policy already exists for spelling and dates. As you can see, the article creator gets no mention whatsoever in policy. --RexxS (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, nobody needs to argue for the addition of a bio infobox, let alone get "consensus" for it; whereas somebody wanting to get rid of one that's just been added is likely to be charged with vandalism, attempted "ownership", or mere perversity. Thus there's a systemic bias toward the addition of the things. I suppose that sooner or later a policy will be dreamt up to formalize this. ¶ As a ferinstance, how's the trivia info collection at the top right of "Robert Doisneau"? (For me, if it's tolerable, this is thanks to the way the gravediggerese term "resting place" turns the whole thing into a joke.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you understand it wrong. Anybody daring to add an infobox to a whole swathe of articles owned by a small group will immediately be reverted and told that a Wikiproject has decided that these sort of articles won't have infoboxes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_van_Beethoven&diff=636026932&oldid=635894308 for a classic example of a new editor being bitten and fobbed off (the inline comment is the Wikiproject's decision and the talkpage archives don't show anything of the sort). On the other hand, a group of anti-infoboxers are able to remove infoboxes from articles that have had them for years - some of which even appeared as Today's Featured Article with the infobox - with no more justification than "I don't like it". For example:
and so on. Check the edit summaries. So why not actually take a look at what's happening before expounding your prejudices? --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned above, I've never taken part in the infobox wars. The not taking part in them is one of my favorite parts of Wikipedia, so please take this elsewhere. Bishonen | talk 17:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I hope it's not saying too much that I mentioned on AE that I envy you a bit for that ;) - holder of the Nightingale Award --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness you're quite active!

I love it. And I just skimmed your user page and it's beautiful. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I've just looked at yours, with the idea of editing it (of course) and it's… lapidary. I tried to think of a good quote for it, but no, never when you need one, you know?
A propos of your comment about notifications ("talk page edits --> orange notification; user page edits --> maybe a watchlist notification"), yes, "maybe" with bells on, that's right. I don't get any kind of notification when my userpage is changed, as it is occasionally by vandals. It's well watched by others, so it doesn't matter much, but WTF? It's on my watchlist, of course — or, apparently it isn't, but I've put it on my watchlist, and the top link says "unwatch", not "watch". I tell you this because you're a technical guy. Can you understand it, and is there anything to be done about it? (Don't say "unwatch it and then re-watch", I've tried that. It helps for a day or so, then it backslides.) The rest of my watchlist appears to work perfectly. Bishonen | talk 23:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

That Duck you spotted on the GM Streetcar conspiracy page....

...appears to have new ducklings, complete with similar geographic sources.16:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs)

Thanks for looking at this. What happens to the work of someone who forgot to sign in? Is it saved in some kind of WikiLimbo, or does the editor have to copy it themselves, and save it elsewhere? One of the better contributors often shows up as an IP, another, who I disagree vehemently with, but is not a vandal or a troll, does occasionally...and, truth be told, I have myself once or twice. Just wondering if the baby can be kept as the bathwater is drained, IOW.Anmccaff (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS; Do you mind me copying this, with any reply to the GMSC talk page?Anmccaff (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the disruptive IPs? Maybe they're Spearmind's ducklings, it looks likely enough, but no Checkuser is going to confirm it, for privacy reasons. (The duck I spotted has been confirmed, though, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spearmind.) The simplest way of dealing with IP disruption is semiprotection, which I've just done at that article. Unfortunately, semi means good-faith IPs can't edit the article either. They'll have to either make requests on the talkpage, or create an account.
For your other question: everybody's work is saved in eternity on Wikipedia, whether contributed by an account or an IP. You can see all the versions and all the edits under the "history" tab. See Help:Page history for the details. Anybody can copy whatever they like from the history. WikiLimbo works! :-) The rare exception is where something was abusive or illegal and has actually been removed from the database. Of course, feel free to copy whichever part of this you like to the article talkpage. Though perhaps a link would serve? Indeed, link to my page in any case, if you quote me; you should always show where something comes from. Happy editing! Bishonen | talk 18:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

What is it....

File:YodaPuppet.jpg
Jedi masters can change permissions on their padawan accounts!
But how about this guy?

...with you and GIFs anyway? Huh? Huh? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the frog cool? The long, calm, efficient classic leg strokes? Almost as cool as my Laurel and Hardy. I did think of creating an edit notice for your talk and putting the swimmer there instead. I love gifs, what can I say. Have you sen the blinking Bishzilla? Bishonen | talk 00:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
LOL Bishzilla! But then if I use that GIF I won't be a free range frog anymore. I'll be a... floundering frog. A wet Βάτραχο! Instead of Brékkek Kékkek Kékkek Kékkek! I'll just go glug glug glug §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about now? Not a gif, but claaaasy, yay! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The epitome of class. Look out! He's about to range freely through the air! One giant leap for frogkind! Bishonen | talk 21:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I don't know Bish, it looks like it's choking on a fly or something. Well, maybe it'll grow on me. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You autoconfirmed Percy? Much appreciated, I didn't know you could do that! Bishonen | talk 22:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Much to learn, you have. Use the force, you must. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was going by this, Kermit. Are you saying Floquenbeam could have just confirmed his monster? Bishonen | talk 00:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Correct. To each his own I guess mine is not autoconfirmed, but that's because I need it that way. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you thnk?

Since I will never be an admin again, and I have been a former admin longer than most admins have been admins(!) I was wondering if its okay if I call myself a "Defrocked Admin Emeritus"? I mean, can't I have some sort of nonoffical designation???--MONGO 13:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Defrocked Admin Emeritus has a great ring to it! But if you take it apart, you aren't one. "X emeritus" means "retired eminent X". E g, Newyorkbrad is an arbitrator emeritus. But for you to be a defrocked admin emeritus, you'd have to become an admin again. Then you'd be the emeritus of a defrocked admin — a retiree as a former admin. Get it? And you're not, you remain a defrocked admin. Not retired in your quality of former admin. How about… hmm. Perhaps you could have a cool userbox on your page about being the most senior/eminent defrocked admin? I believe Darwinbish may have something pending. Bishonen | talk 17:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
But I am an expert as far as being defrocked! This sucks! Arbcom kind of sort of retired me so...while not voluntary not all retirements are! MONGO sad...may have request pocketing shortly.--MONGO 18:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO be happy. Master make my page pretty with most cromulent picture you make.[21]. MONGO make monster happy. MONGO embiggen 'pedia. — ChedZILLA 18:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO impressed fine likeness of dreaded Zilla adorns many pages. It is a most cromulent usage of likeness I must say.--MONGO 18:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ched, also check out handsome likeness of Bigfoot Shakespeare MONGO, created by User:Penyulap! And be happy, MONGO, check out User talk:MONGO, see Darwinbish-created new userbox honor senior defrocked admin! bishzilla ROARR!! 19:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
"Darwinbish-created new userbox"? Oh please. All the actual work was done by RexxS! Bishonen | talk 19:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
It is beautiful nevertheless and thank you to little Darwinbish as it is a most excellent little addition!--MONGO 20:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DYK ... that a church's 1510 spiral of justice (pictured) declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"? - Can artists around here make that a nice compact quotable template, to use in those moments of suffering in great need? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Dunham

I disagree with your interpretation of events, but I will remove the Dunham page from my watchlist. Could you just answer my last question on the Dunham talk page? Thanks. Quis separabit? 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so. Hope it's clear. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. It hadn't occurred to me that an individual person, except in cases like Ronald Reagan or Hitler or George Washington or Francis of Assisi or Henry VIII, could be a topic. Live and learn. Quis separabit? 19:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent addition

I'm completely gutted that I didn't come up with this myself. So simple, and yet it alluded me. I need to try harder. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe. Not sure what to do with little Percy Bish, though. Who needs a romantic poet? Bishonen | talk 21:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
What can you mean? It seems indeed that wikipedia already had a very fine resident romantic poet, just look! But surely there's room for more. Percy Bish Shelley (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Dear me, I'd better get some edits in. I just went to edit User:FreeRangeFrog, and it turns out I'm not autoconfirmed! Percy Bish Shelley (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
How about now? Percy Bish Shelley (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
How about now? Percy Bish Shelley (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Pretty soon now! Percy Bish Shelley (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Our Percy Bishy Shelley is going to be famous. Somebody made it before me. But I got the wife. Hafspajen (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question.

I was wondering if you would be willing to look through a thread at AN with an eye on closing it. It's not without controversy, and no matter how it closes, someone on one side or the other will disagree. One reason I ask you is that I consider you very well separated from US/American politics, and hoped all those involved would consider your view as objective. The thread is here

The thread is a month old, with it's parent thread dating back to mid-January. I suspect there will be further discussions at some other venue, but I think the AN part has run its course. If you'd rather not, I fully understand, and won't be concerned in the least - but I thought it couldn't hurt to ask. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  02:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it, Ched; I acknowledge that I'm sufficiently ignorant of American politics to be a suitable closer. I think I've found a Gordian knot solution that'll annoy both sides, :-) but I need to write it up carefully. Later. Bishonen | talk 13:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I thank you most kindly. You've now earned "1 Ched Credit". Copy-edit an article? Research a food? Block a troll? Whatever your favor, I shall do my best. :) — Ched :  ?  14:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, see what you think, Ched. Theoretically, I think my Third Way is brilliant, it's just that I really doubt people will be interested enough to read the article and opine, even the people who have been complaining bitterly about not getting to do just that. Will they even notice? Perhaps I ought to alert everybody who has posted in the thread. Oh groan. I mean, I or somebody ought perhaps to alert them. Hey, can I use my 1 Ched Credit for that, huh? Bishonen | talk 15:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I think it's absolutely amazing. Thank you so very much. I have some real-life things to attend to right now, but I will indeed notify everyone involved. It's clear that you spent a great deal of time. thought, and effort at my request, and for that I am grateful. You now have plenty of "Ched Credits" in the bank now to spend at your leisure. :) Thanks Bishonen. — Ched :  ?  16:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

interesting redirects...

Aeon of Strife redirects to a different page than Aeon of strife... am I the only one that sees a problem here? -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, little Aunva, long time! Both useful redirects, and I've just created a third, that we need even more: Aeon Of Strife as a redirect to ANI. Seriously, why not just re-redirect the less germane one — no need to delete either, as both spellings are plausible. Bishonen | talk 11:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
yeah, that's where the RfD is going... the question is, which is the most germane... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 15:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Informal AfD on Kirby Delauter

At some point during this long trainwreck I must have participated, since the main Kirby Delauter is on my watchlist and I noticed your changes, but unfortunately due to the short-sighted ignorance of Arbcom, I am at present unable to participate in "admin noticeboards, broadly construed". So between that and the opinion that article deletion really isn't a WP:AN purview, would it maybe be better to send it to a proper AfD? Tarc (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have laid out my reasons for not doing so in my comment on AN. I'm sorry you can't participate. But I can't say I give a crap about the "purview" thing. Let some other admin do better if they can, my "AN AfD" isn't set in stone. (I say "admin" because they'd need to revert some of my admin actions at the article itself.) Bishonen | talk 19:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Well, I guess we'll see what happens. If this informal discussion somehow results in an article restoration, I can always AfD it. :) Tarc (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Walter de Coutances

Can someone who has more time please step in and deal with this? I've tried explaining that the old DNB (from 1887!) just isn't going to trump more modern sources (especially when those modern sources know about the old DNB!) but it's starting to eat up an insane amount of my (limited) wiki time. Sounds like a job for an admin to me... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's getting worse. Great. It's situations like this that drive me away from Wikipedia. Please someone actually try to talk to this new editor ... or is it that it's more important that they not get discouraged and some older editor be driven away? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Drmies took care of it? Right? Bishonen | talk 19:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Except for now using a modern day video of an Anglican enthronement to try to say that "received" would be the same as "enthronement"...Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blame User:Gerda Arendt

They wrote to me! On my talk page!! I read it!!! I looked at my watchlist... *sigh* LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take the blame, - keep singing, especially for St. Patrick's Day "... that Margaret Kennedy (pictured as Captain Macheath) was the first person to perform Thomas Arne's song "A-Hunting We Will Go"?" - let's go! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a sigh of regret, little Less? Do you miss us? What'll you take to return to us? I'll get up a collection among the socks if you're at all persuadable. You're greatly missed. Percy Bish Shelley (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The *sigh* is that the barb remains, for all that the wound had appeared to have healed. It is people, not places, that have me hooked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting attacked on my talk page again.

Hey. Sorry to bother you again. Well, the same user who keeps using multiple IPs is at it again. See my talk page history for details. Plus, when the user used a different IP as "71.219.22.154", he made his disruptive edits on Sony Pictures Television, Sony Pictures Entertainment, and CBS Television Distribution and Trivialist got on him about his edits when we discussed this at the Sony Pictures Television talk page and we warned him about his disruptive editing. He did the same thing two weeks ago after we've had this discussion, but he ignored this. I don't know why this user is so desperate to get me blocked. King Shadeed (Talk) 13:20, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

Right. I've blocked them for three months this time, and protected your talk for the same period. OK? It's a pity to have to shut out all IPs, but what can you do. Let me know if you're not happy about the protection. Bishonen | talk 00:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks again. I think I should take a month's break off from all of that chaos I've been going through here. Yet alone with the personal and family issues. King Shadeed (Talk) 21:20, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
Also back at it. See User talk:65.130.204.146 Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Uh, actually no, it was not ignored, and it was not "disruptive." After the Trivialist went back and explained that she/he removed the abbreviations from the leads of articles where the abbreviations weren't used again, that user posted edit-summaries (I guess using dummy edits) showing that he/she agreed that those removals made sense for those. I'm assuming that was an attempt to show cooperation.
Plus, apparently shadeed ignores the repeated explanations this user has given for why the IP address has changed sometimes. Based on what I've read, even this user hasn't always caused her or his changes of IP address. Shadeed needs to pay better attention to this, but is obviously refusing to despite that the explanations are in his face.
65.130.204.146 (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care if you're causing the IP changes or not; you're in any case using them to your advantage, by continuing to edit even though you're blocked. If you didn't know your previous IP is blocked, you do now, because Geraldo told you on your page. A block applies (of course) to the person, not a particular IP or account. You're not allowed to post when you're blocked. And yet you do, here on my page. I have blocked you and another clutch of static IPs (hmmm) on the same range for three months for block evasion. Now let's see you manage to "accidentally" change your IP so far as to be out of the range. You know what you should do, if you think you have a real case for being allowed to edit Wikipedia? Don't argue here, but ask for block review on the talkpage of your account, which has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Per the instructions on that page, use WP:UTRS and explain to them about how all your problems have been caused by abusive admins. Block evasion is not the answer. As long as you keep that up, I'll block you wherever I see you. Bishonen | talk 06:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Our IP-hopping friend has finally registered an account: Fddkdkdd Trivialist (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Bishonen | talk 01:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

And again: 75.162.184.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Trivialist (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Blocked. Of course the world is full of open proxies. Is there any article you think it would be useful to semi? Bishonen | talk 22:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Probably wouldn't help, unfortunately. I'm sure if you protected any articles, they would just find other articles to make the same kind of edits. Trivialist (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another: 75.162.230.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Bonus: this IP posted three reports against me to WP:AN/3 regarding Barry & Enright Productions, CBS Studios International, and United Artists Television, so protecting them might be worth trying. Trivialist (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altermate Account?

Does this user PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) pass the alternate account smell test? I noticed single topic area and contributions immediately to noticeboards. Seems to have unusual grasp on policy with extreme though misguided confidence. Considering the topic area.... Would you think it unreasonable if I were to ask this editor to use his main account for noticeboards? MastCell invited to look per EncyclopediaBob logic. --DHeyward (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an SPA that was obviously already experienced in the ways of Wikipedia when they started editing the GG case in December. That was pointed out by Ryūlóng in the workshop just a couple of days into Peter's editing, on a list of "accounts that made their first ever contribution to Wikipedia concerning the Gamergate controversy (interpretted broadly), advocated for Gamergate, and made little to no edits outside of the subject area". To my sense, it's a little late to challenge them now, and it's also not really worth challenging such cases unless they're being disruptive. I have a little trouble checking whether they've been instigating litigation, being belligerent, etc, as there are so many contributions. Have you got anything like that to point to, DH? The few edits I clicked on at random were civil and reasonable. Or anything that looks like they've got more than one account editing GG? Bishonen | talk 09:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
No, just the amount of AE contributions. He's not disruptive on the article space (at least conforms to the letter of the rules if not the spirit). I didn't know if such accounts were allowed to contribute in the Wikipedia space like AE/ARCA/etc. My sense is he's what I call a "bomb thrower." --DHeyward (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's NOT HERE for sure.--MONGO 00:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, I might say the same for your bizarre and baseless allegations that I have "wikistalked" DHeyward and that PeterTheFourth is my "ally against DHeyward." I have had no communications whatsoever with PeterTheFourth. His only interaction here has been to remind you that making unsupported personal comments about other editors is frowned upon. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly if one pulls my right index finger I toot and if you pull my left index finger I burp. It's the oddest thing really. You managed to pull both at the same time....something is rotten in the state of Denmark.--MONGO 01:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest some indigestion remedies, because the facts and evidence are not in accordance with your intestinal feelings. Out of all the articles DHeyward has edited in the last two months, the only article which I have also edited during that time is American Sniper (film). I respectfully request that you withdraw your baseless claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You want the diffs? You showed up there to revert him out of the blue then here. Many a man has more hair than wit.--MONGO 01:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to stop. Follow a person to a page or two is not wikistalking. See this interaction analysis. That said, MONGO, you are continuing to make accusation without evidence not just here by on Jimbo's page as well. This follows from your comments on Talk:Robert Hagan yesterday. IMHO, it needs to stop immediately. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck are you talking about? I never commented on Robert Hagan!--MONGO 01:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon. Talk:Robert Kagan. Surely you know what I was referring to. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do know how to examine the Editor Interaction Analyzer right...what do you see?--MONGO 02:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NBSB has made six edits to American Sniper, and showed up to pick a fight with DHeyward. NBSB never edited the article before. I'll call it for what it is. Then be showed up here...--MONGO 02:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, show the diffs. They'll show that I showed up here after you leveled an unsupported personal attack against me and then came here to tag-team PeterTheFourth because he rightly called out your behavior. I followed you, not DHeyward, because you are the one making unsupported personal attacks against me outside of one's own userspace. I could give a flying fuck what DHeyward wants to put on his "Fan Club" page, but you dragged it into articletalk space and that's where the line gets drawn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect...you showed up out of the blue at American Sniper to revert DHeyward and pick a fight. He and I have worked on that article for months. Maybe you had previously edited it I dint know or care, but you them engaged in an edit war. DHeyward posted here and both he and I do that frequently... I do not see you here much of ever. That is wikistalking NBSB. The sad thing is that behind the scenes both DHeyward and I have lamented your ED bullshitz page so you need to chill and not make enemies for no reason whatsoever.--MONGO 02:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I edited an article, yes, to restore the essentially-unexplained removal of a reliable source. The fact that I edited that article does not in any way, shape or form constitute Wikistalking. On the other hand, that you and DHeyward apparently feel that you have ownership of that article is apparent by the way you refer to your shared editing of it.
Also, you're now attempting to intimidate me by randomly referring to a ridiculous pile of garbage taken seriously only by the lowest form of Internet bottom-feeding scum. Quite the argument you have going for you. Very logical indeed. Sorry, but I'm not scared of anonymous Internet thugs and their nonsense-making. Do you believe everything you read on anonymous trollery sites? Because that says far more about you than it does about me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OMG...I said we were "lamenting" the page...have you seen the page they have on me? Where were you when I was fighting a horde of ED twerps on this website? Ever look at arbcase MONGO?--MONGO 02:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you even bring the existence of that page up here, MONGO? And no, I haven't seen the page they have on you, because I don't make a habit of reading ED or giving a shit what it says about anyone or even bothering to mention it anywhere. They've got vicious attack pages on tons of people who are disliked by anon dipshits, that's just what they do, and literally nobody of consequence takes it seriously. I'm glad that you and I can agree that ED is a meaningless trollfarm of Internet garbage, and if we're both disliked by anon dipshits, then we must both be doing something right. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) Between GG and the latest case at arbcom, there's a lot of unsupported accusations flying around, many amounting to personal attacks. If you think PtF is a sock, fill out an SPI with evidence. Coming to an admin directly without evidence is highly suspect to put it nicely. I try to keep GG at am arm's length, but this is getting out of hand. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blah... Bishonen may not smell a sock as good as Bishzilla but zilla has this page watchlisted so it works just fine.--MONGO 01:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And here I was thinking it referred to wars or political campaigns. I have to get around to finally watching the film. Thanks for the cultural explanation. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: It's a good one. I recommend it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes....here comes BISHZILLA!!!--MONGO 04:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redaction request

Can you redact references to this editor's age. I am pretty sure there is a policy or something that discourages identifying minors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V is already on the task. (FWIW, my skeptics's radar is pinging about some of the identity claims, but that is neither here nor there since our response remains unchanged.) Abecedare (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And I agree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonation?

Given the subjects edited and the closeness of Bongsaidzebedee to Boing! said Zebedee, would a username block be in order? The edits are poor, btw, but I can't be bothered with the Nair community at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. I haven't looked in depth at the edits either, but given them a nice soft usernameblock with the option to create a new name. Probably too much AGF. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I will never again listen to you when you accuse me of assuming too much good faith... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I noticed your comments about this block you recently performed. I agree 100% with your analysis and that the user's "common sense" explanation following my request for more information was sufficient to justify a block. I have been trying to help out at ANI with Dispute Resolution, and I'm new to it, but I have been a teacher and worked in law, and I have seen enough Wiki disputes to know that sometimes the accuser is as guilty as the accused and may be good at hiding it. I believe the burden of evidence should be on the accuser to clearly show the problem (and failed attempts to correct it), not the accused to prove otherwise or for the judge to have to hunt for evidence to figure out what is going on (You are no doubt better at that than I am!) I found the user's initial complaint was hastily thrown together, vague and contained no specific pointer to evidence. So I was prodding the user to give us something to work with, which the user did. Maybe I asked for too much. Can I assume you agree that it was reasonable to request more information that what was initially provided? David Tornheim (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David, I'll leave it to Bishonen to answer the question you posed, but in the meantime can I request that you desist from posting at ANI, RSN and other community noticeboards (unless you have complaint or question, of course)? I have looked at your recent posts at ANI and RSN, and while clearly well-intentioned, your attempts to help have ended up muddying the water and misdirecting the person asking for aid. Perhaps some more experience in mainspace will help you be more helpful sometime in the future. Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Regular ANI stalker) Depending on the complexity of the posting, I'd suggest doing some digging of your own prior to commenting on various threads on ANI. You can activate the pop ups preference that brings up the various links, such as contribs, when you hover your mouse pointer over the link. So rather than having to open up a new tab or window you can have a quick browse through a given editors' history. This also works with article, talk page, wikispace pages, histories, etc. Blackmane (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Abecedare and Blackmane. Hi, David, I'm glad you came here. I understand you want to learn, so I'll answer you frankly. No, I don't think there was any need to ask for more information than the initial ANI post by Sundayclose. It even contained the useful {{User|}} template, which provides direct links to the reported user's contributions and their talkpage. From those two quick clicks it was obvious that they never responded to anything and never used edit summaries nor talkpages, and I could see the warnings they had received and ignored. Diffs and the other things you asked for wouldn't have been any help, just busywork. Also, it's problematic to ask so much of a new user. Listing diffs is a timeconsuming job for anybody — I hate doing it — besides not being useful in this case. Users, especially inexperienced users, should be thanked for reporting a problem, not asked to put in work that's probably difficult for them, but easy for an admin reviewing the report. For instance, most users can't easily find somebody's block log, but for experienced admins it's just a click away. As for your request for policies, admins, rather than new users, are supposed to know about them.
If you put yourself in the shoes of an inexperienced user posting a report on, for example, ANI, they probably have to put quite a bit of work just into finding the right noticeboard and describing the problem. Even if the report is flawed, which I don't think this one was, as long as it's in good faith they should be applauded for helping Wikipedia rather than told off to do more.
You're right that frivolous bad-faith complaints are common on the noticeboards, and we always need to read them with a healthy cynicism, but I don't actually think it's easy for OPs to hide their own guilt. Histories are pretty transparent. I appreciate you wanting to help at ANI, and in another case, your requests might have been reasonable, but it's always best to start by looking at what's needed in this case. I have to agree with Abecedare that more work on articles would put you in a better position to be helpful on ANI. Bishonen | talk 12:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you all for your feedback. I will do my best not to muddy the waters any further. (Bishonen: I really appreciate your concern for new users and your dedication to find the party who is the bigger problem.) I will finish up on the issues on the Noticeboards I had already been engaged in when I got the advice to back off. When matters do concern articles I work on, I may weigh in.
I do have one question. If I see discussion of an article on a Noticeboard that I have never before worked on, and then as basically a third party observer, begin reading about it and the RS, and then I become interested in the subject, the article and the RS materials about it, then as a third party is it:
  1. encouraged
  2. discouraged/prohibited or
  3. neither/other
to edit the article. I have noticed at times I learn far more on a subject than I had ever intended to, and then I wonder if I should or should not edit an article, since I found it on a noticeboard. I could see how it might be annoying to those who bring something to a NB to have new people from that NB come in to edit the article, when all they wanted was advice or DR. But I haven't seen anything about this in Policy.David Tornheim (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Bishonen but I'll add a couple of things. First, any dispute brought to a noticeboard (whether it is ANI, AE, RSN, COI, etc.) will bring attention to both the editors and the subject matter. Mainly because by signaling a dispute exists and publicizing that fact, it draws the eyes of both those who are curious as well as admins who want to see if the tools are called for. So, additional attention is a given.
Second, I think whether it is encouraged or discouraged depends on what you are bringing to the talk page discussion. Is the dispute regarding a subject or policy matter you are well-versed in? I think than your presence would be welcome. Are you going there to try to mediate and cool down the overheated editors? This might be acceptable but don't expect to be thanked for your efforts! Does the dispute involve another editor who drives you crazy and who you see as "stirring up trouble" on an article that you've never even looked at before? In this case, your participation would be discouraged as it would bring old baggage into a dispute that might already be complex and difficult to untangle.
So, I think in each instance, you might ask yourself a) can I offer some useful perspective to this discussion? and b) is this a personal issue for me regarding another editor? Be honest and if you answered "yes" to a and "no" to b, I think your participation would be encouraged. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Tornheim, you're not discouraged from editing an article just because you found it on a noticeboard. I gather there have been some problems with your comments on article talkpages, but I'm leaving that to others. It's your input on the noticeboards that Abecedare and I are concerned about here. Since I just noticed your input in this ANI thread, my concerns aren't limited to poorly considered advice, either. Dragging your own grudge against Jytdog in where it doesn't belong[23] and then continuing to stir the pot is an example of a bad idea. You ported it to a now-blocked user's talkpage, too.[24] Treating Wikipedia as a battleground| and attempting to strike up alliances with your enemy's enemy is a problem wherever it happens, but to begin with, I hope you'll take a voluntary break from the noticeboards. Bishonen | talk 11:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I do not have a grudge against Jytdog. I have raised issues about his problematic behavior, which long preceded my entry onto the pages where we had disagreements on content and/or policy. In fact, that was why he brought me to the ANI in the first place, in reaction to my allegations that he was biting a new user and because I placed the allegations on the user's talk page, which apparently is a violation of some Wiki-rule. I admit I have no Wiki-legal law degree, and despite much reading of Policy, Guideline and Essays, and continued study, even simple questions about rules of procedure and relevant cases showing the application of the procedure are hard to look up. I have the feeling even experienced users are not fully Wiki-legal barred either. But I am not saying ignorance of the law is an excuse. I wish to learn. I asked at my ANI, and I did not get clear answers on what one is supposed to do if they believe a new user (either to Wikipedia or to an article) is being bitten, so that the new user does not leave Wikipedia and/or the article, out of frustration. And it often happens very quickly.
Although I wouldn't say DiPiep was bitten (because s/he is not a new user), I believe s/he had no idea that the small number of allegations of COI would result in all the drama that has ensued. The COI allegations from DiPiep and warnings from Jytdog happened very rapidly, and DiPiep was clearly blind to where things were going, which is entirely predictable of what has happened to other users who accused Jytdog and certain users of COI on the relevant article--long before I edited them. I assumed DiPiep had been on other talk pages (like the many I have seen) where ad hominems are thrown back and forth and no one is taken to AN/I unless it gets very very bad and insults go back and forth getting increasingly worse in intensity, duration and tone. I thought DiPiep had a right to know that there would be zero tolerance for COI allegations about Jytdog and the others--that he was not dealing with amateurs who would bungle an AN/I case if they brought it. I tried to dig up old cases where others had been blocked or banned for COI allegations, but the clock was ticking and I could see DiPiep was not backing down. So I immediately pulled up the only case I knew of--my ANI--to show him/her. I knew that was not the right one to choose, but the clock was ticking. That was before the AN/I. I have not interacted directly with him/her since. I was not trying to form any alliance with him/her; I was just warning someone who did not know their behavior was not going to be tolerated by the user(s) and that continuing it would have very serious consequences. It's unfortunate that DiPiep did not back down, as numerous ANI's have resulted from it. I honestly would prefer to be able to edit without all this avoidable drama. So, no, I don't have a grudge against Jytdog and was trying to prevent drama by my warning to DiPiep, not encourage it. And my response in DiPiep's AN/I was meant as a deterrent to the drama we saw there, which I think could have been settled outside of AN/I, if cooler heads prevailed at the time the incidents happened.
Incidentally, I like your Laurel & Hardy video and the hamster wheel--very cool!David Tornheim (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

File:Dead Sea 21.jpg

Herre hur länge till.. Oh, Lord. Hafspajen (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Förtviflan
Never close, never.. Hafspajen (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that you floating there in the Dead Sea, Hafspaj? I've listed it on the closure requests part of WP:AN, describing your plight in very moving terms.[25] But notice that there are still unclosed discussions from January 8 (mentioned higher up on AN). Admittedly, they look a lot less interesting. Now if you'll stop edit conflicting me for just a moment, perhaps I'll get this posted. Bishonen | talk 10:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Wish I was floating there ... Hafspajen (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep

Good block. I was about 20 seconds behind you on the block button for this one. I was ready to indef after that one, but I won't officially object to your 48 hour block. My personal opinion is, given the context of that comment, we would need an unambiguous statement that he understood its inappropriateness and an understanding not to do it again before unblocking. In 48 hours, he'll just be back at it again. Still, something had to be done, and I'm glad you did it. --Jayron32 23:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was some provocation, as Jytdog was (uncharacteristically) het up. But I'm far from sure. Actually, after seeing that comment (on ANI itself! ), and blinking several times in disbelief , I read no further, my hand just went to the block button. I don't know the user nor the dispute well; please feel free to extend the block if there's a history of those kinds of attacks. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
thank you for putting that to bed. i thought i made a very clear, simple case and it went all haywire. i didn't count on self-destruction but given the attitude, it is not surprising. i have no notable history with DePiep and cannot comment on his behavior otherwise. Others said he makes good contributions in chemistry matters; perhaps that is so and if so, i hope he does learn. i would prefer that everybody get to stay and learn to interact decently enough... and at least apologize when they don't. i have been het up before and said things i regretted. it happens. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)I think is was appropriate; I've seen that editor in other places and he can get very, very nasty; that comment linked above is nastier than usual, but not atypical. Montanabw(talk) 01:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't know if you saw this little lot? Made me blink in disbelief again. Bishonen | talk 07:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Sometimes it's amazing how long people get away with poor behavior. Sometimes seems that so long as they don't start spewing "bad words" or confine their attacks to unpopular editors, they can be absolutely vicious with apparent impunity ... which was the case with that editor. Montanabw(talk) 17:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not alone, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) At the risk of "piling on," I will concur from personal experience that this editor has some rather serious temperament issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, but please don't comment further on the user on my page. I don't want him to post here, and I can hardly deny him the right of response if people keep talking about him. Bishonen | talk 18:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I don't comment on users. If I ever do please ping me, I don't want to. Today I met an extreme statement about good faith, precious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clean

Thank you for cleaning you know where. - My toughest to help editing but we have to do it, for the readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Noticed You Talking to Ched

Hi Bishonen, I noticed you making some sensible comment to Ched, so I popped over here to take a look. I like your essay on false apologies. They are doubly insidious because the good faith recipient (who has typically been harmed or insulted by the apologizer) naturally wants to accept, but doesn't realize it's insincere. So the false apology preys on the goodness of the person being fooled. It's then a double-victimization.

I also noticed you identify as female at your userpage. I appreciate online gender identification generally because it solves the gender pronoun question. For whatever reason I dislike the increasingly common practice of using "they" as gender pronoun for an individual. "They" and "their" are plural! I usually go ahead and say "he or she" and for a while there I even tried "he, she, or intergender" which was sort of onerous. I am male.

Anyhow, I asked Ched to review my ban (this edit is clearly-identified block evasion via raw IP, I have no other workable avenue). You can see that at his talkpage. I think that there is a culture of intimidation within the administrative ranks regarding unblocking. The hardliners move to punish those that unblock. I noticed it at Ched's talkpage where he suggests that Arbcom was mad at him for merely unblocking an editor's talkpage. In the past I noticed Ironholds in a WP:AN/ANI discussion warning off administrators that might unblock whomever it was by saying they would be "thwapped." Several times as I've sought to be unblocked, administrators have said, literally, "I don't want to get involved" or, paraphrasing, "this potato is too hot for me, sorry." They fear reprisal from the hardliners. Maybe if you and Ched have a look at my case together, you'll not feel as intimidated if you lean toward a positive outcome.

Enough of my yakking. The situation is I'm blocked for socking but never did it. I had a single prior account that I abandoned for privacy reasons (as authorized by WP:CLEANSTART. In my prior account I originally authored maybe eight articles and greatly contributed to many more. I didn't survive long as Colton Cosmic but I at least originally authored Rain City Superhero Movement (its condition was far better when I wrote it, and has been extremely poorly maintained) so nobody should say that "not here" nonsense. If you'll consider helping you can read what I wrote at Ched' talkpage. Like him, I encourage you to give me a chance to respond to any criticisms of me that you have. Colton Cosmic. Ah, here's at least a single link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Colton_Cosmic#Statement_of_the_dispute. 205.144.171.80 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I've read your RfC and followed some links in it, particularly WritKeeper's, and checked your talkpage conversations, particularly with Anthonyhcole in February 2014, and my conclusion is that your case has had sufficient review. Sorry. Bishonen | talk 08:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I am grateful that you restored my comment after Lukeno94 (Neil?) deleted it, that you took the time to read as much as you did. That's more than most administrators do, and I'll move along, but I'd like to respond. The RFC was corrupted in that I was denied the opportunity to defend myself. It is the only RFC/U in Wikipedia history in which the subject was denied participation. Neither were the commenters a representative group of Wikipedians, they were overwhelming WP:AN/ANI regulars that had watchlisted my talkpage, and some, I will speak frankly, are my long-term hounders. Particularly Workthatturned's two heaping opinions on me mere hours after the RFC opened were galling to have to endure, because the first contained easily-correctable factual errors that were damaging to me and I couldn't respond, and then the second if you read it "Quiet Return" informs me I should just start socking, which was the one thing I *wouldn't* do.
Now, Writkeeper and Anthonyhcole are okay ones to be partially informed by, Anthony particularly is a very thoughtful and detailed person. Writkeeper was concerned that, while my clearly-identified block evasion was in vast majority to appeal my block, I had done a minority of other things and he was concerned he didn't know enough on them. If I could have responded I would have told him that someone found the time to put a big list of the IPs I have used linked from my userpage, and he can peruse them to his heart's content. I would have been willing to tell him as a shortcut a summary of my IP activities that *I* thought he might be concerned with. But if your mindset is that there always might be a skeleton yet to fall from the closet, there's no way to be sure, there is nothing I can do about that. And with regard to those edits, one has to keep in mind I hobby-edited Wikipedia for years, so to just turn off that desire to do that work, which I thought was beneficial, one has to be a robot. Which I'm not. The stuff Writkeeper says about Youreallycan, yes I did a third-party unblock request on him because I felt he was hounded and unjustly banned. I'd really have to dive back into the details of that exchange, but I guess it was Writkeeper deleted that unblock request without edit comment. If he explained the edit elsewhere, I didn't know it. I don't think it was on YRC's talkpage. He seemed to me to take offense that I uttered the words "abusive in the context" but I think we cleared it up later, I wasn't saying he was an abusive administrator. I didn't even know he was an administrator.
Finally, as to Anthonyhcole where you said you read him, he's gone past microscope analysis of my editing history and all the way to *electron* microscope analysis of my editing history. What he's doing there is far from removed from "is there evidence he socked" (which is what I was indeffed for all. He's gone into the realm of looking at darn near every edit I made (which no-one else ever did, surely not my original blocker) and pulling out the things that anyone could possibly have a problem with. This is a weird way for Wikijustice to be made (I know he wasn't). It also doesn't account for the positive work I did, in that short time, such as Rain City Superhero Movement. So what Anthony is doing there, and he caveats it with things like "at first glance someone might have thought you were," and "proposing the change to 3RR might have been problematical, I'll explain later," and then at the end Anthony says "hey all that was really just me thinking out loud." If you want to go by Anthony's decisive viewpoint he said at his official opinion at the RFC that I should be unblocked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Colton_Cosmic#Outside_view_by_Anthonyhcole).
Okay, so so long and farewell. While I disagree with you that I have received sufficient review (because I have been at every step denied the ability to defend myself) that's your decision. If you think you might ever change it, please go ahead and watchlist my talkpage so you can provide an informed voice if I get close to digging out of this. Colton Cosmic.
Oh, yes, Lukeno94, sorry. Sorry, Luke and Neil. Bishonen | talk 16:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The French...

Ze dauphin bébé iz ze testiest œv all cute animal bébés!

...truly are evil.[26] There's an almost exquisite form of depravity involved in picturing a 17th century French aristocrat relishing a dinner of unborn dolphin calf.

Peter Isotalo 19:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Their villainy knows no bounds. MastCell Talk 19:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merde! Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d’enculé de ta mère...
Peter Isotalo 20:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user Patriot_Nepali2015 is back

Blocked user Patriot Nepali2015 is blatantly sockpuppetting as GurkhaNep - [27]. What is the procedure for dealing with situations like this? Ogress smash! 01:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ogress. (Bishzilla is very intrigued by your username.) If you see really obvious sockpuppeting, it's enough to tell an admin, as you have done, and they'll indef per WP:DUCK. Unfortunately I don't see this case as clear enough for that. Yes, it's pretty likely to be a sock of Patriot Nepali2015, but I don't see any similar wording, or attacks on you, or even any equally poor English. Am I missing something? If not, I'm afraid I have to point you to the next stage, which is a WP:SPI report, if you can face it. A less onerous alternative is to watch and see if the user continues to remove sourced material after the warning I've just given them. Then they can be sanctioned (disinvited from Wikipedia) whether or not they're a sock. I'll try to keep my eyes open, but if I miss anything substantial, please tell me. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I mean, they are the exact same edits: "it is not proven yhat Kyirongs are yolmos." [28] v. [29] - Tibetan Buddhism > Nepali Buddhism, removal of Tibetan information, removal of Tibetan language, removal of Kyirong. It's toned down - no personal attacks against me, for example - but the content of the changes is the same. Also I'd argue that edit summary is poor English... Ogress smash! 20:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Ogress, but I know when I get a certain bad feeling in my gut that a sock has returned. Ogress has good instincts. I think it's worth a closer look. The Tibetan Buddhism articles also get hit a lot by clutists, POV-pushers and (probably) editors with a connection to the government of China ... Montanabw(talk) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closer than what? I've looked. Obviously they're likely to be a sock, but I can't really tell whose. They've made five edits which all removed sourced material. If they do it again, I'll block, but they haven't in fact edited since I warned them. Please open an SPI if you think it's worth it. And please feel free also to notify me if you see them editing in a similar manner again, I may of course miss it. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I'll let Ogress take the lead, I have some other fish to fry in the wiki-drama world, but if anyone wants a 3O, let me know. Montanabw(talk) 23:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FCBayern at Jimbo's page

FCBayern786 is an IAC sock. I've just reverted one effort at Jimbo's page but it would seem that there are no admins with background knowledge watching at the moment. Can you spot it? - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Incidentally I just semi'd Raju for another year. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, it was your semi of Raju that made me realise you were around. Thanks for that. BTW, is that Laurel & Hardy pic safe for epileptics? It's moving pretty fast (a lot faster than I can move nowadays!) - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FCBayern786 now doubly blocked.[30] I wonder if the block log is capable of giving a block conflict? But at least I got there "first". Yes, impressive, aren't they? Bishonen | talk 17:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
So are you smarm, smarm ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful revert here. I've gone over to the culprit's page to show him the reason for Laurel and Hardy's frenzied dance. Trying to get away from the anklebiter, you know. Fat chance! darwinbish BITE ☠ 19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

TY

Thank you for the help on my talk, it's greatly appreciated. You are very correct in that my time on wiki is very limited. Following that thought - I will also be traveling in the very near future. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, I'd also be grateful if you could look in or keep an eye on my talk through the end of the month. Considering the number of "Ched credits" you've already accumulated, I freely post the following:

Darwinbish - so nice to see you again. Thank you for your kind assistance, I shall not forget it. (apologies for my aged and faulty memory - but are you the one with sharp teeth?). In regards to "Power of Attorney" .. ironic that you should mention that. [31]. Indeed - I am working on all that as time permits. :) — Ched :  ?  01:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter

Happy Easter
Happy Easter....  ! Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very cute, thank you!

Sov du lilla videung, än så är det vinter.
Än så sova björk och ljung, ros och hyacinther.
Bishonen | talk 19:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Weird activity

They're not doing any really bad (although they are making a lot of newbie mistakes) but there is something odd going on around Dalit-related articles right now. Within a very short space of time, we've got:

and I think some others all hitting such articles. Weird or what? It's certainly creating a big clean up job for categories etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the right to edit and participate in Wikipedia is everyone's. And in fact we are correcting what are glaring mistakes with respects to Dalit History. If you have any questions please contact us directly.

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/MIT DALIT WIKIPEDIA HACKATHON might explain the spurt of activity. See also this write-up. As usual the effort is noble in its goals, but may have practical issues with insufficient guidance, excessive zeal etc (don't know whether that is the case in this instance). Abecedare (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amra9267 (talk · contribs) is another. They're creating chaos, whatever their good intentions may be. Needs to stop. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Wow, thank you, Abecedare. I was going to post a question to the user, but now I guess I don't need to. You'd better take it to WP:ANI, Sitush.
Welcome to Wikipedia, user:Phlamingo642. Please sign your posts on talkpages by typing four tildes, ~~~~, which will convert automatically to your signature and a timestamp.
Malhaarsharda, your edit to my page was not well done, Please don't change other users' posts. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
There is a livestream of the event here. Watched 2-3 minutes of it and am slapping my head in frustration. Could have been so much better organized with some guidance of best wikipedia editing practices. Also categorization is a particularly poor project to undertake especially when you have access to some of the best library resources in the world (student in Boston/Cambridge-area universities can borrow from any of the area's 40+ university libraries) that can be used to source and expand some vital articles. Only a few edits have been made to the articles that said to be the focus: Mangu Ram Mugowalia, Gogu Shyamala and Chokhamela. Such an utter waste!
Pinging @Dalithistorymonth and Bkamapantula: in the hope that they'll take the constructive feedback onboard and reirect the hackathon focus. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Abecedare. Please also weigh in on ANI, Sitush has posted the problem there. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Do the 'zillas need a friend?

In a laboratory far away is a proposed "Montzilla" (name pending) - gathering appropriate elements but inquiring as to if teh wiki needs more 'zillas before throwing the switch. @Ched: Would not want to get between existing 'zillas, more thinking "baby zilla" for the moment. Montanabw(talk) 22:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will let ONE AND ONLY, true original 'Zilla respond. Noting that "this" 'Zilla well informed about "harem". rrRRAWRRRRR .. — ChedZILLA 04:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New zillas always welcome. Baby zillas stay well away from hot steamy harem activities! bishzilla ROARR!! 19:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Trayvon Martin

If you could, please take a look at the article about Trayvon Martin. Some people add an infobox, some people removes the infobox. I am for having an infobox, but I can not tell if it is OK not to have one etc etc.. Another user has removed it again, claiming that a consensus has been reached earlier. A consensus that does not exist. Could you please take a look. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I .. I ... In ... Inf ...<cough> .. teh "box"!!! ... arrRRGHh.. <Ched runs screaming from the room> — Ched :  ?  15:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of consensus varies greatly, - I stay in the room. Some seem to think that it means that the Main editors are in consensus to ignore the rest of Wikipedia. I could give you examples but would be sanctioned by arbitration enforcement if I did, - not worth it. Happy Easter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down Ched. I've restored the infobox and made clear the position on the talk page. BabbaQ is right to be concerned by the ownership behaviour displayed by the other principal editor. It is not acceptable to revert content based only on an argument that it is "unnecessary"; nor to rely on a discredited essay to support such edits; nor to mendaciously claim that there was consensus not to have an infobox based on the three brief sections in Talk:Trayvon Martin/Archive 1. 'Shonen is agnostic about infoboxes as far as I know, but I expect she will keen an eye out for poor behaviour if asked nicely. --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS Your edit has been reverted again, I think it is really weird. Anyway just say your point at the talk page. Or something... to Ched, take a pill :)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A pill can't heal, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Bishonen: I've made use of "catflap" and protected the article for 24 hours due to edit warring. I've also made a 1 week request to continue protection at WP:RFPP. I'm sure it's the WP:WRONGVERSION, but if one day of protection can avoid an editor from being blocked, I thought it was worth a try. — Ched :  ?  17:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Ched....infoboxwars is really tiresome. While I have used them religiously (specific religion is MONGOLOGY...the worship of hairy woodland critters) if it doesn't exist already, a guideline needs to be made that infoboxes should be avoided if an article has at least two paragraphs and the info is incorporated into them.--MONGO 19:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean we should have a guideline that the original author of stubby article gets the right to decide whether any given improvement is included or not? Over my dead body. --RexxS (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry...I meant if the guideline does not exist already...but already modified that stance as stated below. Much gets done here at mighty Bishonen page...useful place to discuss matters of utmost importance and done nicely to avoid arrival of Jurassic entities.--MONGO 12:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I see. The decisions of original and former authors are of no importance whatsoever, if enough authors rewriting an article as a FA arrive at "their" consensus, ignoring a history of 8 years, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm agnostic about infoboxes, I'd rather not get involved. That said, I was sort of pleasantly surprised to see the heading "Trayvon Martin" on my page and then discover the issue was merely the infobox. Here's hoping that means the other warfare on the article has died down. Incidentally, RexxS, I don't understand what "key-value pairs" are, that you described on the talkpage as one of the advantages of infoboxes. I know you linked the term. Didn't help, Little Stupid still don't get it. But he likes the sound of MONGOLOGY, and would like to join. Support group? Sect? Bishonen | talk 19:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Cult....limited applications...Little Stupid will likely get easy admittance.--MONGO 21:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we lay out information like this:

Name: Bishapod
Type: Tiktaalik
etc.

Then 'Name' is a key (or label) and "Bishapod" is its value; similarly 'Type' is a key and "Tiktaalik" is its value, and so on. Infoboxes organise their information into these sort of key-value pairs. It is relatively easy to search a data dump of Wikipedia for these sort of pairs and collect the information for use beyond simply reading Wikipedia. Someone could, for example, easily compile a list of the names of 17th century composers by listing the values for 'Name' wherever we find 'Occupation' is "composer" and 'Date-of-birth' is between 1600 and 1700 - if only the articles had infoboxes (*sigh*). Does that help Poddie at all? --RexxS (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. He's standing on his head trying to get more blood to his brain. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Poor Tiktaalik. Evolution much better in Therapods - spare brain in tail means no need to stand on head. -- T-RexxS (rawr) 22:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can understand someone saying that they think an infobox looks ugly, or swamps a small article. Those are aesthetic judgements and folks are entitled to have them. It doesn't upset me, just as I don't worry if any particular article doesn't have an infobox. So what? What does bother me is when an editor adds an infobox and is reverted by someone who isn't literate enough to supply a cogent reason for the revert. "it's not needed" is worthless as an argument; "get consensus first" is antithetical to the very nature of editing Wikipedia; and "it's been previously discussed and there was consensus not to add an infobox" is usually a downright lie. If they just said "I don't like infoboxes", at least that would be intellectually honest. Why, oh why do we let the OWNers get away with treating other editors so shabbily? --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand someone thinking an infobox looks ugly, sure. But it's not exactly a credible argument, and certain editors seem to have little better to do than go around warring over the damn things. Some people can't look beyond their own biases and acknowledge that other people may be right; they may not see the point for something, but a decent number of other users (or, far more importantly, readers) will do. It's a failing most of us have from time to time (myself definitely included)... but some people consistently take their path and never allow common sense to change anything. (end of ramble, I'm tired) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this page is a better place to get things done than in regular project space (the dread of appearances by Bishzilla keeps most in a best behavior mode) I agree with RexxS as to the usefulness of taxoboxes (infoboxes) in articles about species or perhaps geographical locations but in biographies not so sure.--MONGO 23:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Presidential biographies and other political figures, they are critical. Most sports figures and modern actors/musicians have them as well. There is plenty of room to debate what parameters are or are not needed, but that's a content issue, not a formatting issue - I consider infoboxes, like navboxes and the like to be formatting and structural/layout elements that generally enhance an article so long as one is not absurd about it (i.e. probably don't really need the height and weight parameters for Presidents, but useful for supermodels, LOL). Montanabw(talk) 03:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
indexing is good and should have infobox for every article. Aesthetically, though, we should have hide/show field so the visibility is on or off. Infoboxes that have common indexes make wikipedia similar to SQL database and easy to extract very specific information. Queries like "list every country in the world and their current leader and flag" is possible with infoboxes. Very tedious without. Tedious if many types of infoboxes, too. Key/value pairs is like tagging but with names for tag. firstname="Trayvon", lastname="Martin" database is created and tag searching by field is possible like list articles that have "Martin" tag in "lastname" field. --DHeyward (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would be much less annoyed if we could limit the ugliness of the userboxes, or perhaps put them at the bottom of an article. Until recently at work my monitor was kinda narrow, so between the left side Wikipedia stuff and then an info box on the right, the lead paragraph or two ended up being just a couple words wide and hard to read. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How ...

Fish rides in on my coattails

... did you get Laurel and Hardy to dance for us whenever we want to edit your talk page, but only then? Nifty, and it did the trick and kept me from throwing in my worthless observation regarding boxes. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Sluzzelin: That be the Editnotice feature stored here. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, cool-umbrella-bearer. Looking at moving images for emulation as we type. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel and Hardy scared you off, Sluzzelin? Or were you just hypnotised and couldn't proceed further, lol? Muybridge's dancers are very cute too. Bishonen | talk 11:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
They made me forget what I had wanted to post, especially since it was super-serious! ---Sluzzelin talk 12:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, both of you! Twenty-six people will come out and dance now in those occasions someone wants to drop me a note. I'm stealing, and hope it will cheer up my frequent talk-page interlocutors too, such as EdwardsBot and User:DPL bot. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine dancers! I recommend everybody to have something dancing in their edit notice, or maybe swimming, like this super cool frog. Oddly, FreeRangeFrog didn't like that gif, so it's up for grabs. He thought the frog was floundering and drowning. Nooo! Excellent swimmer! Bishonen | talk 15:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
What a good idea. I've been able to adapt it to avoid having nuisance messages in future. --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You realize my socks watch this page, right? Bishonen | talk 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Goodness, Rexx (besides you're both admins and shouldn't be manipulating us)! ---Sluzzelin talk 22:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both of us twins, you mean? Well, any day now, as soon as my RfA is closed and Fish rides in on my coattails. Dino RexxS ain't admin, no. I think he's too proud. darwinbish BITE ☠ 22:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Ooh, how to dig myself out of this one? I actually thought Rexx was an admin (though I wish the we had a whole admin-drawer of bish-creatures (though I opposed 'Zilla's candidacy for arbitrator (though this was once again 'Shonen's fault))) Sorry Rexx, that's what you get for speaking with such a voice! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

OK, Bishonen, I was not aware of that, so thanks for informing me. I assume the same warning has been given to editors who have been repeatedly reversing my contributions? Is this the case?

I'd also like to ask what happens in case no consensus can be reached.

Thanks, Musoniki Musoniki (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the page history, you'll see that your edits have been reverted by four different editors. No one has reverted you "repeatedly". They're not edit warring and I've had no reason to warn them. Also, several of them have pointed out in the edit summary that your additions are "non-neutral", "fringe", etc, and have asked you to discuss the changes you want on the article talkpage. I see you've just started using the talkpage now; thank you for that.
I realize that, although you started editing in 2006, you're not exactly an experienced editor, User:Musoniki. Perhaps you never saw the other people's edit summaries. The history of a page, where you can read all the edit summaries, is accessed via a tab at the top of each article.
Your idea of neutrality, as it comes across in your edit summaries and talkpage posts, isn't quite the same as Wikipedia's; neutral point of view ("NPOV", in Wikipedia jargon) does not mean giving equal weight to all views. You've already been pointed to our policy Neutral point of view, for instance by McSly on your page, but it's a long elaborate policy and I'm not sure you've focused on the most relevant bit for this dispute: WP:UNDUE. Please study it carefully, because it addresses your situation directly.
As for what happens if consensus can't be reached, I think that's unlikely, frankly. But if it does, a request for more eyes on the talkpage would be the next step, then dispute resolution. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

A bomb

this looks much nicer; I'll be back soon sweetheart!
  • I should jolly well think you have changed your mind! We shall be steaming the yacht back down the Gulf of Finland tomorrow and had thought of popping into see you (G was very keen) but alas no time. Such fun we are having, but have bought you a souvenir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.167.231.140 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right

You're correct of course. Bolding the "crazy" part of his name was just poking a stick in the cage. I've removed it. I gave into the frustration of the exchange. Mea culpa. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with 86, were worked out. [33] It was a matter of Reliable sources. Anything questionable I go to the rs/noticeboard Which is why I stick to google news and google books. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Creation

Please take a look at the articles created that were deleted. [34] Some of the sources I had previously used were not what they consider to be reliable sources. After the non reliable sources were mentioned to me, I stopped using them. I started to only use sources that appeared on google news or on google books. I have even gone to the reliable sources noticeboard to see if sources were good to use. [35] The SPI wasn't frivolous as a number of editors were previously investigated as being members of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Papaursa/Archive Other admins (. St★lwart111) have stated that there were problems in WP:TAGTEAM . [36] specifically [37] Most of my articles are about individuals who were are notable via wiki standards such as African Americans sports players during segregation James “Pappy” Ricks, Olympians such as Thomas Martin (judoka) or National Champions such as Howard Fish. With 140 articles about 9 have been deleted. This isn't a horrible percentage. This is under 10%. Considering that most of the individuals who were deleted were African American Judo fighters, I pointed out that statistic, to which they claimed I claimed I said they were racist or bigoted. I never stated anyone was a racist or a bigot. I pointed out a statistic. After this issue was closed, one user tried to revive the issue, to which an admin stated ". Systemic bias is a recognized issue on Wikipedia" [38] Some of the deleted articles, I am waiting for more sources to appear such as Al Gotay, which was speedily deleted even I replied to a prod, another user wrote another message stating it should be deleted (it never even made it to AFD). I have previously used Articles for Creation [39], but the backlog is so big that it is frustrating to use. I did say, I create so others can work. Meaning we all have skills that can be used on wikipedia. To me an article is like building a car on a production line. I put in the headlights, others put on the wheels, others put on the seats, etc. I don't own any articles I create. I rarely revert edits. I find topics of individuals whom I believe are noteworthy and create them. I look at some guidelines like [WP:WPBB/N]] and create articles from there (such as Negro League Baseball players or WP:NHOOPS such as players in the New York Rens You did notice some of the bullying [40], and there is a lot the [41], such as I put in bogus claims [42], but I put in a simple explanation [43] and find additional sources [44]. I have improved in my article creation and firmly believe that if you put me on a creation ban, I will simply retire from wikipedia out of sheer frustration. I am not disruputing wikipedia actively or passively, I am creating articles that for most people are notable and according to wiki standards are notable. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This tool locates 147 biographical articles (including 15 deleted) that you wrote 2010—2015, CrazyAces489; certainly a respectable number. I've clicked on some of the not-deleted bios from the list (I'd already checked out the deleted ones). Not all of them — I'm only human — but a recent sample — and I think "putting in the headlights" is an odd metaphor for what you do. Your articles are nearly all so minimal, and most of the ones I've clicked on have tags about being orphans, needing copy editing, "multiple issues", etc, and/or are listed for deletion, or have been listed for deletion and only just squeezed by. It really worries me that you seem more prepared to spend time on arguing in deletion discussions (not to mention SPI and ANI), than on improving the stubs you create. I've never see you return to one of them. As for going to the Reliable sources noticeboard: yes, once during the creation of 147 bio stubs you have gone to RSN. Not enough, you know.
One example: has nobody ever complained about the strange verb tense you use so persistently? I wish you'd go back over your articles and change the "would" thing that you use inappropriately in practically all of them. You write "He would pass away from prostate cancer", "Eve would train Judo at the Yonkers YMCA" etc etc. Indeed, in Eve Aronoff, one of your longer articles with 218 words, you say Eve "would" do this and that (all of it of course well in the past) 13 times! If things happened in the past, which is normally the case with everything in a biographical article, then use the past tense. "Eve trained Judo at the Yonkers YMCA". Didn't she? I wouldn't be complaining about style if I thought you were incapable of better writing, but you're obviously not. You don't do justice to your subjects with that kind of writing, and it's simply not fair to expect other people to add a whole car to the headlights you've put on the wiki. Please fix at least this one thing—so to speak, the windscreen wipers.
That said, I certainly hear you about systemic bias, and also about the backlog at Articles for creation. OK, I won't insist you go through AFC. But please start focusing more on quality than quantity, and give your creations more TLC before posting them in mainspace, or I'll be back.
BTW the tool I linked you to, with the list of your articles, is very wonky like all the labs tools. I see it's already down at this moment, though it was up when I looked an hour ago. You may have to try a few times. Bishonen | talk 18:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, I understand. I became frustrated when 7 articles came up at once by Mdtemp. After I put in a lot of work into the articles. I argued found sources, argued again, and just gave up. One who made it through was James Thompson [45] whom was an Olympic Alternate 4 or 5 times and 6 time medalist in the National Championships while also being the subject of independent articles [46] [47] [48]. Even there, they kept saying he didn't pass manote, when he obviously passed GNG. I don't believe that the group of individuals were looking at WP:BEFORE where it stated "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform."

I was typically referred to opinions on subjects like wp:manote (even though it say it is a guide) and GNG (which is a policy). So I read some of these policies and made sure that my articles fit those narrow criteria. I started to put in minimal writing so that I wouldn't get upset if they were deleted. I used google news and google books as my primary sources as per AFD WP:BEFORE suggestions. That is why you see a lot more Olympians and Negro League players now from me. They are automatically considered to be notable. I was surprised to see some of the martial arts editors editing the articles on negro basketball and baseball players I created [49] and [50]. This annoyed me as it seemed to go into the area of WP:HOUNDING. I was trying to avoid them and possible confrontations. You are right when it comes to the Eve Aronoff article. I will fix that. Also 69-73 are the same person. [51]. He uses his nickname and a middle name (which are forwarded to one article). That article was initially speedily deleted but passed DRV [52] . So that is why I didn't count them and had a lower number than the 14. Number 132 redirects to another article. That leaves 8, which will probably turn into 10 (I am assuming that John Roseberry another African American Judo practitioner who won a silver in the national championships (had an independent article written about him, founded a style of karate, and won multiple military championships) in Judo will be deleted. I do believe that I am doing far better than some other individuals who have created articles on martial arts [53] Again, thanks for responding and I will address my own issues. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could I make a serious suggestion? Instead of trying to see how many articles you can create, would you consider taking time to try to bring one, just one, of your articles to good article status? I really think that working the process, concentrating on sourcing and construction and the review process would really give you a different perspective on how you create future articles. It would improve your skills. If you are trying to improve Wikipedia, and I believe that is your intent, then this could help you not just make many articles, but higher quality ones. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift, I would have tried for a few but so many articles that I seriously worked on were cut down so much, that I gave up. Examples [54], Ron Duncan [55], and even Racism in martial arts where so much has been cut down [56]. I am not getting paid to write for wikipedia. I am doing it because I like to spread knowledge of various subjects. If they continuosuly get cut down it and even sources I suggest to use aren't even allowed it tells me to keep things short and simple. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say do them all. Just pick one. One only. Pick one you feel has the best sourcing and isn't remotely non-notable so you won't feel like you did a lot of work only to see it get deleted. But then polish it, source it impeccably and then submit it for GA review. The peer review process, done by experienced, uninvolved editors, will really help you understand what is and is not a good addition. For example, you created an article on Ron Marchini. He was a big name in the full contact world in the 60-70's. He is undoubtedly notable. The article, however, is very weak. You have a tendency to throw in trivia and fluff. You also have a tendency to just put in sentences with no thought to flow or paragraph structure. Going through the peer review will help you learn better structuring of an article. It'll help you learn how to use reliable sources better. Bishonen already mentioned your odd "he would go to college" kind of wording. I truly believe taking the time to get an article up to GA and going through that process would give you a new perspective and make you much more valuable to the project as a whole. I suspect that our host Bishonen would agree. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greater LBN

Gee, Bish, you're just plain faster than I am. You beat me to it by about a minute. I like the animation (at the top).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a pov warrior make their bigotry so very, very clear. Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Always fun to block a real charmer. I think it makes Laurel and Hardy dance faster when I do. Bishonen | talk 09:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

CrazyAces unblock

In case you didn't see it, in the AN/I discusion User:Nyttend said "I'm going to bed momentarily, and I'll be offline most of tomorrow; any admin who believes it appropriate should feel free to remove or reduce the block without further discussion." --86.2.216.5 (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I didn't see it. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Before you unblock, I hope you'll look at my comments at WP:ANI#Personal attacks by CrazyAces489 where I argue against an indefinite block but for certain corrective measures. Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Papaursa. You make good points, but I had already told the user here that I won't after all insist he go via AFC to create articles, as long as he undertakes to spend considerably more time and care on them before putting them in mainspace. Perhaps I'm incurably optimistic, but I can understand the frustration of the long waiting times at AFC. As for warning him off AfD discussions, that's certainly a thought, and I'll bear it in mind. But he hasn't responded to my conditions yet, so we'll have to wait and see. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I think you called something AfD when you meant AfC in the message to CA. With respect to AfD's (if you do apply conditions) I think it would be hard to restrict someone from defending their creations but please suggest that he does not have to repeat his arguments to every comment given.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did I get the alphabet soup wrong? I don't think so. I've looked through my messages to CA on ANI and on his page, and I can't find it. I don't see where Papaursa got it wrong either, if you were speaking to him. (I don't understand your threading. Were you actually speaking to the IP?) Anyway, never mind. Of course a complete ban from AfD would be very harsh — I'd only apply it in extremis, after all else had failed. My hope is that CrazyAces will change his article creation in such a way that he won't have any reason to be such a fixture at AfD. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I would guess he was referring to this where you say "That said, I certainly hear you about systemic bias, and also about the backlog at Articles for creation. OK, I won't insist you go through AfD." a minor slip I think--86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! And I missed it again when I looked! Bishonen | talk 18:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that on April 10, CrazyAces added Mtking to the SPI even though Mtking hasn't made an edit since January 2013. I think the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyra Gracie shows that he simply refuses to learn WP policies. That's also evidenced by the many discussions where he clearly shows he doesn't know what WP:GNG actually says. I'd advocate he get a mentor, but I suspect that would be futile because I don't see any indication he's willing to change. That's too bad because his enthusiasm would be an asset to WP, but not at the cost of insulting every editor who disagrees with him on anything. He gets upset by the constraints because he doesn't seem to understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a blog. Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what Coatrack is supposed to imply, but ok. CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was speaking to Bishonen and since he's experienced, I knew he'd know what I was referring to, so there was no reason for me to explain it or link to it. Had I been speaking to you, I may have linked it or made it more clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CrazyAces489, when you don't know, it's always a good idea to try an obvious WP link, in this case WP:COATRACK. Bishonen | talk 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The user IP 117 is back under another address

I have just reversed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=656021143&oldid=656019246 which is by the IP 117 user you blocked. I'd suggest considering an across the board temporary semiprotect. μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked -- Luk talk 21:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015, Leo

What do you call a reliable source? There's only one source for that article and it's a random webpage. What would you take for an authority on make believe- a book? A "professional" astrologer?

See WP:RS for what we all call a reliable source: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There really isn't much to say about Leo (astrology) that's encyclopedic, so why it's not just a section in Astrology or List of signs of the zodiac is beyond me. --RexxS (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RexxS. The user has already been given the Reliable sources link, but I guess it didn't help them. Mr/Mrs IP, did you see my edit summary when I reverted you? The edit summaries, including yours, can be seen in the history of the article. I pointed out there that "astrological sources are by definition unreliable, because astrology is a pseudoscience." So not a "professional" astrologer, no. Maybe a chapter in a book by an academic cultural historian. But I agree with Rex that the signs shouldn't really have their own articles at all. As you said, IP, those articles used to be much longer, and then it made sense, sort of — except that the contents didn't make sense, because it was all about what people born under those signs were "like" — make believe, as you say. Strictly speaking, either you or I, Rex, ought to create that list of signs and redirect all the separate articles to it. And then we'll know what it's like to be attacked by outraged "professional" astrologers. Bishonen | talk 23:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I would have created the list, honest, but the only reliable source I could find for any star sign was in "Monty Python's Life of Brian":

Brian's mother
So you're astrologers, are you? Well, what is he then ... what star sign is he?
Wise Man #2
Capricorn.
Brian's mother
Capricorn, eh? What are they like?
Wise Man #2
He is the son of God, our Messiah.
Wise Man #1
King of the Jews.
Brian's mother
And that's Capricorn, is it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIjBO26qjYM&t=1m6s --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rockefeller Foundation and eugenics articles.

I believe I've taken down all of my edits that you and others objected to in those two articles. Even though I personally disagree with the viewpoint that the Rockefeller Foundation supported Nazism, and I think it is more Bolshevik/Communist than Nazi, I realize I cannot force the other editors to look at other viewpoints than there's and its not really important. Is that enough of an improvement?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC) I also restored the part of the Holocaust denial book article that I'd removed because of the citation needed tag. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Paul. When you say you had only taken out that material in Did Six Million Really Die because it had citation needed tags next to it, you have to remember Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anybody can edit — and add tags to. Those tags were themselves tendentious. You're obliged to use your own judgment, and take responsibility for your own edits. But I appreciate your being so reasonable about the things I objected to specifically. These objections were more in the way of examples, though. I see you have, even after you wrote the above, received several warnings about adding Category:Christian new religious movements to Islam (!) and Judaism (!!). This you did on the argument that for instance Islam "is more similar to Christianity than Mormonism is. Mormonism is considered Christian on wikipedia. Therefore, Islam is Christian." There is no way you can have thought those categories appropriate (or, if you did think it, please tell me so and I'll block you indefinitely per our principle Wikipedia:Competence is required). Instead, you were disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point about mormonism. That's actually vandalism.
Unless your aim is to see how far you can go before you're blocked, which is not much farther at all, I have a suggestion for you. Edit uncontroversial articles that need some love for a month or two, to get a feel for the place, and read up on the policies and guidelines that you have been linked to. Nobody really knows the entire byzantine mass of our policies, but when experienced editors and administrators link you to a policy/guideline, it's because you've gone counter to it and need to learn something. You might start with Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, that I just mentioned above. I assume there are some uncontroversial subjects that interest you. I'll copy our exchange here to your own page, not because you did anything wrong in posting here — that was fine — but because I tell you a few important things here, and it might be useful for them to be visible to other people who come to your page. If only to save you getting the same advice all over again. Bishonen | talk 09:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I know I can't just revert on the Rockefeller Foundation page. But isn't the burden of proof for the claim that the Rockefeller Foundation was linked to Joseph Mengele and the Nazis on the person who made that claim in the article, or those who support keeping it there, not on the person who wants to remove it. I'm not actually going to remove it unless I can get consensus, but I think whether it should remain should at least be analyzed. Another thing is that right next to that accusation, there's a statement the Rockefeller Foundation helped Jews escape from Nazi Germany, although its not exactly a contradiction since they're not the exact same topic, those two statements don't really fit in with each other, so most likely one of them is not correct.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's more convenient to have threaded discussion on one of our pages, and since you've returned here, let's keep it here. What you say seems only tenuously related to the specific editing I criticized, and to my advice. But I'm assuming you mean you took out material on the Rockefeller Foundation page that was sourced to Edwin Black and/or John Loftus (author)? Please click on those links and read our articles on them. Your view of them as "extremist authors" seems to be itself extremist. If you want to remove stuff on the ground that those two are not reliable sources, you'll have to argue that, and get consensus for it, at WP:RSN. I believe you'd find it difficult. Note that no source is reliable for everything; it's a source's reliability in a specific context that you'd need to address. To me, those two look very solid as sources for Holocaust-related stuff. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
John Loftus has claimed that Prescott Bush and Nelson Rockefeller were involved in helping the Nazis during World War II. That just seems a little wacky to me, and it also is similar to the arguments/conspiracy theorists of people like Alex Jones and David Icke who argue that western Masonry helped the Nazis, which also seems wacky to me. I suppose I'll have to research it more if I want to argue it further though. I actually own Loftus's book The Secret War Against the Jews and have read parts of it, maybe that will be a good place to start researching the claims.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does my editing right now look as tendentious as before, or no?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm a little busy right now, Paul. I'll check it out later today or tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 12:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry for the delay, but I gather there have been some developments, which make your question moot. Bishonen | talk 10:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Troublesome caste editor

Hi Bish, do you have time to weigh in at User talk:Jairaj991? I've just left them this note but it is becoming tiresome. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't right now, no. I can look at it later today if you like. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
If you are still inclined later and no-one else has picked up on it then I would be grateful but it is not a rush job: they've been a problem for many months, so a few hours or even days isn't going to make much difference. - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would a topic ban from "Rajput-related pages" cover it, Sitush? Or would he need the full pomp of "any page related to social groups, be they castes, communities, tribes, clans, kootams, gotras etc., explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal"? It seems… so big. Not that it would make any practical difference, I don't suppose. Feel free to suggest. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
A limited-scope ban would do the job but, as you say, that subject is likely to be all that interests them. Maybe suggest that if spend some time in other areas and can prove through their efforts that they are learning etc then maybe the limited topic ban could be revoked? The "indefinite does not mean infinite" argument. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, one thing, though, Sitush: the people he added here all have their own articles. Why isn't that enough of an indication of notability? Sampling them, I noticed one Jairaj991 had created himself — it's very poor but not proposed for deletion or anything. Most of them seem better than that. Bishonen | talk 12:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I think that the problem Sitush was complaining about isn't the notability of the individuals that Jairaj991 added to the Rathore article, it's the fact that having the surname Rathore doesn't automatically mean that the person belongs to that Rajput clan. Si has even made a note about that in his userspace, so it would seem to be a common problem. I guess it's a bit like claiming that everybody called MacDonald must belong to Clan MacDonald, even though we all know Ronald isn't a member. --RexxS (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeo, it s a WP:V situation, not a notability one. Often it is also a BLP problem, since the consensus is that they must self-identify as with religious belief etc. Helen Reddy almost certianly has no connection to Reddy, and in India itself many names span many castes, in part because the same gotra may appear in different jātis. It isn't just me who has had problems with that editor - NeilN has issued various warnings, for example. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, I see. Not just notable people called Rathore, but members of the Rajput clan Rathore. I suppose Jairaj, even though like most people surely vastly more knowledgeable about clans and castes than me, could have made the same mistake in good faith. Indeed, you reverted it as a good-faith edit. I guess I won't sanction them at the moment, then, though of course I do see the problems. I won't weigh in — they have been warned enough — but I'm watching. Please also let me know if stuff happens that I miss. Bishonen | talk 14:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Your good faith stretches way beyond mine, Bish. There is no way Jairaj misunderstood the purpose of that section and my "good faith" revert is my usual reluctance to use plain rollback for fear of being accused of abuse. They are a POV-ridden caste-bound contributor, pure and simple: I deal with the sort day in, day out. Rajputs, Jats, Gurjars and Brahmins are among the worse that we have because they are all so damn vain. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Caste-warriors are quite often eager to "claim" any famous person for their caste, whether any evidence exists or not. --NeilN talk to me 15:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Si. My motto is "never avoid anything for fear of being accused of abuse". Being accused of abuse can be the best feather in your hat![57]. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Hehe. Well, Jairaj's efforts at Shri Rajput Karni Sena were an abuse for sure. Typical puffery that masquerades as being sourced. I've been awake for over 36 hours now and need a break but if it were not for the item I've temporarily stuck in the Further reading section, I'd probably be inclined to send that trash to AfD because it is a single, really rather minor event. Forty people get upset and, yes, as is common there, the police stand by and do nothing. Big deal: there are dozens of such incidents like that every day in the country - excitable, bigoted people with a tendency to hero-worship demagogues are easily roused but not necessarily notable. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I messed up, Admin needed

I got frustrated with Quack last night and inadvertently violated 3RR. See Quack's thread here. I admit the violation. SPACKlick (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a lot of difficulty keeping up with the both of you. My wikipedia time is limited, as is my interest in electronic cigarettes. But I tell you this: there's nothing admins are forced to do, and I for my part will not enforce 3RR to "solve" something like this. Disruption / bad faith is what interests me, and I hope to get a chance today to see who, if anybody, needs a talking-to about that. I'll probably have to give up, though, as whenever I've looked at a given amount of stuff, you've both gone ahead and created three times as much. I get further and further behind, and am frankly tempted to unwatch the page and get on with my life. Anyway, if you want to be blocked over a 3RR vio, you'll have to ask another admin. ;-) Bishonen | talk 09:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Last revert was about 5 hours ago, it would be better if SPACKlick takes voluntary retirement from this article for sometime. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No Problem Bishonen, I appreciate that the article, and any form of monitoring work, takes up real effort which we all have a limited amount to devote to wikipedia. Just thought I'd let you know as the admin who gave me the initial warnings. Looks like it's being moved to AN and 3RRB now. SPACKlick (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been moved to WP:Administrators' noticeboard, so somebody else can deal with it. @SPACKlick: The normal way to make amends for breaching the 3RR is to self-revert, even if you think you're correct. If you are correct, somebody else will come along and agree with you. Breaching 3RR is never the right way to make edits on Wikipedia as attempting to force your version by brute force is antithetic to editing here. I see you haven't done that, and I can only say that you're lucky 'Shonen is such a softie. You may not be so lucky at AN. --RexxS (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Self-revert or a dummy edit is a good idea. I can't find it on WP:AN, can you recheck? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The report is bouncing back and forth between the two noticeboards. Currently at AN3. No admin seems to want to touch it with a bargepole. Bishonen | talk 15:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

You've got a mail

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

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Replied. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you

From reading your talk page, I know that the vol-job of an admin can be a pain. So, thank you for your time. During my block I was working my day job. So it wasn't much I missed out on. After reading about Systematic Bias on WP, I read gender bias on wp. One of the sources available on google [58] discussed racial and gender bias. Others spoke about the lack of available african american and women editors on wp. I saw a stand alone article on gender bias and looked to see if there was on on WP about racial bias. There wasn't and I looked to see if there was reasonable coverage from RS. They existed and I created the article. I was suprised that the article didn't already exist. I can understand an obscure negro leagues player from 50 years ago, but not a well documented study from recent times. My desire is to highlight individuals who made it through the struggle of the civil rights era, while staying within a NPOV. I will periodically write other articles but that is my focus. I have had people go off on me recently from all directions that other editors took notice [59] while others are openly being uncivl to those who are nice to me [60]. I guess I am not new, but with less than 600 edits total my first 4 years [61], I am not experienced. This year and last year have been my most active years. I am still new to most policies and can't spit them out like many users here. I work with good faith to expand wikipedia but these constant attacks with me just biting my tongue is tiring. If I argue my point, I get rebutted with a policy I never heard of. Very few articles I have been on have not been touched by the same group of wikipedians in some way or manner. They have made it quite difficult. There are some good individuals who are here such as you and others @Stalwart111 and WordSeventeen: . This is way too much work for myself as a volunteer. In the end though, I am cutting down on my total efforts. I am not quitting, just cutting down. I am also saying thanks CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CrazyAces. I think it's a good plan for you to cut down on your participation — one gets burned-out — and I'm glad you're not quitting. Your kind of focus is needed here. Bishonen | talk 17:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Eva Rydberg

Actually found a clip from her 1977 Melodifestivalen performance. It is a funny performance.. and a quite catchy tune.. :D [62].--BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine. I'm pretty sure I've seen her doing a Chaplin imitation. I mean, I think that was a thing she did, one of her acts. Presumably she was doing it at Mello. Speaking of Chaplin, did you see Laurel and Hardy in my edit notice? :-) I wonder if I could find a dancing Charlie. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Like this, from The Gold Rush?—Odysseus1479 02:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ulysses. Can't put the unforgettable fork dance in my edit notice, though. What I need is an animated gif. And how could an animated gif ever do justice to Charlot's physical comedy? There's the rub. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
You may like http://ezgif.com/video-to-gif - although I don't suppose we could get round the copyright issues as easily as YouTube does. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Gold Rush is surely out of copyright now, RexxS? Or not? Or do you mean the people who supplied the tool would have copyright in a gif I made? The technicalities would probably overwhelm me in any case, but the next time my family tech visits… hmm… Where do you think I might find a video of Oliver Hardy twirling his tie and tittering? You know, the way he expresses shyness and courtesy in the presence of ladies? Bishonen | talk 18:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Greetings (just getting the hang of the new features Peter Damian (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Damian: It's good to see you back. Speaking of new features, did the notification work for you? --RexxS (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the Facebook thingy? Yes and so here I am. Peter Damian (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the heads up, Bishonen. I got confused by Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications where option #2 offers to appeal the case either at the AE or at the AN. Parishan (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you, Parishan. Wikipedia is a labyrinth altogether, and anything to do with the discretionary sanctions is a morass. I mean, I'm an admin, I've really studied them and sometimes tried to apply them, and the bureaucratic overhead is overwhelming. Bishonen | talk 18:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
And it needs to be sorted. If you've got any specific suggestions/issues, let me know. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Doug. Yeah, I've got an issue from the admin's POV. No, two. You're going to be sorry you asked.
  1. What's the difference between "general" and "discretionary" sanctions, inasmuch as they both seem to be general and also both discretionary, per this page and this page? Why do we need both those pages, with their two different lists of discretionary sanctions that are probably the same sanctions, even though the lists look so different, aqnd why must they both be so thorny and bewildering? If we do need both, can we please complement them with a third page: Discretionary sanctions for dummy admins, corresponding to WP:Simple diff and link guide or Help:Referencing for beginners?
  2. There's too much process. You probably knew that. What, for example, is the deal with logging the sanctions? Before I can sanction a user per the discretionary sanctions, they must have received an alert using a specific template for the subject area. Without the right template, which " expires" after one year, it doesn't count. I'll probably need to add the alert myself, because even though anybody can do it, regular users don't seem keen to become entangled with the mysterious alert templates either — odd, isn't it. Then it used to be that I had to log the alert on the page for the particular decision about the particular discretionary sanctions, but from April 2014 it's different. (OK, I shouldn't be bitter about that, because it's simpler now. I had just begun to grasp the old system, though.) Then I wait to see if disruption continues. If it does, I sanction the user — that's the easy part. And then I log the sanction here. I don't like having to log it. It's not that onerous, I suppose, but it's kind of the last straw. I've thought of suggesting sanctions be logged automagically, like alerts. But no, better not, because the reason there's so much fussing about the form of the alerts is presumably that they have to be machine readable and can thus perform their own automated logging. OK, here's a heretic thought: why log the sanctions at all? Really, what's the sanctions log for? Does somebody use it for something? Is it for the Internet archeologists of the future? Let's put topic bans and page bans into the block log instead, if indeed they need to be logged at all. The block log is as smooth as silk. I like the block log. If the partial bans (I-bans too by all means) were in there as well as blocks, it would be amazingly easy to get a grasp of a user's sanctions history. I assure you that's not the case with the centralized sanctions log. (OT: admittedly we might then need a rule against throwing a user's historical old sanctions in their face without very good reason. But then IMO we already need that rule. For instance, if an RfAR starts inconsequentially with "X has a long block log", as one of 'em currently does, the arbs should at a minimum reprimand the OP.)
Admins aren't all code-loving nerds; they come from all walks of wiki life. I have tried to gradually amass DS-related codes and links and stuff I need on a special page in my userspace (first item in the TOC on this page), and I keep fiddling with it, according as light breaks or darkness falls in some particular regard, or indeed as the instructions fucking change. I have come to hate those very notes of mine, though. If it's possible to sanction a user without consulting them I will always choose to do so. So when is it actually necessary to go via the DS and read up on the codes and the links? I've never seen that stated openly, but it's when I wish to place a topic ban/page ban — I don't have to use the DS to place a block. Click the block button, add a note on the user's page using Twinkle, done. Two-three minutes. Even an indefinite block. Compare the curse-filled half-hour for placing a topic ban, often with a wait of a day or two in the middle (after placing the alert). If I place a long block per my own admin discretion rather than a topic ban per the special discretionary sanctions, the system rewards me. That's not a good thing IMO. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Can I have your opinion?

What is your opinion regarding an admin using his/her tools to remove their own edit summary, with the rationale "Potentially libelous/defamatory"? Is this permissible? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really tell without context. Diff, please, Andy. If it's a secret, you can e-mail me. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
See [63] and the discussion on the relevant talk page. I can't see the edit summary myself, obviously, but it appears from the discussion to have been a WP:BLP violation - accusing the subject of the article of being a liar. To be clear, I don't want to make a big thing of this, but I think that maybe the admin in question needs to be reminded that BLP policy applies on talk pages, and that admins in particular need to hold to higher standards. Redacting the edit summary might be seen as appropriate, but the admin doing this while leaving accusations of lying on the talk page seems to me to be questionable. From the discussions here [64] on the talk page, and (misplaced) here [65] I get the impression that the admin is rather out of touch with current policy, and might benefit from a little advice from someone more familiar with how things work now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, yes, I see Magioladitis revdel'd their own edit summary after a couple of hours, having thought better of it after User:NeilN and others called them on it. I see them acknowledging the edit summary was a mistake.
The specific problem of revdeling their own edit summary seems fine-drawn to me, if you were worried about that, Andy. Perhaps they should strictly speaking have asked another admin, but what's it matter? It needed to be removed, the sooner the better. But leaving statements like "I think she is a liar" on the talkpage is improper. BLP applies to talkpages. It looks to me, specifically from the discussion on M's own talk, as if they have benefited from the advice of a couple of very experienced editors, but I'll ask them to remove the talkpage stuff as well. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Which one is MONGO The Missing Link? Bishonen | talk 21:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The best way to make all other admins look good is to give me my admin tools back. 90 days of MONGO with admin tools and position will set a new standard never to be equalled. First act would be an indefinite block on Jimbob.--MONGO 19:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Darwinbish starts to work on her Request for bureaucratship.] Shouldn't take long! Then re-admin little defrocked admin emeritus MONGO! Then wait for the fine fireworks! Jimbob beware! darwinbish BITE ☠ 21:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Great idea...bypass Rfa and go straight for Rfb! Or better yet...just make me a steward and skip the small stuff. Oh , apologies to Andy for stepping on his post here. Vote MONGO In 2016! Watch out Jimbobby.--MONGO 22:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An RFA or RFB for MONGO. What an outrageous waste of time! Skip those steps and just go right for RFC, which I assume means Request for Chancellorship of Wikipedia. We all end up at RFZ anyway, right? Zad68 01:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Skip all this penny-ante Wikipedia stuff and go straight for Pope. Though the celibacy bit could be a bummer. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking a title too...like MONGO The Terrible...though many already may think that anyway, a little reinforcement of my gluttonous manner would not hurt. To be king or Pope even, uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.--MONGO 02:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some misunderstanding. Darwinbish for 'crat, then Db hang admin flag, or albatross, round the little MONGO's neck. darwinbish BITE ☠ 03:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Looks like MONGO The Terrible is a missing link? We already knew that though.--MONGO 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please form your own opinion

Hi Bishonen. You recently left an edit here[66] on my talk page asking another editor whether I was a "...reasonable editor". Can I respectfully suggest you form your own opinion of me independently - it may differ markedly from that of the other editor. By the way, I love the dancing Laurel and Hardy!DrChrissy (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right; I've seen you around the noticeboards and have formed an opinion. Bishonen | talk 12:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank-you for your reply. I fear the noticeboards are not the best place to form an opinion about me, having been forced to go to those with a multitude of examples of being provoked. Perhaps a better example would be on the Talk pages of, for example, Dog behaviour. I shall leave you alone with this. You are clearly an intelligent and articulate editor, obviously able to form your own opinion. Happy editing.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twirl-a-squirrel

No pants

I was about to gripe about a dinky conflict over wording over at talk:camel toe. But when I was searching the Interwebs for this here squirrel image (*points*) to make an awfully complicated and saucy joke about animals wearing tight clothing, I found this. It could quite possibly be one of the greatest squirrel-related videos ever made.

Oh, and ping Drmies.

Peter Isotalo 15:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comment

I'm not sure what you meant by your comments in the edit summary when you reverted my comments here but there was no reason to revert the comments. I offered a simple suggestion that you were free to ignore. You don't have to agree, you don't have to like them, but blindly reverting them simply because you can is unacceptable. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean "blindly reverting them because I can"? There was nothing blind about it, and I wrote an explanatory (and also aggrieved) edit summary which apparently you didn't understand. I was referring to the fact that both Beeblebrox and I had asked people to stop posting on RGloucester's page and to post on Beeblebrox's page instead. Did you miss that? Did you just not care? I didn't disagree with your comments, I didn't dislike them — heck, I quite liked them, as comments — what I disliked was where you put them. I even gave you a link in my edit summary to the right place for your comments! So have you moved them to Beeblebrox's page? No, I see you haven't. God, I don't know why I bother.
If it helps, I'm sure you commented about the block in good faith. I have no problem with you, except that you were being so un-noticing of the pleas (for the sake of the very upset user) to leave his talkpage alone, to take comments elsewhere. I'm less sure about the good faith of Tutelary's restoration of your comments. I've asked them what it was supposed to be good for. I could have saved my breath there, too. Bishonen | talk 18:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you and actually no I hadn't noticed that. As an IP I do not have a watchlist so looking for things is fairly deliberate so its easy to miss stuff like that. I still do not agree with locking the talk page down and restricting the talk page as was done but having witnessed Beeblebrox actions in the past I have no desire to interact with them. As an IP I am weak in this culture of Wikidom and Beebs is near as close to the Powerful Wizard of Oz as one can be on this project so their actions are, in the eyes of the culture and their access level, above reproach. I only commented to you because you seemed reasonable in the past and seem to use well thought out and explainable actions (even if the occasional F-bomb is dropped :-)). Not only do I not think commenting on Beeb's talk page would be considered or useful, it would likely lead to this IP being summarily blocked with the justification of Disruption, Socking or whatever other thought popped into their head at the moment. Which I frankly expect to happen by someone anyway regardless. I do not think very highly of their decisions in the past in case its not clear. :-) Sorry if you all are tight, I don't wanna seem like I am disrespecting a "friend", but that is my opinion. Cheers and happy editing! 96.255.237.170 (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I think most of us observing will understand your point-of-view, 96. (can I call you 96? 96.255.237.170 seems so ... impersonal) But what I'd ask is can you see 'Shonen's point-of-view? She sees a good editor go off the deep end, and reasons that the best thing for that editor would be to step away, take a break, and come back later refreshed. But then his talk page becomes the centre of protracted debate that discusses him and the preceding events. Surely that produces the very opposite effect to "having a break"? I suspect that if you can empathise with 'Shonen's dismay in seeing that, you can sympathise with her request to take the debate somehere - anywhere - else. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I do see your point. Like I said its not what I would have done but there is more than one way to do things and there is no reason to dwell on it at this point. If it was up to me we would have all had a Betamax movie player instead of VHS and we probably all know how that worked out.:-) 96.255.237.170 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@96: You need to be aware that you're addressing a dinosaur who owns a Betamax video recorder. --T-RexxS (rawr) 16:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Issues_at_Rgloucester.27s_talk_page. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP repeatedly adding incorrect information to multiple articles

Hello Bish. I noticed that you had been active at WP:AIV so would you mind looking at a report I have there? It's an IP repeatedly adding incorrect/false information to multiple articles, and I'm tired of reverting them. Thomas.W talk 19:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw you, I was just going to take a look. Hang on. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Right, thank you, Thomas. Blocked for 31 hours. I suppose it could be a language problem — not understanding the subtleties of the phrasing in the references, nor your explanations. It could of course also be a case of not knowing they have a talkpage. So it goes. Bishonen | talk 19:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. There are far too many IPs like that here... Thomas.W talk 19:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at that...

Hallo Bishonen, look at this one...What's that? An orphan article dedicated to a nobel prize winner? Maybe a 1 April joke with 3 weeks delay? Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, nice catch, Alex. Compare Mario Capecchi, the actual Nobel prize winner in question. It's not an April Fool's — it's been sitting on Wikipedia since 6 November 2014! Now deleted, with a polite note to the creator. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Never give the Nobel prize to an Italian... :-) Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked proxy 46.14.13.32

Hello Bish. I reverted the edits by the IP and reported it to AIV. A report I withdrew some 40-50 minutes later since no-one had bothered to do anything about it, even though several other reports had been taken care of. So I'm slowly beginning to lose faith in this project... Thomas.W talk 16:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, I realise it's frustrating. For myself, I'm not an AIV regular — not sure anybody is — and I never saw your AIV report. But I watch User talk:Favonian and several of the others, and noticed the two related IPs in the histories and did do something: I blocked the 46.14.0.0/20 range. (If you look at your friend 46.14.13.32's contribs page, you'll see my block at the top. That's something of a novelty for rangeblocks, I think — a nice new feature, because you didn't use to be able to see anywhere if a particular IP was rangeblocked.) Bishonen | talk 17:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

IP Block for 128.231.237.1/29

Hello Bishonen, thank you for helping me deal with the WP:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive IP_User user(s) from 128.231.237.1] that are frequently adding questionable and unsourced content. Hopefully this will help create some dialogue between the user behind this edit and myself. Have a great day. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can hope. It's something of an experiment — the "Block account creation" option is ticked by default, and I don't think I've ever unticked it before. Thanks for your ANI report. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry to big you again. It seems like one of the IPs from the incident, 128.231.237.8 (talk · contribs) has returned to same behavior. interestingly, this is the initial account I made contact with. Thoughts? Thanks! --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  04:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I made a mistake about the range, it should have been 128.231.237.0/28. And then I also missed your note above. Not one of my best days, sorry. See [67] on ANI for more details. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

My dearest, dearest Mrs Bishonen, I come here to seek shelter from the storm raging over London and my poor defenceless head that's been whipped up by some silly misunderstanding over party politics, Wikipedia and the General Election. So I wish to announce it formally here, that articles in the British press alleging that I am Samantha Cameron's aunt are very wide of the mark. Naturally, Mrs Cameron has on occasion sought my sage advice regarding fashion and beauty, but that is the only reason I have been seen leaving Downing Street so frequently. Whilst there, I have very seldomly advised Mr Cameron and have hardly ever tampered with his Wikipedia article, not even to mention that my beloved grandson (the recently knighted), Sir Mustapha bin Petroleum, has been covertly funding the Conservative party since his schooldays at Eton with dearest David Mr Cameron. Furthermore, repetition of widely misreported allegations claiming that I described Mr Farage an over-opinionated, middle-class wideboy, and Mr Milliband as an unfortunate looking gromit with funny eyes will be met with letters from my solicitors. However, for those many obviously wishing to know and follow my wise advice: on election day, I will be casting my vote for Mrs Clegg - an admirable woman, who Wikipedia's ardent feminists would be well advised to emulate. I wish you all a pleasant day. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I am now retiring to a safe house (Scrotum Towers, Northamptonshire - admittance £7.50 Monday to Friday) to avoid the paparazzi and unwelcome demands for interviews. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, so you are one of those ladies chasing the cavalry? I'm surprised, although doubtless you are an excellent equestrian, m'lady. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush. Dear Lady C, you are so wise, but I remind you that the safest house in these parts is Bishzilla's pocket. Indeed Bishzilla wanted to invite Mr Cavalry, but I've persuaded her it would be a forward thing from a stranger. It didn't take until I assured her that you would say the same — you are her pattern of etiquette! Bishonen | talk 09:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Oh that is so nice to know, and a comfort to me as I sit here alone, frightened and with the eyes of the world upon me, knowing that my merest utterance may alter the course of the UK's history for ever. It seems very odd to me, all this fuss about the Cavalry Chasing Man; what if he is a Liberal supporter? It's not as if anyone at all is going to vote for them, and everyone who has a Wikipedia entry has been editing their own pages for ever or paying someone to do it for them. Why even my beloved Giano has been known to fiddle about with his own page and correct some half truths. I'll tell you one thing though: when one has a silly username, and then it's coupled in the national press with ones own name, it must make one wish that one had chosen a more sensible username, Mr Chase Me should change his name to Norman or Kevin or something altogether more sensible, it's not as though he's even in a cavalry regiment - not with that hairstyle anyway. Well my dear, I can't stay here chatting to you all day, David and Samantha are on the phone again seeking wisdom, and I have interviews to grant: the Times this morning over cocktails at the Lanesborough, The Telegraph over luncheon at the Dorchester, and the ghastly Daily Mail for afternoon tea at Claridges, and then that horrendous Daily Mirror are buying me dinner at the Savoy. Oh the trials and tribulations of being centre of world's stage, has a humble woman ever known such hardships. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the late 19th century, myself and other members of my gromit looking hairy woodland beasts where chased by the calvary nearly to the point of extinction, so I consider this payback!--MONGO 12:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Mongo dear, you and your amazingly brave fellow cowboys have always been swashbuckling heroes to me; although Giano tells me that has all changed since Brokeback Mountain, but I remain an incurable romantic which is why I was so disappointed by Mr Cavalry's pictures in this morning's papers - not at all my mental image of a dashing cavalry officer, but I expect that's the fault of that nasty, sly Mr Blair and all his horrid party's defence cuts. I remember at dear, darling Mr Wales last wedding, when due (I assume) to a glitch in the seating plan, I found myself surrounded by the grandees of the Labour party; Oh how anxious they were to hear my views - I don't think they had the slightest notion themselves of how to run a country, I expect that's why dear Mr Wales sat them with me, so that I could instruct. It's nice that Mr Wales has so many friends in high places, especially if Wikipedia is having a bad press day - they'll soon sort things out. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being but a lowly woodland beast, the intricacies of politics, especially those beyond the borders of Middle Earth are bewildering to me to say the least. I assume the concern is whether an outside influence ran roughshod over our impeccably perfect system, how to prevent this abborant act from happening ever again and to reclaim the throne of being the sole source of wisdom and knowledge (present company not underrated of course).--MONGO 13:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that is the million dollar question: did an outside influence run roughshod over our impeccably perfect system? Or did someone want to make it look like an outside influence had run roughshod over our impeccably perfect system? Politics is a very dirty business, and it's a game not just played by signed up politicians. Giano (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roughshod or horseshoed...could be either or both. Like myself, Wikipedia is but a pawn in the game of life, but we are graced with the near divine presence of the fine lady Catherine nonetheless. Fine fellow Giano, in the course of my ramblings through this penultimate compendium of knowledge I came across the interesting Swannanoa (mansion), where once again, the quasi-barbaric and unoriginal Americans, shall we say, stole, yet another inspiration for architectural excellence from the civilized Europeans. A few decent images and a fine little abode but barely a hundred years since construction and my understanding it has already fallen into disrepair. References are scanty as I already checked. It would hardly qualify as a suitable privy for the fine Lady Catherine, but might do in a pinch.--MONGO 14:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might be dating myself (not for the first time, or first entendre), but there seems to be a vague relation to Lady D'Arbanville. Apologies if it's the the other Lady. --DHeyward (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP

Hi Bishonen, I joined Wikipedia a couple of weeks back via the mobile app but forgot that I did. So when I tried to create an account from my computer I received the following message:

Cannot create account Account creation from IP addresses in the range 59.178.192.0/19, which includes your IP address (59.178.193.179), has been blocked by Bishonen.

The reason given by Bishonen is Disruption at Viresh Pratap Chaudhry. There's obviously one person behind all those IPs, and with the user talk constantly changing, there's no talking with them. Please use your account!

Anyway, I was able to login from the computer, using my existing credentials, after verifying on the mobile app that I am indeed a member. However, I was wondering why my IP was blocked. I have no connection with the person who disrupted the Viresh Pratap Chaudhry page, nor I have engaged in any user talk prior to now. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongoffe (talk • contribs) 03:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hi, Dongoffe, I'm sorry about that. I blocked the range because a whole crowd of IPs from it had edited the Viresh Pratap Chaudhry article in a non-useful way. I had a notion (which has now been confirmed) who was behind those IPs and basically wanted to make them log in to their account. It was a very new user, editing logged out by accident. I hoped there wouldn't be any collateral damage, but I see it happened, unfortunately. Please accept my apologies, and I'm glad you found your original account. I've unblocked the range. Bishonen | talk 09:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Hi! Not a problem. I'm glad it's sorted out. You guys do a splendid job keeping Wikipedia spic and span! DonGoffe (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spic and span? Ha, I can tell you're new and optimistic. Happy editing! Bishonen | talk 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Swedes

Hello Bishonen, there seems to be a disagreement between me and user Inhakito who made an edit that doesn't seem to add up to anything and constantly keeps reinserting it without giving a specific reason. I was hoping you could help to resolve this, Thank you. (N0n3up (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

There was a distinct lack of discussion from either of you, but Inhakito was in my view quite right: a figure of 300 "minority language" Swedes in Estonia is irrelevant. I doubt the figure is even accurate in the first place. There are most likely a minimum of that number of Swedes in every other European country (except toy countries like Lichtenstein).
We already purged Estonia from the list of countries in Swedish language, and it seems appropriate we do something similar to Swedes.
Peter Isotalo 11:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's some edit war. Thanks for warning the users, User:Peter Isotalo. N0n3up, you're both edit warring. I frankly don't understand why you keep telling the other user to take it to the talkpage; why don't you start a discussion there yourself? I can't exactly help you resolve the matter of fact, because I don't know much about the subject; all I can do is protect the page from editing on a random version, which I've done (four days), to encourage talkpage discussion. That said, I have two more points: though I hate blocking good-faith users, I will block you both if the edit war should resume when the protection expires. Please read up on the "bright-line" WP:3RR rule; it's policy. And secondly, I know just enough about Swedish linguistics to know that Peter Isotalo is an specialist on it, so if it was me I'd listen carefully to what he says. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) I couldn't resist taking a look at it, and what I found was N0n3up repeatedly adding dubious material, sourced to a dead link plus a link to the web site of the Swedish embassy in Brazil, where I can't find any mention of the total number of Swedes in the broadest sense of it in Brazil (all I found was a mention of there being "a few thousand" Swedish citizens in Brazil, which is very far from the 32,000+ repeatedly added). So I would have reverted the edit too, just like Inhakito has done. I wouldn't have edit-warred over it, though, but the material added clearly fails WP:V. Thomas.W talk 19:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W, I just found out about this right now after viewing the source I added. I took the source from the Swedish version of the article thinking that it would contain valuable information, which which turned out to be defunct. The reason I overly reverted Inhakito was because his edits were very extensive which I thought were unnecessary. User:Peter Isotalo made an edit in regards to the error which I thought would finish the problem, even though Inhakito contantly made edits to the page. Like Peter said before, I think the problem was the lack of communication. (N0n3up (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, N0n3up. That sounds like there might not be much need for protection any more? But I'd really like to see some sort of input on the article's talkpage, not here on mine, before I lift it. It hasn't been edited since November 2014. OK, somebody will either have to say something on talk, or you can all wait for the protection to expire in 3 days. Pinging @Inhakito, Peter Isotalo, and Thomas.W: Bishonen | talk 16:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

CrazyAces489

@Nyttend, Bishonen, and EdJohnston: It has been brought to my attention that there has been a lot of activity at User talk:CrazyAces489. Not only from editors who have been involved with CrazyAces489 previously, but from other editors since the unblock. When I got to the page, I noticed the editor has been involved in multiple disputes including an edit war which EdJohnston warned both users about. It would seem another editor was having a similar dispute separate of the ANI. Looking a bit up the page it looks like Bearian and Carrite had some followup about actions at Crispus Attucks, namely that it was nominated for AFD by CrazyAces489. The unblock was seemingly conditional on leaving serious accusations and the battleground mentality at the door. I would appreciate your comments and insights before continue to review the matter. Mkdwtalk 18:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Mkdw, I took the weekend off. CrazyAces489 has been given a lot of extra chances because the subjects he edits are important for Wikipedia from a systemic bias point of view, and also, at least by me, because I think he does mean well, and means to improve the encyclopedia. Both those things weighed with me when I unblocked. But unfortunately it looks like we've reached the end of the road. I'm sorry to have to recommend an indefinite block, with the usual after six months. Thanks for consulting me. I'm pinging @Nyttend and EdJohnston: too. Bishonen | talk 18:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Here are the userlinks:
The editing of User:CrazyAces489 does cause concerns. I think an indefinite block with the usual review after six months is an option to consider. But before anyone does that, a good summary of the problem ought to be prepared. For example, a list of all the past discussions including:
For reference, the complete list of all occurrences of CrazyAces' name at admin boards is returned by this search string. I notice that User:TheGracefulSlick was recently blocked 48 hours for canvassing as described at ANI and somebody should figure out if that has any bearing on CrazyAces489's situation. As you may be able to tell, I haven't been following the case closely and wouldn't be issuing a block myself, due to lack of enough study. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I got notice my name appeared here. I was unblocked shortly afterwards, I should note. I will not express an opinion on the CrazyAces situation, but I will say he is causing issues. User:Softlavender thought some sort of action should be taken, and that should be considered as she is much more experienced than me. But the block was directly involving CrazyAces if that was the point of my message, and the users thought his edit warring was a part of the reason to unblock me. I can comment more if anyone has questions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2015

@Nyttend, Bishonen, and EdJohnston: Hey, I was out most of the day today. So, I wasn't able to see all the posts going on. I noticed I was pinged in a lot of conversations. I have actually stayed away from a lot of the problem area articles where I was active on (martial arts) as I had strong opinions. I was more active on RSN [68]. This was very helpful in that I identified sources that were not considered to be reliable. Now, TGS believes that I had some sort of agenda against him because I nominated a few articles he questioned for deletion and stated some of the sources he used was questionable. If that was the case, @Mdtemp, Papaursa, and PRehse: would seem to have the same agenda against me, and @Niteshift36: for deleting a number of sources I used as not being reliable. I see the job they (Mdtemp|Papaursa|PRehse|Niteshift36) are doing and for the most part see that they made an effort to only keep strong articles on wikipedia. I simply followed their own method and used RSN as a guide. If I believed an article wasn't notable, I nominated it for AFD (especially if the sources were highly questionable). I always asked before removing as you can see here. [69] TGS, has referred to me as a sockpuppet [70], made personal insults [71] has followed me around WP [72] after I asked him not to post on my talk page [73] he still does [74]. He rants about me on AFD's [75] [76] and RSN [77] . I went to 3rr notice board [78] and AN/I [79] to try to solve some problems. I was previously blocked for putting up a statistic that I found questionable on one occasion [80] but the actions of TGS aren't inferred, they are directly giving strong opinions and a violation of WP:Civil as seen in the few previous sentences. I put in tags of African American's in a few articles and it is removed numerous times [81] [82] . I was really trying to help the project. I was really tired of the battles before, but this has gotten ridiculous. I am burned out. I was already tired in April and still created 40 short articles on some historically important individuals of underreprestend groups [83] . These few more articles brought my total articles created for the year to [84] to over 100. I mean honestly, who was bringing forth articles that could help WP grow in under developed areas like Racial bias on Wikipedia or HBCU Closure Crisis or even Discrimination in bar exam. Things that are necessary to understand some repressed groups in the United States. I have been approached many times about my nomination for AFD for Crispus Attucks, but that way my interpretation of the WP:ONEEVENT policy on wikipedia. I was getting constantly addressed about it. [85]. In the end, there were a few articles I wanted to finish off, but I am done. This is volunteer work to me. I wanted to improve what was offered to the world on wikipedia but not at the cost of my own stress levels. I wish you all the best. CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CrazyAces489: much of the conflict you've endured has been largely attributed to your battleground mentality. It's not common to be the subject of focus at several ANIs; be blocked; engage in edit wars, and to be the centre of so much controversy with so many editors in such a short period of time. In looking back at your edit history, some of the actions are arguably pointy after having unfavourable outcomes in other discussions. You've sought things like WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL for yourself yet ignored them other times towards others. Some of the messages that you've cited as "personal attacks" are more about your conduct and not your character of being. There is no policing Wikipedia for what your interpretations of truth. We must all work together and through consensus find what is notable and worthy of inclusion and what should be removed. As you've discovered, your interpretations on the application of the policies has differed, sometimes greatly, from others or the status quo. You jumped first into cleanup tasks like articles to AFD, placing notability tags, open SPI against those you've disagreed with at AFD, incorrectly applying orphan tags before learning or discussing the relevant policies and guidelines which has been viewed by some as disruptive. If you should return, I would largely encourage you to approach editors in discussion and review thoroughly the relevant policies and guidelines before making significant and impactful changes to the article space. As you've seen, doing the opposite invites conflict. I generally see a rough consensus that an indefinite block with the standard offer after 6 months would have likely been implemented. Blocking is preventative, not punitive, so I am recommending no action be taken since you've stated your intention to retire. That being said, consider this conversation and the statements above as the equivalent of a block on your record. Should you choose to return, know that you will be on a much shorter rope. Mkdwtalk 02:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Mkdw It appears CrazyAces is no longer retired as he has created an article and has continued to edit.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Papaursa and TheGracefulSlick: I'm inclined to wait and see if CrazyAces489 can contribute in a meaningful way now that they've taken a break. The one month away will be counted as a block and they will be a afforded a very short rope over the next while. I know this can be frustrating for the editors whom have had previous interactions but this option and benefit of the doubt would be the high road. It would not have been implausible that the second block would have only been for a month as opposed to an indefinite block. In any case, blocks are preventative, not punitive, so if it wasn't implemented at the time of his "retirement" then that was the only time it would have been appropriately applied. Mkdwtalk 04:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be blunt he never retired even temporarily. The account NegroLeagueHistorian was created almost immediately and clearly is the same person. That said both those edits and the recent CrazyAces489 edits are not stuck in the battleground mentality so the purpose of 'the block that did not happen' appears to be served. A step back was needed but I personally don't care how that step was made.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned you in an unblock request comment

Hi. I mentioned you here. I pinged you in the discussion, but I've seen enough reports lately of pings not working for whatever reason, that I thought I'd better alert you directly. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented, pointlessly. Shrug. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Actually, now unblocked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I meant. It was pointless for me to comment one minute after your unblock. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Well, it gave me support that was much appreciated at the time, that I wasn't the only one with reservations about the original block. (And actually, I had noted the unblock in the same section, albeit a different subsection, before creating a duplicate bottom-of-the-page section for clarity.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The first of them was posted one minute before mine. Albeit, indeed. Different section and different subsection are all the same: it means the other person doesn't get an edit conflict. Never mind, I don't seem to be able to make myself understood. Forget it. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
There's a tension between attempting to stop canvassing and not biting new editors. The former is a real problem because canvassing is clearly beneficial to the editor - you can't "uncanvass" people who have received non-neutral notices, while there are few sanctions available to discourage the practice (since a preventative block can't prevent what's already happened). In my experience, most canvassing takes place without any repercussions on the canvasser, possibly because admins feel that a block is not an appropriate response, especially to an experienced editor. In fact this block is the only one that I can recollect specifically for canvassing. Sadly it was enforced on a relative newcomer who actually could be forgiven for not knowing the boundaries when notifying other editors about a debate that they were heavily invested in. It doesn't help the general problem of canvassing, of course, but IMHO you did the right thing in this case. --RexxS (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Spalagdama?

The indefinitely blocked POV-pusher Spalagdama is back again. I thought I recognised the style when I encountered a POV-pusher about ten days ago, making unsourced edits on articles relating to the history of Afghanistan and Pakistan from a number of IP-addresses geolocating to Zambia, IPs that my gut feeling told me were proxies. A bunch of articles were protected then, protection that has now expired, enabling the same POV-pusher to make the exact same edits again, but now from an IP in the US that was used by Spalagdama in 2013 (Special:Contributions/76.97.177.227, look at the IP's earlier contributions...). Making the exact same type of edits that Spalagdama made, on the same articles that Spalagdama targeted... Thomas.W talk 04:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, that was the editor with the interesting comments about "blocked user Thomas. W". ;-) I can't tell.. very confusing subject area. Tom, do you think you can provide a couple of recent diffs by 76.97.177.227 with an explanation of how they're nationalistic/biased in the same way Spalagdama's editing was? Bishonen | talk 16:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'll dig out some diffs of edits made through the Zambian IPs, but it's not only that the edits and the targeted articles are the same, he's been posting from the exact same IP-address as Spalagdama used (the 76.* above; as can be seen in Spalagdama's SPI) for the past four days ([86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]). Maybe someone blocked his usual proxies? The same totally unsourced POV edits as Spalagdama made and the Zambian IPs have made, removing all mention of India and Hindus and much of the focus on Afghanistan, and putting almost all focus on Pakistan. And the Pashtu language, including a totally own theory about the Greeks that ruled that part of the world 2,000 years ago got many words from Pashtu (including the title Gondphares, as can be seen in the diffs), a language that AFAIk didn't exist back then. Thomas.W talk 17:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My laptop ground to a halt because of lack of memory as I was writing my previous post, causing a lot of typos, but I'm back now. If you compare Spalagdama's contributions to the 76.* IP's contributions it's easy to see that they have edited the same articles, and if you look at the page history of Gondophares you'll see the 76.* continuing the work of the Zambian IPs, making the exact same edit time and time again ([93], [94], [95], [96]), like a machine. The first three of those IPs geolocate to Zambia and the fourth one, the 76*, to the US. Thomas.W talk 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this diff shows Spalagdama making the same claim about "Gondophares" being a Hellenisised version of Pashto "Gandapur" as in the four previous diffs, even though the the wording is different. A claim that is totally unsourced. If you want more diffs I'll get more diffs for you, but IMHO that ought to be enough to connect them all to each other. The Zambian IPs only made a couple of edits each, before switching to a new IP, so it's difficult to find them all, he has also been targeting a very large number of articles. During the two weeks since I (more or less) returned I have reverted that kind of edits, made through Zambian IPs, on more than a dozen articles, all of them articles that have been on my watchlist since Spalagdama's days, but there must be many more of them. Because of the IP-hopping it's totally impossible to find them all, though. Thomas.W talk 17:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Thank you. 76.* is supposed to be dynamic, but it doesn't look much like it, does it? I've blocked it for 3 months. If you have some of the Zambian IPs handy, please shoot them over and I'll check if a rangeblock might be suitable. Bishonen | talk 18:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Never mind, I see a few of them in your diffs. I guess it's pretty useless to block them, but please let me know if the Zambian proxies start up again. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

No one? Hmmph!

Have a deleted cupcake, Lil Heim!

Hey, I still care! One of those was Lil HeimAway's finest hour! But that's the one that's deleted, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a deleted cupcake, Lil Heim! [Goes to read.] Yes, the deleted one was a high point. Besides your cupcakes, I especially liked the comment by, I think, a one-time admin: "This RfC is not about a grudge. How can it be, when this is the 4th RFC against this admin? There must be something up, if RfCs keep getting created." But I took a look at the whole set and felt a little embarrassed that it looked more like "Come see my cupcakes" than "I'm all about transparency", you know? All is vanity. Also, the whole user RfC thing is historical now, so there won't be any more cupcakes. Wait, if I'm RFAR'd, will you promise to come give me cupcakes? Don't speak lightly, because I'll hold you to it! Bishonen | talk 08:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I might be off on one of my extended breaks then, so it'd probably not good if I promise anything! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

The "It is Literally Impossible to Win" barnstar

I see that, in the same discussion, you've been accused by one side as automatically taking the woman's side ("the sisterhood unites"), and by the other side as automatically taking the man's side ("bad attitude in man = ok. bad attitude in woman = NOT ok").

Congratulations! When one is equally loathed by all sides, one obtains Enlightenment. For your suffering, and attaining Nirvana, as official dispenser of Karma on Wikipedia I hereby grant you the right to come back in your next life as someone who has not even heard of Wikipedia. You're welcome. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence, I was reeling in shock at having been told to "fuck off". ;-) Eric Corbett 18:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You got off lightly, Eric. But rather than bother 'Shonen with such mundane tasks, I'll be happy to tell LB to fuck off from your talk page, should that occur in future. --Famously Sharp (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing of note, it just means that Bish is really good at multitasking... — Huntster (t @ c) 19:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Were you, Eric? I didn't see your shitty edit summary until later, and so to my regret I answered you civilly. In my defence, I've removed my reply from the page now. From one specialist in offending both sides to another, Floquenbeam: thank you. And just think what it would have been like if I'd unblocked Lightbreather, as I planned this morning because she was being accused of the wrong thing. I put her unblock request on hold and everything, before being trampled by a stampede of outraged oversighters. Bishonen | talk 19:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
No, not really, but it was the unexpected strength of your language that prompted my edit summary. Anyway, what's done is done. I think what was also at the back of my mind was LB's new Systers-Wikipedia, which I know is nothing to do with you. Eric Corbett 19:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Corbett, I can assure you that my dear friend is not part of any 'sisterhood', while I have often considered taking the veil myself, poor Mrs Bishonen (with her unladylike language) is totally unsuited to life of blameless and praying devotion. All this public Wikipedia-brassiere burning seems to be bringing out the worst in people and I'm not talking about unsightly flopping about - I see not the need for it: I know very few women who don't always have the upper hand - Giano's wife for instance is very domineering, but then she's foreign and all foreign women are bossy, so I don't see the need for this demonstrative women's lib and most of these liberating women here are American, and they all predatory with terrifying white teeth and very loud voices; one only has to watch my favourite TV show to know that, and also that most of them have the diction and modulation of an electric potato peeler so are quite capable of making their feelings known. Mrs Bishonen does not fit this category at all. So Mr Corbett, you must follow my good example and not make sweeping statements and lambasting Mrs B because it causes offence, and an offended woman can be a very nasty thing to deal with and a mere man (like you) won't stand a chance. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
heeheehee...diction and modulation of an electric potato peeler...MONGO agree and slogs away back to his troll hole for more popcorn....and cheap beer.--MONGO 08:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Ouch. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this will make you feel better but I just read a thread at WO asking who the "decent" admins were and you were on the list as one. Predictably, for that forum, it was a short list. Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was kind of wondering who that new poster to that list was myself. But I think that it might be worth noting that not only was Bish on that rather short list, I think she was one of the few who was included more than once. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Sisterhood is one of the sis... I mean partner projects of the Gay Agenda, right?
Peter Isotalo 20:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Nothing to worry about, but have mentioned you here as the same disruptive editor that you blocked a year ago is back, evading their block and edit warring to readd the same material to the Medvedev article. Valenciano (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Valenciano. Oh man, I'd completely forgotten that character. Colourful. I see Berean Hunter took care of it. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry to bring the nightmares back. He's persistent if nothing else, but hopefully the protection will put him off. Valenciano (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yogurt


 — Berean Hunter (talk) has given you a bowl of yoghurt yogurt! Yogurt is delicious and promotes memory improvement, awareness and WikiLove. Hopefully, this treat has added some flavor to your day.


Spread the goodness of yogurt by adding {{subst:Yogurt}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give yogurt out liberally to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Most kind, Berean Hunter, but I like my memory for crazed POV-pushers as bad as possible, I'm happier that way! I'll just eat the raspberry, piece of peach (mango?) and the very cute lemon balm leaf, thank you. Bishonen | talk 08:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
May I take the yoghurt then? Calcium is supposed to be good for calmness, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calmness too? We don't want that at any price! Help yourself, Ms. Gerda. Cassandra at the peak of her insanity (crazytalk) 10:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Why not? Thank you, very generous, - third FA today, I could try to get excited about that for a start. Did you know that I played Cassandra twice? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ps: reading "on fire", dear Cassandra sister, makes me sad, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On reverting royalty

An empress appeared. I don't want to revert her a second time. Do you think my welcoming her was not polite enough or not clear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you curtseyed, it's probably all right. The trouble is, nothing's polite or clear if the user doesn't even know she has a talkpage. Hopefully my block will get her attention. Bishonen | talk 08:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. - I don't know what a ping does to y user who hasn't discovered her talk yet. I remember my first ping (then the orange bar) very well, it pointed out nomination to DYK, and I had no idea what DYK means nor of "my nomination". I found out that the nice person who had helped me to get my first deleted article undeleted then also nominated it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

Thanks for spotting that. I'd just crafted a report for AN3, went to check some edit history and saw the block. I don't think the problem is likely to go away once the block expires: they're caste-warring/puffing and I'm afraid that in my experience those contributors to India-related articles who have "history", "truth" or "scholar" in their usernames have thus far only been interested in revisionism, puffery and brainwashing. All the past ones ended up indef'd or topic banned. It would be nice to be proven wrong this time, obviously, but I'm not going to be holding my breath when the current block ends. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, caste SPAs rarely come to a good end. I could see you had good reason to revert, Sitush, but you want to be careful about reverting so many times in a brief span yourself. I don't think counting reverts is the perfect way to assess a conflict — kind of limited — but some admins at AN3 might. Not that you exceeded the bright line, of course, but still. Bishonen | talk 20:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I understand but it has been going on for weeks, with the latest burst starting on 1 May and involving another contributor also. I'm not one for messing around in situations like this and I know a warrior when I see one. That was so obviously wrong: removal of well- and multi-sourced statements on the basis of personal knowledge, ludicrous accusations of sockpuppetry, attempts to play the semantics game etc. It is a pattern they have engaged in pretty much from the get-go (apart from the sock allegation). Any admin who blocks me for that at AN3 would find the block overturned within hours, if not minutes. I'd wager they're (the scholar) gone within three months, probably much less. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hey, I didn't mean to suggest an AN3 admin might have blocked you as well; no; what I was thinking was they might have fullprotected the article for a while instead of blocking anybody. Which would have been less useful IMO. For the benefit of any possibly block-reviewing admin, I made a point of mentioning stuff other than just the reverting in my block notice. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Gouncbeatduke Wikihounding

Bishonen, since you are familiar with Gouncbeatduke and his behavior, and the admin I initially brought this to attention to[97] - Cailil - is on some kind of leave for the month, thought you could assist with this matter.

I'd appreciate if you could advise Gouncbeatduke not to stalk my edits. The limited amount of edits he does are directed to editing articles I've recently edited (a number of which are wholly non-IP related) which he has never edited himself. In just the past week, just see the following:[98][99]. I don't know if some sanctions are necessary or some kind of interaction ban, but it is very unseemly. Appreciate your consideration. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gouncbeatduke continues to stalk my edits[100]. What is my recourse to this kind of WP:Wikihounding? Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Gouncbeatduke is now implying that on the subject of Iran and nuclear proliferation, I'm engaged in "Islamophobic and POV-pushing editing"[101] (this followed his Wikihounding here[102]. There has to be some kind of recourse for these gross personal attacks and lack of WP:AGF. This is exactly the kind of behavior that led you blocking him previously[103]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, Plot Spoiler, I don't have the time either, and I'm not much good with the subjects you both edit. My original block was very, very easy to place, as G had made outrageous attacks right at ANI — I positively saw red when I saw him accuse editors of being in cahoots with Jarlaxle. Researching the editing pattern that you describe is a much bigger deal, and not something I can undertake at this time, unfortunately. I have to suggest you take it to ANI, unless one of my nice talkpage stalkers would like to take a look. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Appreciate your consideration! Cheers. I will consider WP:ANI. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giano

Let's hope he just takes a break and does not scramble his password as he claims.--MONGO 13:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For dragging yourself into a mire

Some Masterwort for you
Thank you for commenting at the case, a rather unpleasant place. I deeply apologise for pulling you over there. In consolation, I present some masterwort, a lovely flower which can be used to flavour some rather fine schnapps, if you're ever in the Ziller valley in Austria. WormTT(talk) 10:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

68.170.223.134

Hi Bishonen, 68.170.223.134 is fresh off a six month block, like, almost to the day (that's some tenacity!) but has returned with this edit, unexplained removal of sourced content (genres) in favor of unsourced, and interpretive content. Unsourced addition of Atomic Betty to comedy-drama list. I yield to your judgment. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very amusing, Cyphoidbomb, I love the post to Ponyo's page.[104] But I suppose I'll pounce if it continues. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
They're never good spellers, are they? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Interesting history while I slept. Thanks, everybody. Bishonen | talk 08:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

1776

The content at the sections of "Dramatic analysis" and "Historical accuracy" of the article 1776 (musical) is identical to that of an ebook, The Brent Spiner Handbook - Everything you need to know about Brent Spiner by Emily Smith. You can find page 13 of this book, published in April 2013, here: https://books.google.com/books?id=QwcMBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=peter+stone+1776+musicians+pit&source=bl&ots=-Q1Jrg7ekT&sig=X7EIBzbQpG6qkwClpv3O4uehb_w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WvlNVaDMCM_isAS0_oDYCg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=peter%20stone%201776%20musicians%20pit&f=false

Now, normally, I would think that surely the Wikipedian who added those sections must have plagiarized Ms. Smith; however, with self-published ebooks, it is harder to tell.

If the Wikipedia article is indeed plagiarized, I am willing to fix it; however, I thought you could find out who has sinned against whom.

Miss Ivonne (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Ivonne, some of that has been there since 2006, others sentences since 2008, so it appears that the books 'author' plagiarised our article. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dougweller: that is what Emereo Publishing do, just as with Gyan, General Books LLC and others. If they are not listed at WP:MIRROR, they certainly should be. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, should have checked the publisher first. And searched for it here. It's just been added: WP:RSN#Emereo Publishing. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so very, very much! Miss Ivonne (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Miss Ivonne, welcome to my page and my clever talkpage stalkers! :-) Bishonen | talk 18:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

User page not in your watchlist

I saw your summary and was wondering if User:Bishonen is in your raw watchlist? If not, adding it may help.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying, but yes, it's in my raw watchlist. And every now and then I unwatch and then rewatch the page, and I think that has sometimes helped for a few days — unless I'm not remembering it right — but then it backslides. I'm kind of losing faith in it. Bishonen | talk 18:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Catching up

This is for you, too; I won't belabor the point, but I'm thinking of all of you, and so sorry all of that happened. I pinged you jokingly yesterday (to delete an RFA on me put up without my knowledge) before I discovered this, and decided you might not be in the mood for humor. (I also pinged you in an SPI I submitted, but I never know if those pingie thingies work.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention

What an unexpected surprise. One of the clerks at the ArbCom case had suggested that I request some routine administrator action...but I thought a personal "last ditch" effort would be more friendly and possibly Peace-making. As you most likely saw on your visit, another editor has a different opinion of my actions. Anyway, TY for your time. . Buster Seven Talk 20:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I would like to know how to stop people from using original research. I see you blocked the ip that was edit warring with Acidsnow [105]. He/she had legitimate concerns about users failing to provide reliable sources for their edits. Can you atleast warn Acidsnow to stop including unsourced information? Zekenyan (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not well at home in the subject or the conflicts surrounding it — you'd better ask an admin who has followed AcidSnow's editing and your own. I see several admins in your talkpage history, for example. Me, I was merely placing a common or garden "abusing multiple accounts" block against a disruptive IP. Bishonen | talk 18:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

A pie for you!

Thanks for pointing out your essay. Really useful. Magioladitis (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious! Thanks! Bishonen | talk 22:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

A note that will probably make you question the meaning of WP:BURO

Hi Bishonen. Thank you for your recent edits to the Lightbreather arbitration case evidence page. However, (and this will sound bureaucratic but sadly necessary) only arbitrators and arbitration clerks acting in their official capacity may edit evidence sections that do not belong to them. I haven't reverted your edits, but please understand that making those kinds of edits puts us in a bit of a touch spot regarding whether to revert the obviously constructive edits or whether to set a precedent of allowing non-clerks to edit others' evidence sections. In the future, the best approach is to point out the problem on the evidence submitter's talk page. (For the bureaucratic side, this is a formal request in my capacity as an arbitration clerk.) Thank you for your understanding :) --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) What you need to do, L235, is to take ownership of 'Shonen's edits yourself by finishing off the job of tidying HiaB's diffs. There's guidance available to help you at WP:Simple diff and link guide (a topic where 'Shonen has indisputable expertise). If HiaB didn't know how to format the diffs in submitting them, there's little point in aggravating him by posting on his talk page about it, so I can't say I'd agree with your suggested approach as being the "best". It's one of those cases where demonstrating the right way is far easier than trying to explain it, and the obvious bureaucracy of "not editing others' evidence sections" where it's only a matter of correcting malformed diffs flies in the face of common sense. With all due respect, RexxS (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: Thank you for your thoughts. I won't respond to the part about aggravating HiaB as that is an area that may compromise the neutrality of the clerks; however, if you believe it is unlikely an editor would approve of your edits to their section, common sense dictates that you not make the edits. In any case, unfortunately, it's a fact that arbitration cases are bureaucratic. In an area where there are angry, distraught, and stressed editors making accusations against other angry, distraught, and stressed editors, rules must be followed to the letter, no matter how silly they may seem or how IAR-worthy each individual edit is. (see also Slippery slope.) This reply was not approved by the Committee or the clerk body as a whole, just a note made in my own capacity as a clerk, and the substance of this message may be disputed either to the clerk body as a whole (to WP:ACCN or clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org) or to the Arbitration Committee. Thank you for your understanding. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, L235, I was in a hurry, or I would have let Bishzilla do it. She has been doing little fixes to ArbCom pages for years, and nobody has ever complained. I assure you the Lightbreather case evidence is far from the first example, but I'll just point you to her work there so far: [106][107][108] Go tell 'Zilla arbitration cases are bureaucratic, mmm? I hope she's in a good mood, that's all. If you check her page, you can see I've already tried telling her she's not really supposed to be a "superclerk". She wouldn't eat me, but as you see, she rudely ignored me. I won't answer for what might happen to someone else. PS, Rex, I didn't set out to tidy all Hell in a Bucket's diffs — that would be annoying pedantry — only the one's that actually didn't work. That's why the excess brackets are still there. (There, now I've pinged the evidence submitter.) Bishonen | talk 07:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I don't really know what to say. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 11:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Say nothing it's often best ;). Thank you Bishonen I appreciated the help on the links, i'm not great at the coding part so if you explain what else needs to be corrected I can do it.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've fixed it up some, HiaB — looking good. Good clear evidence also, IMO. Bishonen | talk 14:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

L235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

A sincere thanks for all of your work on Wikipedia.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

request

I tried to copy your sadness banner ... could you or one of your TPS fix it for me? — Ched :  ?  06:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mustn't leave the "u" in "colour" if you're an American, that's all. <beat> :-) Oh, and also, some templates hate equals signs, they need to be replaced by &#61; Bishonen | talk 06:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I've tidied up the template documentation in an attempt to guide editors away from this sort of problem. --RexxS (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good idea. Lots of stuff does contain equals signs, though, notably diffs, and I nearly always seem to want some diff or other in my divboxes. So I was very pleased when I got the tip about encoding the =. Bishonen | talk 13:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The documentation needs examples really to maximise the teaching process. If you have multiple '=' in your content, it's probably quicker to just use the parameter number |3=, so for Ched's box you could write:
  • {{divbox|purple|Sadness|3=I'm sad that [[User:Giano|Giano]] and his aunt have left the project. Much of the color has gone out of Wikipedia for me. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? </font>]]</span></small> 18:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC) }}
See how the '3=' goes in front of the content. Once that is there you can have as many '=' in the content as you like. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

our dogs

Dogs at Halloween
 Our dogs last Halloween
Waiting for their Halloween treats! Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Woof, cute dogs! The smallest one is a witch! Bishonen | talk 08:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Bow-Wow -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 08:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:-D @Roxy's edit summary. Mystifying about Laurel and Hardy, sorry! You can create your own editnotice here and put in dancers, Roxy, or barking dogs. (For anybody who is mystified by this note, just try to edit my page and you'll see the energetic Laurel and Hardy dance.) Bishonen | talk 09:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

SPI update

Hi Bishonen, The master has admitted to the socking but has also left many vicious personal attacks and threats. Could you please revoke talkpage access? I think he is abusing his talkpage while blocked. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. I've changed my mind about the user's chances of being unblocked any time soon. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Toe of the Almighty Camel has responded to the username issue and does not appear willing to change his/her name. Ironically, he/she also edited Camel Toe and I recommend looking at it since he/she reverted my edits.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of asking an administrator to look over edit, you can help yourself to WP:CATDEF. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toe of the Almighty Camel I'd appreciate if you would not stalk me wherever I go. Telling me I shouldn't ask for an admin's opinion doesn't even make sense. And I don't need your WP, especially since you, yourself, hardly follow them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BeastBoy3395 sock?

Hi Bish. I have a strong suspicion that the latest troll that you have been dealing with is a sock of BeastBoy3395. The level of obvious trolling, cloying unblock requests and tag teaming on Ben Carson seem to add up to a quack. Not that they won't be blocked again shortly anyway, but what do you think?- MrX 19:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen7754 took care of it.- MrX 19:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heh I didn't even see that until just now, but something definitely seemed very wrong with that account. --Rschen7754 19:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput edits

dear sir please look at the article Rajput and see [here] did I do a POV pushing? I have only expanded the article in line with Britannica!! how can it be a POV. Don't you think that Britannica is ultimate authority for a controversial article like Rajput? please stop this situshian point of view which is neither getting into details nor considering Britannica only to assert himself. Rajput334 (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Rajput334. I see you asked Sitush in your latest edit summary to "kindly not undo again, if you have to discuss some conflict then do it on talk page", but I'm afraid you have that backwards; you boldly added content and had it reverted (by two different users), so you're the one who needs to take it to talk to try to get consensus, and meanwhile, to not revert again. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, a widely accepted essay which describes your situation exactly. Currently nobody's discussing on talk: you should start.
As for Britannica as a source, encyclopedias are tertiary sources. This means they summarize primary and secondary sources. They can be used, but primarily for "providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources".[109] The problem with the way you use Britannica is that you use it instead of a whole raft of secondary sources (the best kind of source), which you remove, along with the content they support (Rajput—Mughal marriages). Please see Sitush's edit summary here: "Please find a secondary source to replace Britannica". I have to agree. Bishonen | talk 12:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I'll find secondary sources when I am free but please look how Sitush's edit is not supported by Britannica. Sitush is asserting that some Rajput enter into marriage alliance for political purpose while Britannica says Akbar adopted this policy and it also states how and why. I had added the date when most of the rajputs accepted Akbar as overlord, that is also removed. I had reasoned through source why Rajputs were inclined to Marathas that is also removed. I had added the date when Rajputs accepted British supremacy, that is also removed. Rajput334 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You still seem to think that Britannica outranks the reliable secondary sources you removed. I tried to explain above that it doesn't; I don't know how to put it any more clearly. I don't know why the date for accepting British supremacy was removed — possibly because it goes in the next section, "British colonial period"? But you should discuss these things with Sitush and other editors on the article talkpage, not with me — I'm no specialist on this history. (Note, discuss on article talk: don't post on User talk:Sitush. Considering your history there,[110] please stay away from his page.)
Incidentally, a detail I noticed: you changed "subsequently they finally accepted the supremacy of British Raj" to "subsequently they finally accepted the supremacy of British". Because of the year being wrong for the Raj — I understand that — but using British is just really, really poor linking. Please click on British and see. In fact, please click on all links in Preview before you save them; it's best practice and helps avoid nonsense links like that. Bishonen | talk 12:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

EddieSegoura Ban Appeal

Hello. I am notifying you that the above is currently being considered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community de facto ban appeal by User:EddieSegoura, and your input (positive, negative, or otherwise) is invited there. You have received this notification and invitation as you participated in the previous ban appeal in 2009 and may be familiar with or remember some of the earlier context, you may be aware of other matters which are relevant to the appeal, or you may wish to express whether or not your view has changed since the last discussion. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. Thanks, Ncmvocalist. Yes, I'm aware of the earlier context, but it'll have to be tomorrow. Please notify Bunchofgrapes — he has left, but he may still have an e-mail alert on his talk — and I'll see if I can reach him on chat. Tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
OK, never mind, I'm awake now. I can notify him myself. Bishonen | talk 09:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Best to bear in mind the effect of a blanket oppose versus an oppose you wouldn't be prepared to compromise without conditions being involuntarily imposed for x duration. If there is a consensus for an unban for instance, then the former has no use and the latter could be of significant relevance. But this is more of an observation overall. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I arrive too late too soon

Hello. I am not a new user.

I am an expert, in fact, on late 17th century to early 18th century British topics. I imagine that is all I need to say. It is sad indeed that Giano has gone away, but I have had Thoughts on such topics before. As it is, I'm willing to poke at some of the more wobbly articles, but I'm not sure I'll write much, though much still needs to be written. For example, someone was in the process of ensuring that every Dunce had a biography at one time, and that project never got completed. Who will memorialize Jemy Moore now? Of course the moment Randy in Boise tries to treat me like an employee again or a group of maladaptive, maladroit, endlessly self-inflating mandarins begin to sermonize (or Simonize) on process, I'll wordlessly go back to my actual job. It pays almost as much as Wikipedia contributing does. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very welcome, wanderer, it's nice to see you as tart as ever. Are you noticing, User:RexxS? Bishonen | talk 09:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I will try to notice. (I've two weeks before I'm back in... at work. . . dining out, but it's a set of restaurants I've eaten at many times before.) If you want to see an utter mess, look at John Bunyan. The writing is as much fanboy as Britney Spears once was -- or. . . who was the sister of the pop tart that a Wikipedian was absolutely abscessed with? Jessica Simpson's sister, I think, and a Wikipedian had a "sincere" interest in everything pertaining to her. Well, Bunyon is the lodestone of the home schooling movement in America. Therefore editions of Pilgrim's Progress are getting the A-Bekka treatment (pure hagiography followed by impure hagiography). Therefore, an avid author has written repeatedly about what "John" did next and how "John" was persecuted, etc.
I have spent a decade now living in the 1580's, you see, so I'm feeling quite close to Hooker, Whitgift, and the like. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am noticing. Welcome back, Hithladaeus. I think it's only John Bunyan #Legacy that really needs some cleaning. "The tercentenary of Bunyan's birth in 1628 was celebrated in 1928" - a good year to pick, don't you think? --RexxS (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a quick copy-edit to that sentence, but didn't have time to go through the article at all. Feel free to revert at will if it's not to your liking. — Ched :  ?  17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, y'all. In fact, after, as an anon, I wrote a bit of a philippic on the article's talk page, several people jumped in. It's much better already than it was.

What I was getting at is that Wikipedia, someone used to warn, was being used to fight political causes via edits. Someone used to say, to no avail, that we had full-time editors with wonderful English who consistently did very subtle edits to pages to provide national and nationalist points of view. Opponents from other nations would typically be less well spoken in English and would be accused of "uncivil" language, and people would side with a group that appeared to be professional information officers. Since those days, The New York Times and several online journals have covered the fact that -- golly! -- that someone had been correct: there were professional information officers from several nations waging war on WP.

Well, on a much lower level American culture wars are fought over and with Wikipedia pages. That's not news. Everyone knows that obvious targets are obviously targeted. However, I have been living in the 1560's to 1580's for the last decade. I have been living in the Puritan Remonstrances redux. I have learned what they learn, how they learn it, and what they think.

It would never occur to anyone that John Bunyon would be an article to mangle, but Bunyon is now at the heart of home schooling. He is now Important, and he has to be protected from people saying "bad" things about him (you know -- bad things, like historical context). It is important that we not point out any places where Pilgrim's Progress is at variance with Protestant theology or interpretations of the text that see it as an embodiment of quietism.

Y'all are already doing great stuff with making his article sound like a real article. I'm barred from doing much better until I can get at a nDNB. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Hithladaeus: If I read that initialism aright, you may be interested in WP:OUP; looks like quite a long waiting list but it mightn’t hurt to get your name on it.—Odysseus1479 01:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For other reasons, certainly. More information is better than less. There are some biographies that are better in the old than the new. I think this article needs the NDNB, per below, but yes. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or just ask me to get you the ODNB article. Or, if you are in the UK (doesn't matter whereabouts) sign up for the Manchester Libraries Online Access thing, which is free and gives access to ODNB and a few other things. All this said, I'd be surprised if the ODNB can add anything that is not already said in the Bunyan article. - Sitush (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sitush, have people here cottoned onto the fact that all of the Old Bailey is now online and free of use? It's an extraordinary research tool. This means that anyone who was arrested and tried at London's principal court, 1679-1774, has his or her trial available for an Internet search. [[111]] is the home page. We're all waiting for the day that the records available to the web go back farther and forward more, but it's still a remarkable tool. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great for genealogists, not so great for Wikipedia - legal papers are almost always dodgy as sources. I am pleased to see that it is free: I think it scandalous that ProQuest got the deal for the Parliamentary Papers and that they pretty much exclude non-academics from accessing the things. I know someone has to pay for the digitisation, and that the same argument applies to other public records such as those hosted by Ancestry, but there has to be a better, fairer way. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on Old Bailey, because it delivers up primary sources, and primary sources are still most valuable overall. For example, take look at Jack Sheppard. It's a very good article. However, what's missing is any citation of the eye witnesses or Sheppard's statements to the bench at trial.
Now, for genealogists, all I can say is an untranscribable guttural noise. I'd trust Old Bailey less for that than anything, because the court reporters will have various spellings. Ancestry.com is unforgivable. At this point, every amateur genealogist in the world is unwittingly giving all her or his records to the LDS, since it's behind Ancestry.com. Personally, I don't want to be re-baptised posthumously, so I'm not keen on Ancestry.com grabbing everything in sight.
Anyway, I think it's a good addition to an encyclopedia article to have original testimony where possible, so long as the article does its job by being clear, accurate, and verifiable in its explanation first. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, oDNB might be not very, very helpful, since it was still laboring under the same impressions and impressionistic history as the material now brought in from the 1920's and 1980's, which probably gathered its material from the oDNB. On the other hand, my library has a copy of the nDNB. My problem is that they've rolled up the sidewalks during summer term. (We actually have no librarian at present. This is a point I've been hollering about at the administration. We will never keep accreditation without a librarian.)
Years ago, our library bought excellent reference works. It got a full OED. It got the full NDNB. It got the full Grove. It got all kinds of cool stuff. Then the money stopped. Then the students stopped being able to find anything that wasn't at Ask.com. Then the students stopped being able even to find that. (Most of them haven't even heard of Wikipedia.) Therefore, I am the only one haunting the reference section now that our historians have left.
If you read Small World, by David Lodge, I'm in such a situation. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help!!

Please help.... this user is continuing to vandalize.... --Zackmann08 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's impossible for me to take a look right now. Admin talkpage stalkers, ahoy? Or report to WP:AIV, assuming it's really vandalism. They tend to be pretty fast. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
No worries. I did. The user continues to delete all content of the page. grr. Thanks for the tips. Hope all is well. --Zackmann08 (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of Wikipedia?

I am convinced that Wikipedia means "Arguing with crazy people." Jehochman Talk 09:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't! - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Try using the subtitles on that clip. That is what the likes of me are up against when people use videos as sources ... and that's before even having to worry about the interviews or whatever being in Hindi/Bhojpuri/Australian. There's a serious point here, which I raised not too long ago with RexxS. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Australian interviews. Google translate doesn't work. How are we supposed to understand them? -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 10:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have guidelines for videos hosted on Wikipedia/Commons at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Animations, videos and audio (although we still need closed captioning to be implemented), but Si is quite right about external videos being used as sources. The template {{cite video}} has a |quote= parameter, and we need people to make use of that to provide a text transcription (or translation) of the relevant part of the video. That's going to be a big job.
As for the Australian interviews, I'd recommend searching for someone who has a Babel box on their userpage that shows "This user is a native speaker of English." and "This user has a near-native understanding of Australian English.", then persuade them to translate for you. --RexxS (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 11:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When the Duke of Edinburgh visited India some years ago, the things got so mangled that he was reported (text version) as having visited a temple "dedicated to the Old Etonian god, Vishnu." Some would say it is bad enough that Etonians run the UK without them putting in a claim to have educated a deity also. Anti-colonialists could have been spitting feathers. How Hindu becomes Old Etonian is anyone's guess but, alas, that sort of thing goes on a lot. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coincidentally, Jonathan, I recently wrote an alternative definition of Wikipedia to an optimistic user here: "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia where you never get rid of anybody for good". Too true, when it's people you want to get rid of. Though friends of mine... my bestest friends… they just leave. :-( Bishonen | talk 11:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I have less of a definition than a description: "Wikipedia: where it's possible to steal a gift." Hithladaeus (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like that one, very true. Eric Corbett 21:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for the lack of originality, but I've always thought Lore Sjöberg pretty much nailed it way back when (almost 10 years ago now!):
Wikipedia: the largest and most comprehensive collection of arguments in human history
That entire article is still the best short introduction to Wikipedia there is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just remember, all, that we spend our time intensely involved in the sausage making part of this venture. There's still some really tasty sausages out there, and most people never concern themselves with how it is made. One's despondency with the process is only related to one's involvement in what goes on out of view of the public. There's still really good articles being written every day here. --Jayron32 14:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of going through the user guides, I figured I'd watch Bish's talk page. It's shorter and more honest.
  • 1. Are "personal attacks" still a thing? Goodness gracious! Pearls clutched, knickers twisted, and fainting couches braced for impact!
  • 2. Is the "sausage" still made by people who don't actually know what sausage tastes like, or what animal it comes from?
  • 3. Is self-nomination still both the de jure and de facto method of promotion, on the odd idea that it is analogous to volunteering?
  • 4. Is "support" still mistaken for "validation?" It occurs to me that I once noticed a very strong distinction between those two concepts. I could support an alcoholic relative, but I would not make that relative custodian of my children, and I could support a recovering addict, but I would not validate the reliability of that individual.
Nevertheless, I just wanted to fill some vacant hours. I'm still puzzling over some pages and whether to be very bold and rip them up to make them more encyclopedic. No two ways, though: I'll have to learn the stupid citation codes. I believe I may have tipped off my attitude toward them here and there. Oh, well: "sin is behoovely," as the Lady said. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spalagdama is back again ...

... now as 68.208.122.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), geolocating to the Atlanta, Georgia, area, just like his still blocked main IP (76.97.177.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). Just check the contributions... Thomas.W talk 20:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, thank you, Tom. I was going to say something about the "tells", but I guess it's better not. Blocked for three months. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

115ash

Regarding 115ash. Unblock request by 115ash is the same comment he made on Ged UK's talk page with IP-78.149.203.69, and this IP is similar to this IP-78.149.127.141 which we believe is AHLM13 as we found that his English is similar to AHLM13.--C E (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So you think 115ash is the blocked AHLM13? Quite possible, I suppose. The interests are only partly similar, though: 115ash cares mostly about the glory of Italy. And the IPs belong to a fairly big range. I'm not convinced. How do you mean, his English is similar? Bishonen | talk 20:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I am not suggesting anything, I am mentioning about this Ip range which supports his edit, as you mentioned the same thing in his talk page.C E (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness! Cosmic, you haven't been changed yet. Don't try to attack again! AHLM'd be a Pakistani. I'm not so shocked about the Ips (this signifies that even AHLM resides in the UK). That is the same range provided by TalkTalk Group. Bish, you're free to have a look at the sock investigation mage against me.--115ash→(☏) 14:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Mage? Made? Page?) How do you mean, 115ash? The AHLM13 SPI? I've seen it thanks. Incidentally, don't accuse people of editing logged out unless you have good evidence (like I had when I said it to you, you know?). You don't provide any evidence at all here, just a random accusation. Don't do that. It's a personal attack. Bishonen | talk 16:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Very impotent!

Is this a new version of FAC ? - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been removing impotent content again, Sitush? Any relation of G K Singh, the other fashion designer, do you think? By the way, did you happen to notice the box I put at the top of the talkpage? I was amusing myself, really — disrupting Wikipedia to make a point — but it's still there, I'm glad to see, because it's true every word of it. Man, I'm glad I'm not an arb and have to be so proper all the time. Anyway, I've shortened Paresh Lamba a little. There are far too many puffy references, but I can't face making a selection of them. Bishonen | talk 21:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
G K Singh is a borderline delectation case, as is Lamba. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion

Can this be considered as personal attack?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACosmicEmperor&type=revision&diff=663551856&oldid=663520116 --C E (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. I've warned him above. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page stalker) My completely unsolicited opinion is that it's a perfect example of why each of you ought to make every effort to avoid the other. Why not make it a competition? The one who manages to ignore the other longest is the winner! --RexxS (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion 2

Hi, could you please take a look at the Måns Zelmerlöw article. Another editor is kind of POV pushing that the singers comments about homosexuality should have its own "Controversies" section. While I had incorporated it into the article as a compromise. I dont know if a "controversies" section is the best way to handle it, but I can see a never ending meta-debate coming up so I will try to stay out of it.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba, I've looked, and formed an opinion, but I'll keep it to myself, because I want to be able to take admin action in case the conflict leads to trouble on the article. That conflict has played out wholly by edit summary so far; nobody has edited the talkpage since 2012. Please take it there. A little talkpage discussion isn't a meta-debate, is it? Bishonen | talk 22:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Decentscholar and Rajput334

What do you think of a possible connection between the recently blocked Decentscholar (talk · contribs) and the revitalised Rajput334, especially bearing in mind that the latter has socked previously? They've both got the same fixation with the Muslim-Hindu intermarriage thing at Rajput. - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely enough. But I don't think it makes much difference. I've just alerted Rajput334 to the discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk 07:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Or you could add it here. Bishonen | talk 07:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Unnecessary, I think. They just went right on after the alert. Topic banned, none too soon. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Quelle surprise, and thanks. If experience is anything to go by, I'd get ready with the block button. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And here we go. Their point doesn't even address the concern they were raising anyway. They must be reading between the lines or something like that. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They get one for free.[112] Bishonen | talk 11:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Socking: 103.7.77.8 (talk · contribs). Abecedare (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, to be expected; the user is an SPA, with no interest in Wikipedia other than pushing their agenda, so once topic banned they didn't really have anything to lose. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

For the record

The search function is working perfectly; I had never posted to WP:AE before. And I've never been blocked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought not. I mean, I knew you'd never been blocked, of course. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

"Aloha"

I just needed to say that to someone. You came to mind. . Buster Seven Talk 00:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Seems appropriate for summer! Hope all is well, Bishonen. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I'll share them with the conglomerate... oops! Darwinbish already took them all! :-( Bishonen | talk 07:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Notification

Took your name in vain here. My understanding is that we have to formally notify other editors whenever we mention them. Does this count? What the hell. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Always good to hear from you, Boris, but I think your understanding is exaggerated. In a case like that — a neutral or even flattering mention in passing — a ping is surely more than enough. (I had actually followed the ping and read your statement even before I saw your question here. :-)) A formal notification is probably good practice if you're having a fling at someone. (OMG, Wiktionary says "have a fling at" (sense 6) is obsolete! I live too much in the 18th century! But it's such a good phrase!) Bishonen | talk 07:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
All this talk of flings makes me think of Lady Catherine. Jehochman Talk 11:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary says a lot of things, some of which may even have a relationship of some kind with reality. (Do feel free to try to find "targetted" in any genuine dictionary.) The modern BrEng would probably be "have a pop at". – iridescent 11:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A "pop"..? Good job I make no pretence of being modern, or British. (Hey! What's that stupid spellcheck doing querying the spelling "pretence"? Go away! Fool!) If "have a fling at" was good enough for Swift and Jane Austen, it's good enough for me. And "targetted"? Even I know it's target, targot, targotten. [/me trots off to look for juicy phrases in Chaucer to use next.] Bishonen | talk 11:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thu dost not wish to alder go. It's "tar-zhay" -- as in the upscale shopping establishment for impecunious arts graduates in America. ("(Satire is) the art of flinging a well-tim'd turd" -- Jonathan Swift.) Thy spell chequers are a game for naturals and men of busyness. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bishonen. I'll leave you all here to have your flings. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

These go with strawberries. Notice anything new about me? Doug Weller (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Developed some space between your ears name? - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict): Who are you? But (grudgingly) welcome, new user, I suppose. The first thing you need to learn about the site is not to leave cookies where Darwinbish can reach them. Bishonen | talk 12:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Darwinbish clearly has a sweet tooth. I'm surprised she gets to them before Bishzilla can wolf them down. Liz Read! Talk! 17:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with editor

Can Bishzilla tap into their soccer momness and have a word with MacRusgail? Basically, they're upset that Jbhunley nominated one of their articles for deletion and identified issues with others. However they're using inflammatory language (stalker, molester) after being repeatedly asked to stop. Discussions: [113], [114], [115] They're obviously not listening to me. --NeilN talk to me 13:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's not cool. Bishzilla doesn't have any admin tools right now (very sad that!), so I thought little 'shonen, who can actually block people, had better warn the user. I hope it helps. I don't usually go straight to mentioning blocks, but after the way they've been ignoring your reasoned posts, it seemed the way to go. Bishonen | talk 15:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. Hopefully we can focus on actual content issues again. --NeilN talk to me 16:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)If he is still making comments like that it might be time for a bit of an enforced time out. I feel like he is using these accusations as a way to avoid review of his articles. When I offered to work with him to improve some stubs his reply was:

This is harassment, and you have serious psychological issues of your own. Stop trawling through my edit history for something to latch on to. I don't spend all day going though yours."The spirit of cooperation" - You evidently know nothing about this judging by your behaviour. Go back and crawl under your rock you pathetic little man, and stop trying to hide behind the rulebook. I don't give a damn about you. Is that plain enough for you?[116]

Which seems way over the top to me. The whole thread is on my talk page. This is not the behavior I would expect from someone wow has been here ten years. JbhTalk 15:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already told them so, jb — I linked to that post specifically, here. The interesting thing will be to see what they do or say next. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. I have a pretty thick skin and it is truly impossible for a person who does not know me to insult me but I doubt anyone cares to be disparaged on multiple pages - I no more than others. I have tried to move beyond the conflict with this editor - although I might not have reined in all of my snark - I do try but I am far from perfect. My strategy has been to simply go about my editing with extra care to ask for input on the articles relating to him but otherwise not be deterred by his behavior. I feel doing otherwise would reward bad behavior and I admit to a character flaw that makes doing that very difficult. At this point I figure he will either calm down or go completely off of the rails. JbhTalk 23:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what is going on in this case but it's really remarkable on my travels through Old Wikipedia, how often I come across editors who edited for 3, 5, 8 years without any problems and then something snapped, they started being uncivil or started to create sock accounts. It's like a switch flipped and they went from productive to self-destructive. Maybe they wanted to stop editing and rather than retiring, they needed to be kicked off? I thought this was an isolated case when I first saw it but at this point I've probably come across between 10-20 user accounts where this happened, both admins and regular editors. If any oldtimers know why this happens, I'd love to hear your ideas. Sorry to go off-tangent. Liz Read! Talk! 17:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. [Defensively:] I and Bishzilla simply get more and more polite all the time. You realise she used to incinerate users with her atomic breath. "Suicide by admin" isn't unheard of, of course — spoiling for an indefinite block because it's too hard to simply leave. But I haven't seen more of those than I can count on the fingers of one hand. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Vandalism

See here and here...it is so helpful when editors announce ahead of time when they will be vandalizing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a way... and I've asked the user if he'd like his pages semi'd for a few days. Though I've often found threats like that quite empty. You know, a bit like the mantra "I'll report you to the Wiki Authorities". :-D Bishonen | talk 21:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I think it would be best to semi protect for a few days. I think this IP is the same person I encouraged a block for. Ironically, he/she is doing the very thing that got him/herself blocked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I like it when I read an incensed editor say he's going to take the issue to the Wikipedia supervisors or "higher level" editors. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confession: flagrant and intolerable start of a wheel war. (Or not... I will leave you to judge.)

Hi, Bishonen. I have taken the unusual step of lifting a block you placed without consulting you. There was an unblock request at User talk:65.130.207.238, relating to a range block you placed on the range 65.130.192.0/19 (See block log.) I looked at all the edits from that range from 21 February onwards, and a sample from earlier. It is clear that the block relates to the IP address 65.130.207.32, which edited your talk page 3 times on the 4th of March 2015 above, in the section "Two IPs harassing my talk page". I do fully understand why you placed the block, and at the time it was a reasonable step to take. However, there have been many edits which clearly have nothing to do with the disruptive editor who led to the block, most of those edits being perfectly constructive, so keeping the range blocked on the basis of three edits from one IP address within a period of 15 minutes well over 2 months ago does not seem justified. Almost always, I consult the blocking administrator before unblocking in cases like this, but this time it seemed so clear-cut and obvious that I decided not to keep the editor who requested the unblock waiting. Please let me know in no uncertain terms if you think I was wrong. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been instructed to buy you a pint of hemlock at the next Manchester meetup. --RexxS (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'd better keep away from it then. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Psst! Get to know Mithridates, but don't admire his gold utensils.) Hithladaeus (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's OK, James, though I'm quite sure I didn't place a range block based on disruption by a single IP. It's not my practice. However, I can't face digging out the others, and it doesn't really matter, as I'm fine with your unblock. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Well, there were certainly plenty of other disruptive edits by the same person, but I didn't see any more in that IP range. Having said that, though, checking ranges for edits is far more difficult than it used to be, since they got rid of the old toolserver range edit tool, which was very basic, but actually worked properly, and replaced it with the new labs version, which has far more fancy features, but doesn't understand CIDR ranges. For example, when you ask for edits from the range 65.130.192.0/19, it actually give the edits for 65.130.0.0/16, and you have to laboriously search through the list to find the right edits, so it's possible that in doing so I missed some relevant edits. ...moan, complain, grumble... Aah, things just aren't as good now as they were in the old days. Why, I can remember when you could buy a pint of beer for less than two shillings, and watch proper black and white television, and if Wikipedia had existed in those days the range check tool would have come complete with the names and addresses of the editors who had used the IP addresses, and a description of what they were wearing ...moan, complain, grumble... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh, I have ta'en too little care of this!" An editor has tried to use labs once too often and lost his composure. A rather cheerful developer is kicking his legs.
No need to be self-deprecating about being an old grouch, James. Embrace it, like Hithladaeus and me! I always do try to check for other edits before I block a range, but admittedly I sometimes give up after a few tries. It's not just the range edit tool, either; often I can't access, let alone use, any labs tools, not even the ones that work (when they work) exactly the same as before they moved. Grrrr. Do you suppose labs might be some sort of psychological experiment, to see how much crap editors will put up with before they start screaming and putting twigs in their hair? Bishonen | talk 13:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Oi! Don't be baldist: some people haven't got hair to put twigs in. I'm going to do a write-up for Slate, moan on Jimbo's talk page, set up a protest Twitter account, and write a blog detailing Wikipedia's systemic bias with emphasis on the hirsuteness gap. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick

Hi Bishonen. I noticed you recently s-protected TheGracefulSlick's talk page. I'm just letting you know that I have every intention of resuming harassment once it expires. Thanks, 82.132.239.83 (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok - blocks are real easy to apply. --RexxS (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen. I would like to let you know that I have every intention of becoming extremely wealthy. I also intend to be phenomenally popular with women of great beauty, poor judgment, and incorrigible libido. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an incontrovertible fact that the two invariably go together. --RexxS (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hithladaeus - You are obviously young and naive, young man, such optimism is refreshing to see. Take it from somebody at the other end of life's spectrum though, sieze any opportunity, or when you get here, you'll be cynical, jaundiced and grumpy. Oh, and horribly forgetful, achey everywhere, wrinkley and sad. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 10:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, Chronos long ago slapped down my aspirations and capacities, but I rather thought that the IP's gleeful announcement of intent as achievement reminded me so much of the blindness of youf (it's like youth, but more complacently ignorant) that I felt like a demonstrative illustration. A bette noir of mine would say to students, "The last paper you wrote, what grade were you trying to achieve?" The bold young scholar would be caught unawares, not sure whether to confess "C, so I can get out of your class" or say "A, because I strive toward excellence," will usually say, "B or A." "And what grade did you actually make?" "Umm. . ." "Exactly," the grisly relic would then say, "what you intend to write and what you actually write may be quite different. Do you think that disappears for other people?" Granted, "vandalism" is a much lower objective, but who knows what Duchamp intended when he put a moustache on his copy of Mona Lisa? Hithladaeus (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (with black hair and gray)[reply]

Writer Freak

Hello, I unfortunately have to report that after doing some good attempts at useful edits, user:WriterFreak has gone back to disruptive behaviour. He has given Anythingyouwant a warning, he has left a misleading barnstar on my talk page and he has once again tried to get someone to discipline James. All this put together means that I have reached my limit with him. Sorry about the waste of time. I hoped he would turn around, but I know agree he lacks the maturity to edit competently and reliably. Thank you for letting me try. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how strong the likely in "likely the same user" is (Yunshui can you comment?) but not many productive edits between the two of them. I mean, come on. [117] --NeilN talk to me 19:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) That should be User:Writer freak, not User:WriterFreak. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bordering on confirmed; in fact having just re-reviewed the CU evidence I'd be pretty happy saying  Confirmed; I'm not sure why I didn't in the first place. The technical data is different to those Amanda Small socks that aren't already stale, but Amanda Small's IP addresses leaped all over the place, whereas those used by Writer freak and Jamesarmistead25 are fairly static and all geolocate to the same area. That could easily be explained by Writer freak editing from school whilst Amanda Smalls edited from home, of course, or by some other change of ISP. The behaviour is very similar to Amanda Smalls. Yunshui 雲水 20:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, and thank you very much for making an effort with the user, Happy Squirrel. I'm only passing by, in a bit of a hurry, but I've blocked Writer freak and written him a note. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I think he is back as user:Wiki_R2D2. A new user editing the same pages and with the same sort of talk page. Langcliffe (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added to SPI. Bish, can you please also grab Jamesarmistead25? --NeilN talk to me 18:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeful end to AN/I issue

Hi, normally I want an AN/I to run its course, but in "Wikihounding from WordSeventeen", WordSeventeen has been muddying a user's name (and anyone that agrees with them) by bringing up unrelated sock puppetry cases. Yes, the user has a checkered past, but there is no need to bring about their mistakes. I was wondering if you could close it with a block or whatever you feel is right. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Grace, I just don't have the time. Bishonen | talk 11:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned in the thread here. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&oldid=664448317"