User talk:Bishonen

This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia 3 times. And the last admin blocked by Jimbo. The LAST. Don't trifle with her.

Userbox barnstar

Awarded by DHeyward

10:19, 2 September 2015‎

Hamster-powered barnstar created for this user by User:Penyulap 24 June 2013

Stopped being lazy...

...and redid the mass rollback script the right way; it should no longer open up new tabs or completely thrash your computer. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

My poor, exhausted, ancient MacBook thanks you in a trembling voice. As for me, Writty, I wonder if you can perhaps also do something about the way it mucks up my contribs list? I mean, suddenly there are 400 contributions (all made simultaneously), making themselves broad and pushing actual contributions, if any, to the corner. Mind you, whether or not, I'm very glad to have the script. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

That I'm afraid I can't do; there will always be an entry for each rollback, since each will be to a different page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, it buffs up my thanks log; I was surprised to get thanked for several of these, after all, mundane rollbacks. Not for a great percentage, but still. :-) Bishonen | talk 23:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

Soham and close paraphrasing

I've just taken a look at one of Soham's edits since the topic ban. We already knew that they had problems with close paraphrasing. I looked at this, which for example includes:

When the Russian Empress Catherine the Great heard that Diderot was in need of money she arranged for the purchase of Diderot's library and for the appointment of Diderot as the caretaker of this library--at an annual retainer of one thousand livres. Moreover, she paid him twenty five years of his salary in advance. Overnight, Diderot became wealthy. He could not thus refuse her invitation to visit her.

The source says

When Catherine heard that he was planning to sell his library in order to raise a dowry for his daughter, she instructed her Paris agent to buy it at whatever price Diderot should ask; he asked and received sixteen thousand livres. Then she requested Diderot to keep the books till his death, and to be their custodian for her at a salary of a thousand livres per year; moreover, she paid his salary twenty-five years in advance. Diderot overnight became a rich man and a defender of Catherine. When she invited him to visit her he could hardly refuse.

This isn't as close as some stuff I vaguely recall having seen in recent weeks but it is concerning. Pinging Moonriddengirl because I'm not sure whether this might be a WP:CCI situation. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are definitely copyright problems. This edit includes blatant copy-pasting (as, evidently, did this). This one is uncomfortably close:

Source text	Article text
According to a source close to Honey Singh, when the rapper received a call from Bhardwaj, he thought it was a prank, more so when he was told it was for song written by Gulzar.... After verifying the truth of the offer, Honey Singh is said to have set aside all his other commitments and rushed to Mumbai to meet Bhardwaj.	At first when Honey Singh was contacted by Vishal Bhardwaj over telephone he considered it to be a prank call.[1] His belief consolidate when he was asked to rap on verses written by Gulzar.[1] After verifying the entire incident he set aside all his prior commitments and travelled to Mumbai to meet Bhardwaj at the earliest

I'm not sure if a full-blown CCI is called for, though. I generally look for 5 examples of outstanding copyright issues to make sure it's worth asking for community resources. It can take hours for me to review fully - especially where close paraphrasing is the issue instead of copy-pasting. (Copy-pasting - so much easier!) I jumped heavily through his history and didn't find a lot of problematic content that seems to cross the line into copyright issues. What I did find seems to be gone. Mind you, this is a judgment call and I'm not 100% sure I'm suggesting the right one. Without actually DOING the CCI, I can't be sure I'm not missing something major. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are quite old examples. My major concern (aside from any remaining outright copyvios) is that lessons may not have been learned. They've been told as recently as this month that they need to get a grip on the idea of paraphrasing but there still seem to be some near-to-the-bone things going on. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, i would like to clarify that none of the diffs you have given were to any edits of mine. This is because you are giving the edits of an editor named Soham; i am not Soham, i am Soham321. I would also have appreciated it if Sitush would have have had the courtesy to have pinged me when discussing something as serious as possible copyright violations in my edits. Soham321 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That is my fault: I called you Soham (a shorthand that Bish would recognise) and MRG picked up on that. I'd already spoken to you about these issues before and you seemed rather unconcerned. - Sitush (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Then in that case, it is back to the drawing board for me. Update soon, I hope! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see one lingering WP:NFC issue. The original of this massive quote is public domain, but there's no information on the copyright of the translation, which is what is used in our article. The book which is cited is almost certainly within copyright, with a first edition dating back to the 1970s. There certainly have been issues with extensive quotations. This rewrite of an extensive quotation was still an extensive quotation, taking more content than is necessary or appropriate under WP:NFC (content like "There was some discussion after this" is by no means required for our article and could be easily omitted), but it's no longer present. But I've done a pretty thorough spot-check and, while unable to view many of the books cited, didn't really find significant paraphrasing issues in the passages I view. Just as with the other fellow, I can't be sure I haven't missed something, but if I encountered a copyright issue at WP:CP and had a spot-check that looked like this, I would pursue no further beyond perhaps leaving a note explaining why paraphrase is important rather than stringing together quotations.

Not knowing what conversations have been had here before, Soham321, I'll just note that the bulk of our articles must be written in our own words and structures. Quotations can and should be used, but must be used "transformatively" - that is, to oversimplify, we can't use a quotation because we want to communicate the same information as our source, but must have a better reason, such as attributing a specific point of view. Where material from your source does not need to be in your source's language, it shouldn't be. And even if we want to use material transformatively - say, to attribute a point of view - we are limited in how much we can take. Wikipedia generally prefers to keep excerpts of copyrighted sources down to a few sentences.

Even if content is written entirely in your own words, it can be a copyright issue if you are simply appropriating the creativity of your source. So an article that summarized and briefly excerpted a single source or largely from a single source might still be a copyright issue. We have to be careful to avoid inadvertently creating derivative works, including unauthorized condensations of our sources (or "key" material from them). The best way to do this is to draw widely from multiple sources and, again, to ensure that the bulk of our articles are written in original language and structure.

Oh, as an aside, I see you often use (or at least have used) {{quote}}. This is for use with lengthier quotations. The bulk of quotes should be inline with your sentence. See WP:MOSQUOTE for more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the feedback. Soham321 (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A favour

I don't usually ask for favours, but you have particular expertise that could help me.

I've been involved in a nasty dispute at Talk:Zourafa where Gts-tg, the author of the corresponding article on Greek Wikipedia, has been edit-warring to keep a tag there claiming that the English article, written by Alakzi, contained content copied from his article. This has escalated to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard #Talk:Zourafa and User talk:Gts-tg #Talk:Zourafa, where Gts-tg won't discuss his behaviour. I've been subject to several personal attacks from Gts-tg, who is unwilling to accept that Alakzi could have independently created the article here.

If you had a little time, would you do me the favour of reviewing the talk page and those sections, and telling me if it would be reasonable for me to seek a topic ban from Talk:Zourafa for Gts-tg? And if so, what the best venue would be? (AN? ANI?) Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Expertise? I hope you're not suggesting I've become the go-to admin for topic bans? Dreadful fate. Either AN or ANI would work. Theoretically, community topic ban proposals are supposed to go on AN, because they're not about one incident, and because AN isn't archived as quickly. But the preference for AN is becoming more and more a dead letter. In practice proposals for topic bans are often put on ANI, perhaps because it gets more traffic, or perhaps sometimes because it's the only admin noticeboard the OP knows about.

However. The user seems to have resigned themselves to consensus[1] and is apparently on board with the DR being closed. In such a situation, you're never going to get a topic ban just because they're rude. It's rather strange the way they've been attacking you, I agree, but I think the best thing you can do is walk away. I've put a note on their page to urge them to disengage too. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

Tunisian Arabic

Dear User,

Tunisian Arabic is nominated for GA Status. Please review this work and adjust it if he involves several deficiencies.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Csisc. I see you have asked Dbachmann, too; that's a good idea, as he understands these matters. I, on the other hand, am extremely ignorant of them. Perhaps you might want to also try Kwamikagami or Peter Isotalo, both linguists. There, I've pinged them for you. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC).

Your opinion

[2]? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

+[3] Oversight?!? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Alerted an oversighter, hmm... I guess the user meant to say something else. I don't suppose she thinks Monty Python references are "defamatory". Checkuser, probably. Alison is both. She's not around that much, though. Hasn't edited since July 27. I've written a comment beneath Atsme's on Alison's page, to point out that and related matters. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC).

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The intended meaning, I think, was checkuser. I alerted the IP to this ongoing madness, incidentally. jps (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This clearly merits a response

[4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Andy, but I don't think so. I'd rather let Atsme's heated accusations speak for themselves, and let the reader decide who they reflect badly on, if anybody. As your own words in the header imply, replying would in a way imply it has "merit". The ANI thread is bloated already, and especially has a lot of back-and-forth already. By my count, Atsme alone has posted 18 times in it. (Caution: I may have missed something, or au contraire counted something that was just adding a sig.) Sadly, I don't think the discussion has much chance of attracting uninvolved users at this point, because reading it is like climbing barbed wire. Please note, Atsme, that my pinging you here isn't aimed at bringing you to my page; it's just for courtesy, to let you know you have been spoken of. Bishonen | talk 08:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

Well if it isn't going to attract uninvolved users, it should probably - regrettably - be closed down. I'm sure that Atsme's behaviour will come up again soon enough, and at some point the community is going to have to act. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it might as well be closed down, I can't see it going anywhere, unfortunately. You or I shouldn't do it, but you might post a request for someone uninvolved to do it, if you like. With a subheader so it shows up, or they'll never see it. Or I will when I get home, I'm on the run. IMO it might be a good idea to open a dedicated thread proposing sanctions for Atsme, perhaps on AN. Bishonen | talk 08:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for the ping. I think it's only fair that if you're going to count my posts, you should've also counted the 27 posts by AndyTheGrump. But above all, you need to know the kind of editor you're defending and the position you've taken. He posted the following last night - [5] and ended his misinformation rant with, "You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better.” I can't remember in my short history as an editor on WP that I've ever come across anyone so mean and hateful and hope I never do again. I'm concerned that if I don't get resolution for the behavior of the named editors at ANI, particularly AndyTheGrump, I will be forced to take it higher. Atsme^📞📧 13:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You must have forgotten crossing my path, as I'm at least as mean and hateful as ATG. It's interesting that you would feel "forced to take it higher" - have you had a read of WP:BATTLE lately? --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Higher" presumably means ArbCom, as opposed to for instance my page. Go ahead and take it there, if you think it'll benefit you. (I don't.) Re your "short history as an editor on WP", not sure what kind of scale you're using. You've been editing Wikipedia for three and a half years. You're an experienced editor now. Bishonen | talk 15:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

RexxS - sorry but I don't remember crossing your path. I do remember crossing paths with editors where kindnesses are shown and your user name doesn't ring a bell. I don't like to waste valuable time that could be spent editing to look up diffs to defend myself or provide evidence against PAs. I also don't hold grudges like what I've seen others do on WP. I admit when I'm wrong and try to avoid making the same mistake twice. No one is perfect. I do know that some members of project teams don't always act responsibly and have been getting away with things they shouldn't be getting away because of their sheer numbers. In most cases, admins are too busy to investigate the root of the problem - many see only the surface and trust in the comments of their buddies to guide them which often results in treating only the symptoms and leads to an unfair result.

As for my experience - my editing in 2011 was very limited - 20 edits or so if that many - and I made typical newbie mistakes. My edits caused no harm to anyone, and my work since my retirement has helped enhance the encyclopedia with rare u/w footage, photographs, and information about endangered species which is actually what we're supposed to be doing here, not attacking each other in these childish troll-like games. I didn't start editing and creating articles until 2014, but as a seasoned professional now retired, I think my experience is of the level that I know when I'm being railroaded, can tell when page stalkers are not demonstrating GF, what tag-teams look like, and when admins are protecting their buddies and each other. Fortunately the latter doesn't happen often. I've also seen a couple of ARBCOM cases where GF editors were railroaded but fortunately, that doesn't happen too often. It's all about apprehension and the time it takes to fully understand a controversial issue. Most editors actually do depend on administrators to be neutral but we also know there are a few admins who simply refuse to leave their biases at log-in. Atsme^📞📧 13:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that broad hint, Atsme. Have you noticed that I in my turn have given you two broad hints above that I'd rather you not post here? Please don't unless you have a factual question or comment about some of my admin actions — I'm always up for that. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC).

No I didn't notice the hints, I made the mistake of AGF, and don't know what hints you think I made but will continue to AGF. I will also honor your request and ask in return that you stop stalking my posts on TPs. Atsme^📞📧 15:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Soham

Hi Bishonen, I hope you don't mind me putting in a word here. Soham321's talk page is on my watch list and I have been noticing the to-and-fro there. I think he has a difficult enough time dealing with his topic ban. Can you cut him a little slack? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

He should know better than to put back a post containing anonymous advice for people who want to evade their blocks or bans, and he should know much better than to put back the anonymous troll's second post, which I had explicitly removed as block evasion. Sorry, Kautilya3, I appreciate and respect your input, and I understand the topic ban was a blow to Soham, but he doesn't get any more slack for such nonsensical actions. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

They're now getting involved in stuff at ANI, if my watchlist is anything to go by. Given their numerous misunderstandings of policy, they probably should keep well away from that hellhole. Perhaps they will listen to you, Kautilya3 ? I fear it will only end badly otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

An ANI discussion involving you has been created

An ANI discussion involving you has been created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_respond_to_anonymous_socks_writing_on_your_talk_page Soham321 (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Jon Stewart

I didn't initiate an "edit war." A person keeps deleting my factual post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impartial Scholar (talk • contribs)

Yes you did. And before you use terms like "tool" and "shifty" in a biography again, have a read of WP:BLP, particularly the part that says Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. If you don't understand what "poorly sourced" means in this context, then it's time you looked at how we identify reliable sources on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Impartial Scholar: Also, please note that the "factual" parts of your post have not been deleted. The information about the meetings has been retained, and the sources you listed are still there, properly formatted. The only thing that has been deleted, by several different editors, is the accusations made on Fox News. If you want to argue that those comments should be retained, the place to do it is at Talk:Jon Stewart. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi

A project for you perhaps. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen

Respect, but how on earth do you wrangle this page with such an archive lag... Ogress _smash! 00:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

[A little embarassed.] Wrangle? Wrangle? Oh, is it slow to load? Sorry. I don't like to archive… I love my talkpage posters… but OK, I'll archive. Conservatively. Just for you, Ogress. Bishonen | talk 14:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC).

@Mohanbhan's edit with @Soham321 sourced material?

Please see this.

Is it okay for @Mohanbhan to create wiki articles/sections in IPA-scope wiki articles, with material sourced by @Soham321? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh... yes, I think so. On principle. Whether the sources are good, and whether the article is good, is something I'm not going to look into at this time, because Indian philosophy is one of my many areas of ignorance, except in the most sketchy sense. I'm simply not the right person to do it, and so I simply answer your question as a matter of principle. I assume you ask it because Soham321 is topic banned from India-related pages? But Mohanbhan isn't, so far. Bans aren't inherited. Do you know if Mohanbhan has taken the material from Wikipedia? If not, one can assume that Soham has provided it to him privately. If you have reason to suspect that that happened during the topic ban, then Soham has violated his ban (again), and Monabhan has enabled that violation. That would be bad. Perhaps the best thing would be for you to ask them both about the circumstances? Incidentally, a while back, I wanted to ask you something privately (not connected with this), and was disappointed to find you don't have Wikipedia e-mail enabled. Is there a special reason? I mean, do you prefer not to have it, or have you just not got round to it? If it's your preference, you certainly don't owe me any explanation for that preference; I find wikimail useful myself, that's all. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

(Talk page watcher comment) The article lede seems to have been taken from the Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya article - without attribution. Both Mohanbhan and Soham123 had been working on this prior to Soham123s topic ban, so I don't think there is any problem beyond a failure to note the copying, which is a mistake often made by people not familiar with what is a fairly obscure policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy. In that case, I suppose the edit summary "Created with material sourced by Soham321" may have been a good-faith attempt to provide that attribution. Would you like to tell them how to do it, Andy? Or perhaps a tps would care to. I can't face looking it up, I'm running a temperature. :-( Bishonen | talk 21:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

Done. Look after yourself, and get well soon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cough, cough, sneeze. Bishonen | talk 22:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen:, @AndyTheGrump: Thank you, both. @Bish: never got around to setting up the wiki email. Tempting suggestion. I wonder if it triggers clutter/junk anon emails through wikipedia? Hope you get well soon. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found it does; I get hardly any spam to the account I set up specially for wikimail. (Most people do set up a dedicated account, and I'd recommend it.) If trolls use the wikimail to write to you — something rare, in my experience — remember they don't know your e-mail addy. Don't reply if you don't want them to learn it. If you keep that in mind, you'll be fine. Also note that anons don't have the mail feature, they can't write to you at all. Bishonen | talk 07:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC).

But Sarah, your email id and name will be visible to others to whom you mail, whatever you are in your real life male/female, you don't use your real name in email. Don't use your original email, you create new email with your current username. Emails can be helpful in life of a Wikipedian, I think you should have email, you are good contributor to Wikipedia. Cheers. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  07:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

I have posted at WP:ANI#Astme redux on matters which concern you. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Bish, about your remarks here, please re-review the block log here. Alexbrn you might want to consider changing your ANI posting in light of Bish's action, that I just linked to. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, shall I just close it and let things resume at the old section? Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You could just self-revert as no one has responded and then decide what to do as things unfold more. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Annoyingly, somebody had commented just before I got there - so I've struck my proposed ban and mentioned the re-opened section. Alexbrn (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Alex, but yes, after I'd posted to Atsme about the fourteen prods, I took a look at the original thread, un-hatted Georgewilliamherbert's hat + trout, and blocked Atsme for a month. There's a lot of consensus for some kind of boomerang. Don't you think so, George? It's not fair to constructive contributor to let this kind of time-wasting go on and on. If you had at least used Darwinbish's fishslapping template, OK, but a floppy trout? Bishonen | talk 13:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC).

Alexbrn, maybe consider closing it, which you can do since you opened it. Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What were you saying about my remarks, Jytdog — that there are in fact previous long blocks? Not really IMO — nothing that I regard. That soon-rescinded indef block from 2011 for posting personal information was just a bit of nonsense. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC).

No, just that Callen blocked her not that long ago under an arbcom-mandated DS, which she contested at arbcom and then at AN when she sought to reverse the decision not to act on her protest. The block history is not clean. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

He didn't block her, as far as I can see (we don't need to invoke DS for blocks), he page banned her for a week. I didn't know about that — I don't follow Atsme, although she seems to think I do — I go out in the sun, that's what I do — but I don't think it impacts my block in any case. The only "real" previous block is 36 hours for edit warring in 2014. That matters, but there are still no previous long blocks, and so one month seems right to me. Bishonen | talk 13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC).

I hear you. enjoy the sun - it is gorgeous where i am today and i will do the same. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Block of Handpolk

Howdy, I'm reviewing a request from Handpolk (talk · contribs) at UTRS. A checkuser was completed which showed their account was  Unrelated to the one you blocked them for. I'm planning on reducing their block to "time served", since the initial block was for 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks, Nakon 17:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nakon: Could I ask you to review the activity on User talk:2005, WP:POKER and WT:POKER following Handpolk's block? Seems like too much of a coincidence that the intense "activity" by IPs as well as LowballChamp picked up just then. Favonian (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll take a look at those before taking any action. Nakon 17:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Favonian. You surprise me, Nakon, but if the CU is sure, of course I don't have any concerns. Could you edit the DegenFarang SPI to mention the CU information and the unblock, please? (If you do unblock, in view of Favonian's note.) Bishonen | talk 17:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC).

I've taken another look at the links Favonian provided and am convinced that there's enough behavioral evidence to uphold the block. Thanks for the additional information. Nakon 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to pile it on, there's also the attempts to reopen some of Handpolk's AfDs, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Bennett (poker player) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Ciaffone. Favonian (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nakon! Favonian (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

Would you be willing to look at this discussion (WP:ANI#User:Xenophrenic's WP:TE at Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation) and close it if you feel that's appropriate? It's going nowhere, only one editor is keeping it open, and frankly, I'm tired of the wikilawyering going on. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 02:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Just posting here to let you know that being an admin carries with it the burden of playing ring master for all sorts of acts....that and I wanted to see Laurel and Hardy dance...--MONGO 04:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oh god so much to read… article talk… AfD… OK, I'm reading, I'm reading. I may actually close the ANI as "Oh god so much to read". Bishonen | talk 12:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

Well, that was a lot simpler than I expected. ANI closed. Bishonen | talk 12:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

I live just up the road from Stan Laurel's birthplace. Thought you all should know. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course we should. Checking… oh, Lancashire? I sort of assumed he was from London, like Chaplin. Laurel's childhood seems to have been a bit smoother. Bishonen | talk 12:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

(edit conflict) I spent a couple of summers in the Lake District when I was young, but never passed through Ulverston, so I can't claim any connection to Stan Laurel. I've seen Greta Garbo in New York, though, or at least a woman who looked like her. Thomas.W ^talk 12:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That was probably me! Bishonen | talk 13:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

(edit conflict)I've just done some fact checking - I wish to correct my statement above. I live just up the road from Bishop Auckland where Stan lived with his grandmother for a lot of his childhood. The town is very proud of him, and I remember watching his movies right back to my childhood, mumble years ago. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You should be proud. Brilliant man in so many ways. I too have fond memories of childhood matinés with Laurel and Hardly, with a wildly enthusiastic very young audience. There was a scene where Hardy hangs from the top of a tall building, and Laurel hangs from his neck, I think, then slides down to clutch his waist, then Hardy's belt gives way and his trousers slide down, so Laurel hangs clutching his ankles, and then of course the trousers slide down further and Laurel hang from the trousers, which hang from Hardy's feet. We screamed and screamed! Not nearly as much fun watching it on TV — the timing of these things was designed (largely by Stan Laurel in the cutting room, as far as I understand it) to be accompanied by the screams of children. We weren't afraid — even the three-year-olds knew nobody would get hurt — we were screaming with delight. Bishonen | talk 13:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

That jig Laurel and Hardy does just reminds me of the same motion most humans do when I jump out of of the woods to scare the bahjesus out of them! Shhh...don't tell bishzilla!--MONGO 17:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hehehehe, scary Bigfoot! Users dance a lot like that when I bite their ankles, too. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 18:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

Meh. I just watched two 7 year olds have the same reaction to an old Pee-Wee Herman movie (and this movie was before his career defining trouser scene in the Lancashire of Florida). He had his own dance too. --DHeyward (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Duck at Govind Kumar Singh

Further to this, we now seem to have another duck at the article. From long experience of the thing, Route1986 (talk · contribs) is Vermapriya1986 (talk · contribs). Do I really have to go through SPI? - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I took care of it, thanks for the alert. Useful banner at Talk:Govind Kumar Singh, isn't it? Thanks for restoring it when an IP removed it recently. Having it there may be against some rule, but WTF. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

P.S. Funny, the article doesn't say when Singh was born (though the category does, 1986, and it used to be in the infobox too). Surely BLP's are supposed to have the year of birth? I'm considering adding "born 1986 just like Vermapriya1986 and User:Route1986" to the lead.

Thanks. I was eyeing removal of the birth year category on the grounds of BLP / V. There is a category for BLPs with missing year of birth.

The banner is fine. I'm sure that it could be used elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

But note that the category was added by Yobot.[6] The date and year of birth was then in the infobox, and I presume the bot saw it. Not sure when it was removed from the box — I can't see any way of using the otherwise very helpful WikiBlame tool to see when stuff was removed. (And I see the IP that removed my banner can be assumed to have been born in 1986, too. Sitush, when you revert that guy's edits, do you have to call them "good-faith"? It doesn't matter, I know, but it just rubs me the wrong way.) Bishonen | talk 17:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

Butting totally in - but that banner needs a pic of a sock pile or sock drawer... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Ha. It might draw more attention from the civility police that way, and get removed… but yes, a pic would be cool. You want to add one, Ealdgyth? Like this, or maybe this? I couldn't find a sock drawer, on a quick look. Bishonen | talk 18:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

The Twinkle good faith thing is because I have been chastised far too often for ABF'ing, so it has become a more or less consistent approach to avoid being targeted by those who usually have little better to do here than chase the dream of a friendly space. It is rather hypocritical on my part and I don't think I've ever called one of these wrongly yet. I'll try not to do it in future but it usually takes a couple of reverts before I am satisfied that I'm dealing with Someone Who Should Not Be Here.

I'd be surprised if it was not me who removed the y.o.b. from the infobox. Life would be easier if that article could be deleted but, alas, even somewhat bizarre reality TV shows seem to create notability for their contestants. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for dispatching Citadel48 with such alacrity. He had been driving me nuts for a couple of months. I like your quote for admins. Warm regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, alacrity, I like that. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 07:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

@Ghatus' repeated use of article talk page as forum

Hi @Bish: @Ghatus has been repeatedly posting forum-y generic discussion on Hinduism talk page, with this being the latest incident. The post reads, "BTW, are you interested to know about the History of Muslims slaves in India and worldwide? Should I name the sultan and their top generals. Truly speaking, Muslim rule started in the North India by Muslim slaves themselves...."

Recent past incidents by @Ghatus include: 1 (FYI, the closest version of the article at the time of this forum-y post is this and it has no mention at all of "sword" or "dint of sword". To my recollection this was not in any version of the article for numerous months before that time stamp.)

Recent past incidents by @Ghatus also include: 2, 3, 4, 5, with the last one not only forum-y but a massive copvio on talk page which @Sitush fixed here.

@Ghatus was politely reminded of WP:TALKNO in this post three days ago.

Are {{uw-chat1}}, {{uw-chat2}}, {{uw-chat3}}, {{uw-chat4}} warnings supposed to be served by admins? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ghatus An administrator told me on my Talk Page to assume good faith and talk politely about 36 hours ago. I am doing so. Since then all my words are polite. Sarah can not debate with me and running here and there lodging complaints against me and my language. A lost case. Thank you Ghatus (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Speak of intent? @Ghatus wants a forum-y debate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

When two different versions meet, it's a debate. Otherwise, how can there be consensus?Ghatus (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ghatus: The Hinduism article has multiple seasoned editors involved already. Your forum-y lectures, with or without copyvio, is repeated disruption. You have been politely given the link, WP:TALKNO, on August 6, which says:

Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia: (...) Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article."

But you don't respect what wikipedia policy is, and continue your disruptions. The forum-y posts including the massive copyvio was after the WP:TALKNO notice to you here. When I write 'speak of intent' above, I am referring to three types of disruption: disruption in ignorance, disruption with knowledge and intent, disruption with knowledge and intent after reminder. Your disruptions, @Ghatus, fall in the "disruption with knowledge and intent after reminder" category. Instead of introspecting, you are taking the battleground approach in favor of forum-y debate on article talk pages, on @Bish's talk page. Clearly, you don't want to respect WP:TALKNO policy of wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ghatus, please note that an article talkpage is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Of all the instructions at the top of Talk:Hinduism, that's the only one that's all in bold, because it's very important. That said, Ms Sarah Welch, I note that most of your diffs above predate my warning to Ghatus on his page. It seems to me that his practice has changed in the past few days. The uw-chat warning templates that you mention can be served by anybody, but please be aware that they should be used sparingly (like other warning templates). Posts don't become more "official" or in any way better because they're "templates". On the contrary, a handcrafted individualized message in humanspeak is always better. It's hardly polite to speak in templates; they're best kept for vandals, not for good-faith users such as Ghatus. The copyvio that you mention, that Sitush removed, was several days ago. Ghatus, I note that Sitush reminded you politely on your page about copyright violation being a serious matter all over Wikipedia — not only in articles. You didn't respond to him, but I assume you took it to heart. Bishonen | talk 15:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thanks. @Ghatus: As a constructive reminder, it is stuff like "BTW, are you interested to know about the History of Muslims slaves in India and worldwide? Should I name the sultan and their top generals...." that makes your posts a WP:FORUM / WP:SOAPBOX. What has "history of Muslims slaves worldwide" have to do with Hinduism article, or how to improve that article? Then you add stuff such as "Again,If you read little bit more History, you will know that ...." as you did here against me today. Your non-AGF presumptions about other editors is not only insulting, it feeds your soapy posts? Contrast your comments with @Joshua Jonathan's comments, the latter's comments include one or more reliable source(s), or request for information, focused suggestions and a constructive discussion on the article or specific ways to improve the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

For Optimists Guide to Wikipedia. I may plagiarize/translate this. Kleuske (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, delicious! I hope you do — I'd love to see a Dutch Optimist's guide. What do you say, Drmies, wouldn't that be cool? P.S, Kleuske, are you aware of MastCell's celebrated Cynic's guide? I wrote mine as a kind of minor companion piece to it, a Robin to MastCell's Batman, if you will. Bishonen | talk 15:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

• I've never met a real Dutch optimist. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll make sure Batman gets what's due. But don't sell yourself short, the irony of your guide is sublime. Kleuske (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm reasonably pleased with most of it, but not with the boring nutshell. Improvements welcome. Bishonen | talk 17:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

P.S. The page in question is here. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

Banning

Well, it's not clear which edit *of mine* you think either infringes WP:Copyvio or any other potential sanction - all I did was reinstate material that had been removed by one disruptive editor. Ghughesarch (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I've replied to this on your page, before I noticed you said it here too. Note also that you reinstated the copyvio with an edit summary showing you knew it was an exact quote. Bishonen | talk 03:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC).

So why aren't you taking action (if it really means so much, which it doesn't) against the editor who posted it in the first place? Ghughesarch (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

just to be very clear https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crop_circle&type=revision&diff=675193200&oldid=675186649 Ghughesarch (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I will move this discussion to your page, to keep it all together, and reply there shortly. Bishonen | talk 07:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC).

Content Creator

In appreciation of your "Quote of the week," see Wikipedia:Content Creator. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Joshua. Cool quote isn't it? The sentiment has been voiced before, but "riff-raff" makes it colourful and lively. :-) What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed, kind of thing. Bishonen | talk 14:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC).

Quick vent

I am so tired of spending half my edits babysitting noobs. I know it is my responsibility to be a good editor but I honestly just am so tired of holding people's hands. An unstoppable onslaught of edit-warring, totally silent editors Righting Great Wrongs is just so exhausting. I just want to edit some articles sometimes, you know? Ogress _smash! 10:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't blame you. Did you notice the user created an article about Aung San's son who died at the age of eight? Oh.. yes, I see you did, you edited it just before it was speedied. I predict they'll sit out my 31-hour block silently and then return to Aung San. I'll try to keep an eye out. They edit from a mobile device, and I'll lay good money they're not aware of their talkpage, article talk, edit summaries, or histories. And limited English. :-( [/Me studies the portrait of Aung San with interest. His daughter looks a lot like him! ] Bishonen | talk 11:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC).

Three ANIs last night alone for 3RR vios (okay, one was a career editor who somehow is still around). Ogress _smash! 18:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey! "Making it up"?! What are you implying?

You say that almost like you don't think I'm a Tier 1 Content Creator^(TM). When I'm not permabanning innocent newbies, I'm all about MOS and referencing and templates and stuff. (Also, I knew Iridescent likes to use footnotes, so I looked at one of his articles and stole the coding) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it sounded a bit like one of ScienceApologist's newer usernames, only shorter, that's all. Or as if a darwinfish had plodded across your keyboard. But I hasten to add I've got it now. lr = lower roman, yes yes. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC).

Hi

Could you please take a look at the edits made by user Lane99 on the article Murder of Anni Dewani. I understand that the user is for some reason annoyed by the coverage of the murder in a television show but it is sourced and correct. First trying to revert it and then when warned adding a biased text about the show being "busted", for me it seems that the user behind the screen knows someone in this case personally or has a POV opinion strongly towards the suspect being innocent. But in my opinion we do not delete sourced information just because we do not like it, or add a personal view on an article. I might be wrong but in my opinion the new edits added by the user should be removed as it is opinionated instead of non-biased. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Too late at night now for me to tell what is and isn't biased, BabbaQ; I'm cross-eyed. I'll take a look tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know. Bishonen | talk 22:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC).

OK, yes, they seem to have an agenda, but haven't reverted again after being warned by MusicAnimal. You've reverted all their removals, right? So the current problem is the "busted" addition, sourced to WordPress.com and the Telegraph. As far as I can see, WordPress.Com is simply a site where anybody can upload a blog or opinion piece! Ridiculous as a "reliable source". But possible the Telegraph is enough of a source, I'm not sure. I don't want to edit the article, as in for instance remove a source, because I may need to "admin" it later. I've added a YouTube link to where the Panorama can be viewed, though; that's just sensible. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC).

Would you believe...

...that this edit has stuck for eight hours? This may be my finest achievement yet! This could only be topped by making the same addition here. Manul ~ talk 21:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Still there..! (I've removed the extra egg.) Are the clerks all asleep? As for adding it to the template... hmmm... you daren't and I daren't... it's a job for Darwinbish! Bishonen | talk 22:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC).

Sanction length comment

Posted a comment on the sanction related to Trump article here as you suggested. Appreciate the consideration in advance and thanks for the note.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Anyway, I watch his page. Is that really what the MediaWiki message delivery is for? Bishonen | talk 16:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC).

Template:Halt...(the preceding message brought to you by--MONGObot 18:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, dear MONGObot! Bishonen | talk 18:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC).

Script

First draft is ready: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massProtect.js. For now, it's not very flexible: it'll only load on PrefixIndex pages, and only semiprotect things indefinitely with a canned protect summary. I have ideas for improvements, but this may do for now. As always, please be careful with it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC).

Ooooh, it's shiny and new. What does it do? Can I have one too? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, they're all mine. You've got mail. Well, in a bit, you will've got mail. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC).

But it's a script with "mass" in the title! I eagerly await your email as I anticipate it may provide me with some negotiating material.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ygm. You mean you hope it'll enable you to mass delete the wiki, and then you'll be able to "negotiate" some personal advantages? Not quite, I'm afraid. But you can make a nice mess with it, yes! "Please be careful with it", haha. Darwinbish is more determined than ever to become an admin, so she'll be able to wreak havoc with this script. Bishonen | talk 21:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC).

Toxicity report

It seems [7] your position as Wikipedia's only official Toxic editor is secure. I'd rather hoped I might have replaced you, but, sadly, it's not to be. However, I'm enjoying my summer immensely; my golfing handicap has risen to 24, which means I am now able to win money (£1.80) so far, and the cricket club captain has promoted me from Third Man to scorer (I have very neat handwriting apparently). I've been to stay with Aunt Catherine (who sends "civil greetings" to one and all); she's moved on from Monte Carlo - there was a little unjustified unpleasantness concerning her shuffling of the pack, so she's now playing Black Jack at Juan le Pins and giving elocution lessons to American tourists to make ends meet. Looking forward to our (sort of) return in the winter. Take care my love and don't be too toxic to the regulars. Giano (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You're very toxic, darling, but you never took Jimbo to RFAR, did you, you or your precious aunt? Bishonen | talk 19:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC).

Emailing you

in a minute. Doug Weller (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

An AfD that might merit early closure

If you have a spare few minutes, could you take a look at this AfD, [8] and decide whether an early 'delete' close is appropriate? The subject is a 16-year-old, who has made it clear that he doesn't want the article (see discussion on my talk page [9]), and the claims to notability (as a musician) are clearly not going to be supported by anything resembling a reliable source. It seems to have been a misguided effort by his fans (or fan - see also the SPI [10]), and I see no reason why we should prolong this, since we are dealing with an article on a minor. It might be worth salting the article too. I thought about asking at ANI, but since closing it seems uncontroversial (I hope) it seemed better not to use the drama board. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Bish, but I finally loaded the AFD closing script yesterday, and was dying to try it out (my first AFD where I didn't say "someone please close this for me"!). I saw this thread and couldn't help myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

...I feel unwanted now. —SpacemanSpiff 19:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw this thread, and Mr Grumps talk. Exemplary stuff Mr Grump. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 19:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks to Floq. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• You feel unwanted, Spacy? I feel completely unneeded. All I have to do for any problems brought to my page to be taken care of in an ideal manner, is to ignore them for an hour or two. Thanks all. Bishonen | talk 20:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC).

Hober Mallow would be proud of you. Another of my favourite characters. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

IP range block at ANI

As a heads up, I closed the thread you started at ANI because it duplicated an ongoing discussion in another section. See this section instead. To make it easier to demonstrate consensus if the range block is contested, the discussion should be kept together. ~ Rob^Talk 20:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock for WOP

Ponyo had evaluated a /22 rangeblock earlier and figured it'd cause too much collateral damage, so the one IP at a time. Don't know if it's any different at the /23 level, but the range used is /22 I think. —SpacemanSpiff 20:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There was indeed significant potential collateral on this AT&T mobile range. If you decide to keep the block it needs to be update to allow account creation.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm fine with you undoing it, Ponyo. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

Ok, lifted then. I was going to block it myself but was surprised by the activity level when I ran a check. P.S. A WOP is a Weary Old Person. There's a picture of me beside the definition. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Munching cheese

Thanks, and feel free to call on me. But I may not be back much; too many nationalists roving about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

More on Rangeblocks

Hello Bishonen. There's an alternate range-contribs tool at https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/index.php? which is just about always working. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar question

Hi Bishonen, I have a user who posted a barnstar in my talkpage. But usually when someone receives a barnstar, they usually get a reason why they received it, which wasn't the case in regards to this. I received a barnstar of diplomacy but I'm not sure why. And what are barnstars exactly for by the way? Thanks :-) (N0n3up (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) Normally I’d say “ask the user”, but in this case I don‘t think that will help: the editor seems to have had a brief and erratic career, and hasn’t edited since being refused a couple of advanced user rights at the end of April; moreover another seemingly random recipient (from the same day) already asked such a question without receiving a response. So I wouldn’t give it a second thought; people do all kinds of odd things here …

In general barnstars are just one of the ways editors thank each other for their work, in a form that’s suitable for displaying as a keepsake in their user space. On any user-talk page (other than your own) you should see a “WikiLove” menu-tab, labelled with a heart, which offers a convenient way to post such messages. Or you can just add an appropriate template manually; the page linked at the beginning of this paragraph includes the wikicode for each item.—Odysseus1479 02:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Odysseus, Thanks for the info. I was about to ask TYTA Mahesh until I saw the user wasn't active since April. Normally before asking a question to a random user such as Bishonen in this case, I peeked to see if they were active users unlike TYTA Mahesh whom is likely to not answer. (N0n3up (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC))

Oddysseus is exactly right. Also, N0n3up, I've sometimes seen new users, who perhaps feel unappreciated, handing out barnstars in a rather random way, thinking it's a way to make friends. It always makes me a little sad for them, and I get the notion they're probably quite young. Bishonen | talk 08:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen :-) (N0n3up (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)) Now that we're talking, how can I know if my user profile is malfunctioning? Because everytime someone reverts an edit of mines it doesn't appear in my notifications and have to look at my contributions to see whats changed.... (N0n3up (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC))

There's a notifications tab in your Preferences, N0n3up, where you can select which kinds of events give you a notification. Have you ticked the box for "Edit revert" there? Bishonen | talk 21:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC).

Almost two years in Wikipedia.. I don't know how I missed that :/ Thanks! (N0n3up (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC))

Random Barnstars?

Random Barnstars?

What's wrong with...

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

I'm so honoured! This means I'm a big girl, right? Bishonen | talk 08:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

Helperbot prevents conversation

Thanks for looking, Bish. I just blocked the individual IP. Whack-a-mole. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. At least they're static moles. Who's Helperbot? Bishonen | talk 09:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

When you block someone reported at AIV, Helperbot is the bot that notices the account that's been reported has been blocked, and removes the report. So you can't go back and explain or thank or comment on any nuances to your block, because the report and all the comments have been removed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, I really knew that, just didn't remember. Yes, WP:AIV is not a tea party, unlike Bishzilla's pocket. Bishonen | talk 14:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

Welcome in pocket for conversation, little Floq! bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

Do I have to talk to people? Can I just sit by myself at the window and morosely watch the last few days of summer go by? (Saw a tree with a branch of leaves beginning to turn pale yellow today. Sad. Not even labor day yet. Time to buy house in southern hemisphere. Can't imagine dealing with winter.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Feel free sit and mope. Bring little monster for conversation! Monster great conversationalist! [Bishzilla knows this isn't strictly true, but she remembers her romantic interlude with Floquenstein's monster through something of a rosy mist.] Also try moving north, not south! Bishzilla's arctic home still very summery! Leaves green! bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

[Struck belatedly by the little Floquenbeam's strange concept of pocket.] Window..? No windows. Outer world refreshingly absent! Feel free sit at catflap and morosely watch for example the little Bigfoot delousing himself! Also a handsome natural prospect! bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC).

Oh. maybe I could rip a tiny little hole in... um... whatever material it is that Zilla is wearing that has pockets. Hole would be so small, Zilla wouldn't hardly even notice. I assume this pocket is not like a kangaroo pocket? If I'm wrong, and have misunderstood the anatomy of a Zilla significantly, then I guess I won't insist on minor surgery just so I can look outside. I'll settle for hanging out right next to the catflap. I could be like the Walmart greeter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

[Reproachfully:] Little Floq forget! Zilla wear tailormade spiderman suit always — with pocket. No, pocket not organic, Victorian parlour, fridge and Winter Sports Branch not inside Zilla. Idea is slightly disgusting! Suit material — hmmm — strong and elastic, possibly banlon. Bring garden shears for outbreak! Greeter at catflap fine thought. bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC).

I'd forgotten the spiderman suit (it's really the Monster who would remember). I'm making up a nametag now ("Hello! My name is FLOQUENBEAM, I'm your official greeter, welcome to Bishzilla's Pocket"), but that's a really long name tag, so it's taking a while. Even after it's made, it's so long that it sticks out 200mm each side of my body, and I'm worried I might accidentally stab someone if I turn around too quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello! My name is
FLOQUENBEAM
I'm your official greeter
Welcome to Bishzilla's Pocket

Cut dotty line. Stick nameplate. Enjoy fearless turning! --T-RexxS (rawr) 19:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry!

I'm sorry about the vandalism I reverted back to on Subcontrabass flute, it was my fault there. Again, sorry if it inconvenienced you in any way. ~Liance^{talk/contribs} 19:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No, not at all, I only jumped in because I assumed it would discombobulate the new user. Still, apparently they mostly do do vandalism, so you shouldn't worry about it. Or did do vandalism, I see they've been indeffed. I'm glad Floquenbeam took a look, so I don't have to. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

A request

Dearest Bishonen: Am I permitted to request that you revoke the one way interaction ban that you imposed on Collect after he falsely associated me with a Democrat Facebook group (or whatever the hell it was)? I would really like to allow him to say whatever is on his mind. I don't need to be protected from Collect interacting with me, as I am a big boy. Further, I find the expectation that I should be prevented from pursuing an WP:ARCA clarification for the Arbcom case that I initiated in March, to be as onerous as it is asinine. Many thanks. - MrX 20:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Well… let me think. Interaction bans IMO aren't placed just to protect people from each other, but also to protect the project from listening to bootless quarrelling, bloating up of noticeboards, etc. I would have advised you against filing a clarification request regarding Collect; it makes for an uncomfortable situation. But in consideration of the fait accompli, I agree that it's better to lift the one-way ban. Let me just go find where I posted and logged it, and I'll take care of it. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

Your points are well taken. We will have to disagree on the advisability of filing a clarification request, for reasons that I carefully considered and am willing to explain (although I doubt you would care to hear). In any case, thank you for lifting the I-ban. I really do appreciate it. - MrX 21:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Scanian dialect

Hello, Bish. Would you mind taking a look at Scanian dialect? There's an established editor who's now at 5 reverts within 24 hours (against two other editors), plus a number of unacceptable edit-summaries, and a less well established editor who's at four reverts. I've had a clash with one of them over the edit summaries (as can be seen here) and don't want to get involved further (taking things personally is bad for the blood pressure...). /Tom Thomas.W ^talk 22:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and handing out blocks would be bad for mine and everybody else's. I've protected for four days. I hope everybody cools down. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

Thanks. I didn't ask for a block, or expect you to block anyone, giving them a stern warning would have been enough to satisfy me. If I had been out to get someone blocked I would have filed a report at AN3. Just thought I'd tell you, so you don't get the wrong impression of me. Thomas.W ^talk 09:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sure. I know. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

Can't take it..

Hi Bishonen, first of all, i'd like to apologize for my somewhat unruly behavior that made you block me. You also pointed out that I shouldn't talk about other users without knowing their intentions, but you probably didn't know of Juan Riley's personal attacks which can be seen in the talk page of British Empire, and his verbal attitude towards other users seen in the talk page of Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. But I bring this up not to accuse of Juan Riley of anything, but to show you that I'm the one who's being the end of every accusation recently. And now, I'm in a dispute with user Mason.Jones. I've made a small edit of taking away a word in article: United States that restricts an idea, in an image caption to be precise and Mason.Jones reverted me, and I was hoping that he would tell me why he did so, but instead he started to blast me with all sorts of accusations. I tried to talk to him first in a manner to let him know why said word in the caption was a bit misleading and even gave him a head-start to defend his idea by giving his ideas of evidence, but he instead continued to blast me with criticism in a somewhat unruly way. By the way, he did that as soon as he started to talk to me. I tried to control myself, but his unruliness made it hard to as seen in his and my talk pages. And where can I ask for admin intervention? or can you help us out. (N0n3up (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC))

I agree this edit summary was quite inappropriate, and also the way the user continued the theme of your personal horribleness on both your pages. I've warned them. As for the matter of fact, you should both take the discussion to Talk:United States — not each other's pages. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen, I disagree with your diatribe and I will not retract my comment. I have had the pleasure to read the "new editor's" sloppy edits as well as his/her messages to other editors, and they are as I describe them: puerile carping. The "new editor" has also sent me increasingly verbose messages, the last one lecturing me about racism and prejudice. This is one of the more toxic features of Wikipedia. The other one is indulging bad editors, which you are doing. This editor has shown repeatedly that he/she doesn't work well with others. Ten critical messages on the editor's own talk page are proof enough to me. Thanks for your concern.Mason.Jones (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

My diatribe? That's nice. You don't have to retract anything. Please take this as a warning: if you continue to make personal remarks about N0n3up without relevance to content, I will block you. Since this is a warning, I will cross-post it to your own page to make sure you see it. Bishonen | talk 18:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

I said my piece and stand by it one hundred percent. I realize you are a WP admin, but I deserve no administrative threats from you -- none.Mason.Jones (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Feedback

As you have adminned in the caste area before, I'd like your feedback on an AE/ARCA proposal I'm putting together -- User:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2‎. Feel free to modify directly and/or place comments at the discussion page of that sandbox. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Self-ban

Hello, Bish. I noticed that you page-banned yourself for three months from ANI because of the appaling signal-to-noise ratio there, but it's not only ANI that is having problems, it's all of en-WP. It has become a hostile environment and is no longer what it used to be, so I'm tempted to not only ban myself from selected pages but site-ban myself from all of en-WP for a few months, or more... Thomas.W ^talk 11:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

(watching:) please think of us remaining - you make it harder for us, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I question whether a non-notable editor's cursing in edit summaries is what creates a hostile environment; hostility is endemic and systemic to Wikipedia, and it's being promulgated by people in positions of authority. Cursing is a natural reaction to the horrific treatment many editors receive. Alakzi (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, I know that's a kind of sentiment you like to express as often as possible, but I'm still surprised you thought it remotely relevant to either my complaint or Thomas's complaint. Frankly it reminds me of the tiresome way so many rush to get their two bits in at ANI without troubling to find out what the issue is all about. Bishonen | talk 12:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

I expressed a sentiment that's tangentially relevant. I'm aware that the circumstances in this particular instance were different; and you're welcome to ban me from your talk page if my posting here upsets you. Besides, administrators upset me. Alakzi (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You really ought to read the first post in a thread before commenting in it, it would save you from making yourself look like a fool. Because your first post in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with my post, Gerda's post or anything else here. Other than proving my point about en-WP having become a more hostile environment, but not because of "people in positions of authority" but because of people like you. Thomas.W ^talk 12:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen you around, Thomas - basically all you do is try to put people on the spot and repeatedly failing. I will now be unwatchng this shitfest. Alakzi (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I also think you've worn out your welcome here in Bish's virtual parlor, even though Bish is too polite to tell you off. I usually am too, but I'm a bit grumpier than usual today, because of the weather, so I'll do it for her. So shoo. Thomas.W ^talk 12:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Cometh the civility brigade? It is chicken and egg: I am a nobody and I curse in reaction, as you describe, but am a bête noire among those who seek greater civility. The case that Bish raised was of the "obvious disruption" variety but things are often more nuanced. I refuse to bow to those who want lists of banned words etc, especially given that most incivility here doesn't even use them.

Enjoy the break from ANI, Bish. I sympathise with your reaction. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, enjoy your break, - in a way I do the same or more. I was on ANI only a few times in 6 years, remember once defending in 2011 (unsuccessful but archived), once defending myself (no really successful), once again defending (successful). Life is too short for noticeboards. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Enjoy your break from ANI but be sure to come back - I don't think many of us are thick skinned enough to fill the gap while you're away :/ Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Enjoy the break, Bish! -- Hoary (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Or just send BISHZILLA!--MONGO 05:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A call for quality

An end to industrial articles with little flavor and no authenticity; these are far too full of forgettable, screwtop "facts". Huzzah for vintage, château-bottled truth! -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope that's an opium den I'm sitting in on the right? Hmmm... that's what Bishzilla's pocket needs, maybe I'll suggest it to her. A small opium den pocket annexe, or lean-to, specially for ANI convalescents Bishonen | talk 10:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)..

With some regret, I've removed this nugget of Truth. -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

re

I won't interact with him further. What confuses me, though, is your apparent and persistent assumption of good faith on their part. Have you been able to find any "consensus" that they speak of, other than "getting N0n3up's way"? Mason.Jones' assessment seems accurate. --Golbez (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he's a troll. Impetuous, yes. Bishonen | talk 10:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC).

I would very much appreciate you informing our mutual friend of how he should comport himself with regard to me and others. I have told you I won't interact with him further. He sees this as an invitation. --Golbez (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I thought I did.[11] All right, I'll try to be even clearer. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC).

No need, I only wanted to show why said redundant word should be deleted. Tried to bring everyone together to settle this once and for all but apparently no one want's to listen. (N0n3up (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC))

That's good that you took your reasons to Talk:United States, User:N0n3up. (Oh god you're in two different sections on my page. Well, let's stay here.) But you should have stopped there. The idea is to start a factual discussion and see what other people think of the presence/absence of the word "European". Of what will go in the article. You're not making yourself look good by taking that as an opportunity to complain about what other people did earlier. The idea of Wikipedia communication is to let stuff like that go, to leave it behind, and discuss only the article and the reasons for one version or another. Especially it's not good to complain about Golbez after he has said he'll avoid you; it does look a bit like you think you now have a free field for it. I suggest you cut out the bit after "… tend to think only about the European immigrants and not other groups, cultures, ethnicity and so on" and replace it with a simple invitation to others to express their opinion. Mention that you were reverted, if you like — it's useful for others to know there has been disagreement — but there's no need for mentioning names, or for a blow-by-blow account: if anybody cares, they'll look in the history. Altogether it's good manners to not mention any editors by name on article talkpages, unless it's needed for clarity or you think it's important to ping somebody. (With people who're likely to watch the page, there's no need for pings. If they're interested, they'll respond; you have to leave that to them.) You're commenting on the content, not the contributor, right? And if you do have to mention somebody, please have the courtesy to spell their names right. (Not "Goblez".) I find it hard enough to spell your name, with the figures in it, but I do my best.

As long as nobody has replied, you're free to change your post at Talk:United States; once somebody has, you'd have to mess about with crossing stuff out instead, so if you want to follow my suggestion, you shouldn't wait too long. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC).

Thanks Bish, I'll do that. Btw you can just call me Noneup. (N0n3up (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC))

Haha, good idea, I will. The problem arises when I want to ping you. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC).

Copy and paste, I always do that. (N0n3up (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC))

Talk page

Hi Bishonen, can you join me in the article talk page? Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC))

Answered above. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC).

On payment

I know that judging by the tenor of the debate, myself and Crisco 1492 are fighting for a lost cause now there's an angry mob out for blood and the admin corps makes the juiciest target, but have you actually thought through the implications of "Admins are not allowed to accept payment for any services on Wikipedia"? As worded, that clause would make "I really liked your work on …, let my buy you a drink" grounds for automatic desysopping.

Sure, the crats will probably discount frivolous desysopping attempts, but it would provide a permanent harassment mechanism in which any self-appointed "concerned user" can demand an itemised receipt for the bar tab of any admin attending a Wikipedia meetup, and in which any admin accepting one of these would be instantly desysopped. (The British Newspaper Archive gave me a free subscription a couple of weeks ago, on the express understanding that it be used on Wikipedia—were your wording in place, that would put me somewhere between MyWikiBiz and Wifione on the corruption scale. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of other examples; virtually every part of The Wikipedia Library functions because a private corporation or state body is giving away freebies to selected Wikipedia editors in return for a hoped-for improved Wikipedia coverage of their particular field.) I don't see how Wikipedia could function with such a rule in place unless admins were to withdraw from content editing altogether and just become a block-and-protect warrior elite. ‑ iridescent 20:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I had no idea there were perks! Hundreds if not thousands! A whole new world! However. I still think a complicated rule is kind of useless, just for being complicated. So perhaps the rule about it is a bad idea altogether. That's disappointing, but I guess I already knew it's really, really hard to change anything on Wikipedia, no matter how problematic the status quo is. So I don't think you have to worry overmuch that there will actually be any kind of new rule. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC).

• A complicated rule is probably useless, yes. But an oversimplified one is either just as bad or worse. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• There is no loophole small enough that someone will not exploit it. That is quite often the way that lawyers make their living. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Hi, sorry to trouble you again, but, Michael of the Muze whom you've blocked for 31 hours is the latest sockpuppet of a troll who's been plaguing NeilN for quite some time. The troll's latest shtick is to post user-block templates on NeilN's talk page in order to pretend block him.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, indeffed. I did have a feeling it might not be the first appearance of this charming user. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC).

Indeed. Plus, this won't be the last we see of said charming user, either.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros: If you could label those users with Template:Sockpuppet, it makes future banning easier. Also identifying new ones - sometimes one sock turns out to be connected to another user in a completely different part of the encyclopaedia. Ogress 18:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Will do.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help. Jbh^Talk 19:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Wrt to this obvious sock, that removed the PROD template on the article you have now AfD'd, do you have any comment or opinion, Jbhunley? Use e-mail if it's sensitive. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC).

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

Jbh^Talk 23:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Side note: You have linked to WP:Complete bollocks twice under Essay's on your user page. Accident or an indication of the number of times it should have been cited but, for politeness sake, it was not? :) Jbh^Talk 23:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, have I? Hmm. I should probably link to it a third time. Bishonen | talk 11:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC).

• :) Jbh^Talk 13:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

In case you have not seen the goings on around BiH. He was a paid editor, possibly part of a ring [12], who had autopatrol and used it to create dozens of promotional articles. No evidence it was a multi-user account, either in serial or parallel. It would be interesting to check in such cases though. Jbh^Talk 10:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean it would be interesting to check in this case (hasn't it been done?), or always check in cases where users are found to have created promotional articles under cover of autopatrolled? (I think we may hand out autopatrolled too easily.) Perhaps you want to take it to Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody? Bishonen | talk 11:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC).

I would say it would be worthwhile in this and all cases but it would be a lot of work. My guess is those who are good at finding behavioral evidence at SPI would be good at it, since checking is looking for evidence of either a break and change in pattern or tone of writing (serial) or a kind of 'multiple-personality' (parallel) what to look for. Mostly I think just getting the possibility on the radar of those who do the investigations would be most effective in terms of effort but, as far as I know we do not have a collection of standard procedures for COI investigations where this could be discusses. Is LTA Orangemoody the place?

I agree that autopatroled is too easy to get and no one seems to check if it is being abused. I feel that sooner or later we will collapse under the weight of our own anarchy. If it was not anarchy it would not be Wikipedia though so...  :) Jbh^Talk 11:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Request

Hi Bishonen, i wrote the following on Salvio's page: Request. Please let me know whether you agree to my mentioning India and Indians on the TP of Voltaire for the reason i give. (As per Salvio it is the banning Admin who can give the relief i seek, and you are the Admin who imposed the sanction on me.) Soham321 (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Soham. I would have been happy to let Salvio decide this, but since he has lobbed it back to me,[13] I have to tell you I'm not inclined to lift the ban for such a purpose. That's because I'm having some trouble following your argument for it. You've proposed on Talk:Voltaire that the sentence "According to William Cohen, like most other polygenists, Voltaire believed that because of their different origins blacks did not entirely share the natural humanity of whites" should be removed from the article. And the reason you give is that "Cohen is not substantiating his claim by giving reference to Voltaire's writing". You're not supposed to argue with a secondary source based on your own original research. The strange thing to me is that when a user (Carlstak, who unfortunately didn't sign) answered you on that talkpage that yes, Voltaire expressed some very racist views, and gave examples from Voltaire's texts, you replied that he, Carlstak, doesn't get to use primary sources (=Voltaire's texts) to refute you. And yet it looks in your post on Salvio's page[14] as if that's exactly what you yourself propose doing. How is it that you know Carlstak doesn't get to do that, and yet you propose doing it yourself? Especially since Carlstak was merely arguing with you, whereas you would be arguing with a published secondary source. Moreover, Cohen's sentence was about racism wrt blacks. If it was the case that Voltaire had a completely different view of Indians than of Africans, it's not really relevant to the Cohen quote. Bringing in the subjects of India and Indians here would be very tenuously relevant, and, as the admin who imposed your topic ban, I'm not inclined to lift it for such a purpose. Since Salvio won't make the call (presumably per arbcom rules, isn't allowed to make the call), I'm afraid you'll have to go via WP:AE or WP:AN or WP:ARCA if you're not satisfied with my decision. Bishonen | talk 13:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

I am going to make one last effort to change your mind before i decide whether to appeal your decision. First, i would not have quoted Voltaire using a primary source (i.e. taking an extract from Voltaire's writing myself from a book comprising of Voltaire's writing either in the original or in translation) as you seem to imagine. I would have used a secondary source for this purpose. Second, it is not my fault that in the quote or quotes of the secondary source that i wish to use for this purpose there is a reference to India or Indians also. Soham321 (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? Sorry, that's not what it sounded like to me. However. If you only quote secondary sources re Voltaire's putative racism, that happen to mention India/Indians, and don't yourself talk about the Indian aspect, I wouldn't mind that. But I frankly don't see what use that would be to you — I don't see how it could work. As soon as somebody starts to argue with you, you'd have to argue too. I'd rather not imagine having to monitor these conversations, and having to make one borderline call after the other. Frankly, Soham, don't you think you have pushed and chewed at the borders of your topic ban enough? Why in god's name can't you just give the subject a wide berth for six months (now just over four months remaining)? If you don't want to, then take it to AE and request a free pass for discussing Indian matters on Talk:Voltaire, because that's clearly what you'd need. I'd recommend AE, but since this seems to be important to you, you may want to consult an arb, such as Salvio, about which page he thinks would be best. AN and AE and ARCA will all work, they're all appropriate, but he may have advice about which would be the best for you. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) In addition to the issue of not arguing with secondary sources, the OR note added to the wikipedia article that Cohen does not substantiate his claim is simply false. See Cohen on page 88 for example. Abecedare (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

In fact it is Abecedare's claim that is simply false. Cohen refers to Voltaire's "racism" on three separate occasions on pages 86 and 88 of his book. The second time (on page 88) he gives a paragraph length supposed quotation from Voltaire without giving any reference. This is simply slipshod scholarship. The third time he gives a reference to a supposed letter written by Voltaire, but this is not clinching evidence considering that another letter of Voltaire supporting slavery has been challenged as a forgery (this is mentioned in the section on 'Views on Race and Slavery'. Additionally this letter of Voltaire endorsing slavery contradicts what Voltaire has written in the Philosophical Dictionary which is also mentioned in this section in Voltaire's WP page). But it is the earlier mention to Voltaire's comment on blacks on page 86 ("More commonly polygenists argued, as did Voltaire, that blacks, because they were separately created did not fully share in the common humanity of whites") which is being challenged here on the ground that Cohen is attributing a view to Voltaire without referring to Voltaire's writing or referring to any other authority. Soham321 (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, you really cannot criticise modern scholarship published by university presses just because you think it is "slipshod" work. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Being "challenged as a forgery" by some doesn't automatically mean that it is a forgery, just like the claim repeatedly made by some people that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery doesn't make him foreign born and a Muslim. So you can't say that Cohen's book has no value as a source just because some other scholars or whoever have challenged the authenticity of a letter by Voltaire that is mentioned in the book. Unless you can prove beyond doubt, supported by reliable sources, that the letter is a forgery. Thomas.W ^talk 16:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This is what actual scholars have to say about Cohen's book,

It provides the best available review of French thinking about race and slavery as it developed from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, and surveys the application of French ideas in West Africa and the West Indies...the initial response of French scholars was critical: they accused Cohen of unfairly stigmatizing French intellectuals as racist and of neglecting the French national tradition of tolerance and revolutionary heritage of fraternity. If Cohen's work seemed harsh on the French at the time it came out, at present it appears prescient in its identification of the stages in racial thinking. Work on the history of race and racism has confirmed the worldwide expansion of scientific racism; Cohen's strength is to identify the stages through which that expansion went for France... Cohen's study of French thinking,..., remains one of the strongest and most accessible treatments of this important topic.

The Seeber book that is the ultimate source of the objection Soham is citing dates back to 1937 and received pretty poor reviews for its bias and holes even then. Based on this (admittedly small) sample size, I am seeing similar issues with Soham's editing at Voltaire as I had observed at Charvaka-related pages: ignoring modern scholarship based on personal POV and flawed reading of primary and outdated sources. Someone more interested in the area should review Soham's other edits to the page. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure how or why Abecedare is claiming that i am citing or relying upon some book written by Seeber; i am doing no such thing. Abecedare is welcome to have a problem with my editing just as i have a problem with his editing when, to give one example, he used WP:FRINGE sources like Klostermaier and Elst in making certain assertions in the past. (To be fair to him, Abecedare claimed he was relying on Klostermaier, and when i pointed out that according to his WP page Klostermaier is a fringe source, he claimed he had confused Klostermaier with Elst. I did not have the heart to tell him that, according to WP, Elst is also a fringe source.) Soham321 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

What you think about Abecedare is utterly irrelevant to the question of Voltaire's attitude to race, so drop that line. If you're not relying on Seeber, then what source(s) are you relying on for your dismissal of Cohen's work? That's a simple question and needs an equally simple answer from you. --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Can spare Bishonen the talk-page traffic and discuss the content issues at the article talkpage. I must say that from what I have reviewed, I find Soham's edits to the Voltaire article quite troubling (see article talkpage for details). Abecedare (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If you were that concerned about 'Shonen's talk page traffic, you could have spared her the three posts you've already made in this section. Let me remind you that the talk page at Voltaire is for discussing improvements to the Voltaire article. The thread here, howsoever inappropriately placed, focusses on Shonen's topic ban of Soham. While it is ongoing here, all of her many talk page watchers will be able to see clearly how inappropriate it would be to relax the ban, considering Soham's inability to properly use sources and his reliance solely on his own opinion in order to dismiss a published secondary source. That should seal the fate of his appeal. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Voltaire Appeal

Hi Bishonen, I have made the appeal at WP:AE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Voltaire

Since you were the Banning Admin, i seek your help in proceeding with the appeal. Thanks. Soham321 (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I am having difficulty with this WP:AE appeal. In particular i think my appeal needs to be put in another section but i am unable to do so. I am unable even to perform any tweaks on my appeal. Soham321 (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you put it in the template. I've added an appeal to the clerks to help you format it and put it in the right place. I'll put a note on the clerks' talkpage, too. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

Done, but I don't suppose they're necessarily reading that page every five minutes. Talkpage stalkers to the rescue, please? I really don't have time right now, nor am I much use with the templatefests that are arb pages. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. Soham321 (talk)

It should be all set now. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio giuliano. Soham321 (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Problem? Which one?

[15] My problem is I thought Cameron Diaz was so amusing in My Best Friend's Wedding that I just had to share [16]; thought I'd see if I like this place or not, and nine and a half years I seem to still be here. (Haven't decided yet.) Ineffable.

By the way, good call on the ANI break -- I managed to go 6 April to 22 August with only 6 edits, and 3 of them were mostly just to tell tps's that I wasn't dead or anything. Problem is, when you go back, ANI seems even more absurd than when you left it. NE Ent 22:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a content contribution to I Say a Little Prayer, so obviously your account was compromised at some point during or after 2006. I've blocked it. That's your problem, impostor. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC).

Hello again

Hi Bishonen, sorry to bother you once more. I want to fix the infobox of Mario Vargas Llosa in regards to his spouses which shows as only spouse when it should show as spouse(s). There seems to be some trick in the infobox edit that if you add something extra (which I did: (s)) to the word spouse in the infobox, it doesn't show when you click save edit. And on other notes, I have a feeling user JuanRiley has been stalking my edits on articles such as France, United Kingdom and the American Civil War and more recently in the talk page of an article recently edited by me. And all this since our first dispute. Although he doesn't seem to do much to my edits, the idea of him stalking me is kinda creepy. (N0n3up (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC))

Not sure it should be "spouses" unless we're talking polygamy. Anyway, I'm rotten with infoboxes, pinging RexxS. About the "creepy": a) he may have similar interests as you, and b) the "contributions" button is there for a reason. If people don't "do much to your edits", ignore them, don't keep count of where they turn up (you don't want to be a reverse stalker, do you?). And frankly, they'd have to do some consistently bad stuff to your edits for me to be interested. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC).

I don't think it has to be labelled "Spouses", as he was only married to them one at a time. I think it reads okay either way. But if you really want the label to read "Spouses", then {{infobox writer}} allows you to do this by changing the parameter in the infobox from |spouse= to |spouses=. You can't assume that every type of infobox will offer that facility, though. P.S. I changed the article to use {{ubl}} (unbulleted list) for the lists instead of making line breaks with <br> - it's much kinder to screen-reader users. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

RexxS I didn't wan't to put it as "spouses" but as "spouse(s)", which seems to be the normal version because "spouse", as it appears on MVLL's article doesn't seem like the normal version. I was aiming for versions such as in David Cameron's or Francisco Franco's infobox where it shows as "spouse(s)". And thanks for the adjustments on the article. (N0n3up (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC))

Both David Cameron and Francisco Franco use {{infobox officeholder}} which only has the |spouse= option; that then produces the label Spouses(s) regardless of the number of spouses. The only 'normal' version would be {{infobox person}}, but article writers want more specialised infoboxes at times, hence {{infobox writer}} is used in MVLL, whereas DC & FF use {{infobox officeholder}}, There is no mechanism to ensure that each different type of infobox is consistent with all the others in the labels it uses. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Condoning Bullying

I have not really been around for weeks, indeed months, but I have been suffering regular harassment from Jbhunley, and you and others seem to be condoning his behaviour. It is never acceptable for someone to give another person unwanted attention for months on end.

• Many of the articles he nominates for deletion should be tagged, not deleted. Wikipedia needs improvement, not amputation.
• The number of my articles he has nominated is well up in double figures.
• He does not seem to read or research the articles he nominates properly.
• He does not have much or any knowledge about some of the thousands of articles he nominates.
• He seems to have no understanding that people have lives off Wikipedia. I cannot spend SIX HOURS dealing with one of his mistakes.

You seem to have little understanding of what "personal abuse" is. Coming back after weeks, or even months, and finding someone is still trawling through my user history and leaving messages on my page - that is personal abuse. If he is acting within the rules, it is about time the rules were changed. Wikipedia was not set up to be a toxic environment, full of cliques, it is supposed to be the encyclopedia "anyone can edit".-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)