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

Oops, need a header here

May you have very Happy Holidays, Bish,

and a New Year filled with peace, happiness, and...

a bit of panettone!

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

[Bishonen, who is a diabetic, embiggens the panettone image and stares at it entranced. It's one of the most delicious-looking things she has ever seen.] A bit of? Can't I have the whole thing please, little Tenor? Bishonen | talk 20:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC).

And I want it embiggened right here. Mmmmmmmmmmmm. All the little talkpage stalkers can have a thin slice, in the spirit of Christmas. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC).

• No, you may not have the whole thing, only a bit, although here's a girl clearly intending to have it all, and a little boy who's mighty chuffed with his. The very best ones with that yummy almond glaze are made by Galup in Pinerolo. Here they are, trundling out of the Galup ovens. Italy's Tiny Little King was reportedly very fond of Galups. Voceditenore (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Holidays Bish

Happy Holidays Bish!

Hi Bishonen. I just wanted to take the time to say thanks for being a good and honest to me in my beginning steps in Wikipedia, always doing the right thing. And for being an honest Admin, being the only admin I know who shows their block log and activity for transparency. And wanted to wish you Happy holidays :) (N0n3up (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC))

Merry Christmas to you too, thanks for the tree! I actually stole the idea of having a link to my admin action log from Everyking. Bishonen | talk 09:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC).

BLPN

I saw your note, Bishonen. Thing is, Rick Allan Ross has been attempting to whitewash his article for a very long time, and I'm not the only one that saw this either. He's posted on numerous forums to get others to help him, this is , more or less, disruptive behavior. Now, I'm not going to say he's violating some policy , however, what I will say, is, the disruption needs to stop, if he needs to be T-Banned, then he needs to be T-Banned, although I would hate to see that happen, if it needs to happen, then so be it. Just check his contributions and you'll see that he's constantly attempting to whitewash his article. By the way, you said that I said to ignore him, I actually never said that, so I'm not sure where that came from. Also, my edit summary is stating a fact, nothing more, further, I'm curious about the discretionary sanction notice you placed on his page, my actions are not disruptive, I've edited Rick Allan Ross's article a grand total of 1 time and have spoken about him on the BLP 1 time and have posted on Winkelvi's page 2 or 3 times, none of that should have merited that banner, so what's up with that ? KoshVorlon 12:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary that I linked to was nasty, and violated WP:NPA: you've been here a long time, you probably know the NPA policy says prominently "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Original bolding. You did the opposite when you reverted Rick Alan Ross. Even so, the discretionary sanctions alert I placed states explicitly that "it does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date."

As for ignoring Rick Alan Ross, that was Winkelvi talking about that on your page ("I still believe it is best to ignore him"). I was replying to Winkelvi, under whose post I posted, and whose name I said, to ping him. Then I started to speak to you, and said your name. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Bishonen | talk 12:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC).

Try this again

Bishonen,

My firewall (at work) is blocking me from replying, so I start a new section (sorry about that, the firewall's out of my hands ). Actually, I didn't think my comment violated NPA as I was stating a true statement, and not actually directed to anyone. As a matter of fact, it's absolutely true that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to simply change the article because Rick Allan Ross says we have to, that being said, when I looked back at my edit summary, I can see where you might have gotten the idea that it violated NPA, because it could look like I was responding to the last editor's changes, that would be NPA. Thing is , I wasn't, all in all, it's just a misunderstanding, very much like when you placed the Discretionary Sanction banner on my page. I took it to be a response to my editing, but as you state, it wasn't, it was a caution message. So , at the end of the day, it was a missunderstanding between us. KoshVorlon 14:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	Wishing you a Charlie Brown Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)

Thank you very much! Bishonen | talk 17:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC).

Best of the Season to you

		Merry Christmas!
		Merry Christmas Bish and a Happy and Prosperous New Year! Dr. K. 22:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Bishonen | talk 17:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC).

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Bishonen | talk 17:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC).

You're very welcome :) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Monster mad

Master have "fail" at wishing holiday greetings. Me take control of his 'puter. Little monster want to make good wishes to Bishonen and most beautiful creature. Also wish best to little ankle biter and entire family. ChedZILLA

Thank you very much, young Chedzilla! Bishonen | talk 17:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC).

Season's greetings

Hi Bish, all the best to you for Christmas and the New Year! SarahSV ^(talk) 07:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, SarahSV! The lutfisk with mustard I had for Christmas may not be "the best" for you 'murricans, but I quite like it! People can probably get used to eating absolutely anything, if it's introduced early in life. Bishonen | talk 17:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC).

Re: Your unilateral decision to topic ban me

First of all, you are incorrect that RAR has never edited the article. He has edited in the past with different accounts. I ask that you perform due diligence and look into the editing history of the article going back to when it was created. He has edited with both a named account as and IPs. This has been established in previous discussions at the article talk page.

Secondly, the only so-called "attacks" were made prior to your warning to me at my talk page. My follow-up comments on other talk pages and BLPN as well as my own talk page since your warning were clear to state that I was trying to apply AGF with him. The comments I made to him and about him as an editor after your warning were observations and never ever designed or intended to be attacks. I'm sorry you were so offended by my comments to him about "my bio", but I honestly don't see how those particular comments - when read totally in context and with objective eyes - can be seen as an attack when they were offered as AGF advice.

Lastly, discretionary sanctions of any kind are always a black mark on an editor going forth. I request that you allow me the opportunity to self-monitor rather than having such sanctions imposed. Further, how I have edited the article has never been an issue other than the slight back and forth between me and two other editors a couple of days ago. If you take notice, I have not engaged in anything that could be considered disruptive at the article since your warning at my talk page. I continue to have no intention of editing there in a manner that could be considered disruptive and will keep that resolve from here on out.

One more lastly: Please note and realize that my comments to the article subject were not in regard to the article subject but in regard to what I (and several others) have seen as disruptive behavior by the article subject as a registered editor. He continues to be a single purpose account with no indication that he ever intends to be an actual editor contributing to Wikipedia beyond his continual requests and demands for changes at the article about him. It would seem to me, that because my comments have been to and about Rick Alan Ross the editor, these sanctions are not in line with policy. I have not, and never will, disparage RAR the article subject. That in mind, don't editors have a right as well as a responsibility to bring up issues with an editor who is and always has been a SPA trying to keep the article on them as complimentary as possible? Indeed, there are discussions at the article talk page now (and have been continually in the past) about RAR's repeated and continual requests for this and that to be taken out of the article. One look at the article talk page in its current state as well as its history and it's easy to see that several editors have felt exactly as I do. My concerns are not just well-founded, they are and have been shared by other editors.

Adding to my concerns over your unilateral topic ban decision is this statement from you: "I have exemplified in several warnings how you have made up "policy" out of whole cloth and bashed Rick Alan Ross over the head with it. This has gone far enough." I have NEVER made up policy. I may have misunderstood policy and/or misstated policy according to my understanding of it, but making it up? No way. I would never do such a thing. You really need to think about walking this back as it is a very serious charge in my eyes. Being called an intentional liar is something I don't appreciate. I challenge you to find one instance in the 3+ years I've been here where deception has ever been something lodged against me, proven, and made to stick. I, madam, am simply not one who deals in dishonesty.

Another concern is this: "I believe you when you say your intentions are good and you have nothing against Ross; but it really doesn't make any difference at this stage". And why doesn't it matter? You are telling me I must exercise good faith toward Ross at any cost, regardless of any evidence indicating good faith may not be appropriate. But even when you admit I have good intentions, in the next breath you then say my good intentions don't matter and I am still to be disbelieved and distrusted as well as sanctioned. The discrepancy and lack of logic in this reasoning is not only blinding, it's tells me you have made this a personal thing based on emotions you have against me because of my vocal objections to Ross' behavior as an editor and the single purpose of his account here.

"This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator" Because of what seems to be your emotional and personal response and subsequent topic ban based on same, I don't see how you qualify as an uninvolved administrator. From WP:INVOLVED, I quote: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." While you have stayed away from the RAR article and editor talk pages, your strong feelings as expressed in the sanction notification you left on my talk page shows you have VERY strong feelings about me and my comments regarding RAR the editor. Indeed, comments from you such as " the last straw for me", "I will not put up with..." prove this is personal for you. That personalizing is not only inappropriate language for a sanction, it's inappropriate for an administrator making any kind of long-standing/indefinite block or banning decision.

Regardless, I want you to know that I acknowledge and will take to heart your concerns about my comments regarding RAR the editor. As stated above, however, I don't believe you are looking at things objectively and probably need to extend some AGF my direction. Not once have you asked me where I'm coming from, you've only read what I wrote, made accusations, and then this sanction was handed down in a very personal manner.

At any rate, thanks for considering my appeal here - it is offered with the utmost sincerity and honesty. I have no hard feelings toward you because of it, but I am confused and concerned at how it all went down. If I don't hear from you on this in a day or so, I will take this elsewhere. Not because I want to make waves or do any damage to your reputation as an admin, but because I think this needs more eyes and opinions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you have posted this appeal on your own page as well. I think I'll respond there. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC).

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Based on the TBAN you imposed on me, I have opened an appeal here at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. This is the required notification. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Holidays

User:Denisarona (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Happy New Year!

Denisarona (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hi, Denis, thanks! That reminds me I had the pleasure of blocking Deni5aroma a week or so ago, before they even edited.[1] A friend of yours, I presume. Bishonen | talk 17:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC).

Winkelvi

Are you proposing to undo Winkelvi's ban completely? Removing it from the log would do that. Do you then consider it a voluntary restriction? Can you clarify at AE? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess our messages crossed, Ed, sorry. OK, I've removed it from the log and made yet another note at WP:AE. It's quite clear now, I hope. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC).

Do I need to do anything at the appeal (like state I'm rescinding the appeal as a response to the sanction being rescinded)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it would make sense if you put something like "I'm withdrawing this request since the ban has now been withdrawn" right at the top of your statement. Make it visible, for instance use italics, and sign it. Bishonen | talk 20:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	And I didn't even know!! A million thanks (maybe it was a fan!!!) Denisarona (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

While you rejected my informal appeal, you came up with a good solution and compromise a bit later. This barnstar doesn't speak specifically to how the whole thing resolved, but I think it gets the point across. I know I'm not the easiest person to work with in this environment, so I sincerely thank you for your spirit of resolution and willingness to trust my word. I won't forget it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia

Hi Bish. I downloaded an image (actually a GIF to be exact) from Wikimedia for brief use in a class presentation. And was wondering if there is a risk of virus or any personal info being stolen or shown. Or if there is any risk by downloading anything from Wikimedia. Just wondering. (N0n3up (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC))

There are no certainties when it comes to security problems, but it is very unlikely that a computer with updated software would have a problem with a .gif image. Anyone can upload files to Wikipedia or to WP:Wikimedia Commons and such files could contain any junk. However, it is a fairly safe bet that once a month or so has passed, any problems would have been noticed. WP:Reference desk/Computing is a good place for general computing questions. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Good job there are some well-informed people stalking the pages of the ignorant. Thanks, John. Bishonen | talk 09:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC).

Gott Nytt År!...

		Gott Nytt År!  !!!!
		Wishing you a Gott Nytt År and all best wishes for the New Year! And some drinks! Hafspajen (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

I do apologise for vandalising your userpage. I did that in order to draw your attention because I would be interested into knowing why you didn't report me for my alleged sockpuppetery? Tony Abigail (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I have sent the person off indefinitely. Would be marginally useful to know if he's a sock or not, but it won't really change anything. Favonian (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Favonian. What an unusual way to "draw my attention", Tony Abigail. BTW, "insist", as in "she insisted that she would assume I am a sockpuppet", usually means somebody has said something several times. I hadn't. I had shared my thought process with you, once. I didn't do anything about it, such as block or report you. I agree with Floquenbeam. Goodbye. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC).

(talk page stalker)...calling someone a Jew hater as a way of grabbing their attention is sick and slanderous. It's unbecoming for anyone to say such a thing, let alone someone who professes to be a police officer. Cassianto^Talk 21:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Korean warning?

Would you mind handing out some form of warning at user talk:166.48.75.250? The same IP has added opinionated rants in article space at gimbap and bulgogi despite being informed about guidelines and policies.

Love the snowman, btw. Gud jol in efterskott and grått nytt hår.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Grey new hair to you too, Peter. Bishonen | talk 08:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC).

IP 166.48.75.250 created an account Wikibreaking and reverted again.[2] I reported to WP:AN/3. However regardless of the result, some sanction is required for the disruptive editing.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Gnu Ear Greetings

	Hopp(y) Gnu Ear
	Hoppy Gnu Ear to you! Hoppy Gnu Ear to you! Be Safe! Buster Seven Talk 07:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Bishonen!

Happy New Year!

Bishonen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

.

Happy New Year!

Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 17:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Bishonen!

Happy New Year!

Bishonen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Class455fan1 (talk to me) 18:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

Question

Does it make any difference from what decision a DS authorization stems from when it comes to what may be addressed at enforcement? Maybe some drama could have been saved if I asked that question earlier on... Also, I never did get an answer to my actual question about whether anyone can place a DS template on an article subject to DS but not so tagged. Can anyone do it or must an admin? Thanks and have a wonderful New Year! Jbh^Talk 03:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it makes a difference, Jbh. Any disruption of a BLP, no matter from what direction, is sanctionable per the BLP discretionary sanctions. For instance, if a scientologist should come to Rick Alan Ross or its talkpage, and persistently edit in a way to try to skew the scientology-related material, they could be topic banned from it on the discretion of a single admin, simply because it's a BLP. Is that the kind of scenario you had in mind when you asked at WT:RFAR? As for adding a DS template… hmmm… not sure I understand you. How would the putative person be sure the article was subject to DS? I don't think a single individual could do that. (It doesn't make any difference if they're an admin, either.) There's often argument about whether DS are applicable to a particular article. Not for BLPs, of course, but pseudoscience is a classic example. I'm not sure how it's decided. Perhaps a good oldfashioned edit war could settle it… (Sorry, who said that? Get out of my head, User:Darwinbish!) The safest thing might be to ask at WP:ARCA. But, as I said, since all BLP's are under discretionary sanctions anyway, it doesn't matter in this case.

About why your question above looked weird once you saved it — yeah, it's all the templates with good wishes of the season, they tend to bleed over into other posts. See me ask for help on User talk:RexxS, where similar things had happened. User:Pigsonthewing has fixed it — thank you, Andy. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC).

Talking about fixing things, sorry, but this edit will not ping. The rules are beyond human comprehension, but editing a comment (even with a new signature) does not trigger a notification. That's pretty reasonable because someone might have pinged hald a dozen people, then correct some typos, and the system should not resend all the pings. If it were smarter, it would know whether it had sent a ping, but it has no knowledge of that. In short, to fix a ping you need to add a new comment underneath. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for ©@£$∞§|[]≈´±≈[|§∞$¢‰¶\{¶‰¢¥... thank you, John. Never mind about the pinging, I'm sure Jbh is keeping an eye on this section. Oh, look, guess what, I just… yeah. :-) Bishonen | talk 00:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks... Yeah I was hoping that having a Scientology notice would help put editors and admins on notice that more subtle shenagans then you might typically see at a BLP might be going on (in the future). For instance; There are some, rather nasty, RS that may be sponsored by Scientology or other cults and there are others that may be simply negative but not hit pieces; there also have apairently been dirty tricks like impersonation of the subject. I made the silly assumption that a BLP where the article had been a subject in the Scientology case and the editor who is the article's subject had a finding and remedy naming him (because of the impersonation question) would uncontrovercialy fall under the DS of that case. Silly me... it seems that in fact what I was doing was implementing a nefarious plot! </sarcasm>.

I will look at the page history to see what the templateproblem was - I have seen unclosed templates eating new posts but that was new to me. Maybe I will learn something since anything I learn about html at all is new to me :) Jbh^Talk 12:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Right. I tried to fix it myself by adding a </div> and a {{-}} to the last template above you — right at the outer edge of my html competence, that — but I never dreamed there might be more </div>'s needed higher up. Just look at all the little edits Pigsonthewing made! Bishonen | talk 12:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC).

Wow! I would say that makes me a feel little less dumb but I can not even guess why all of those errors would be silent until finally getting to my post. I guess I angered the html gods - at least angering great powers makes more sense to me than div, class and span; or maybe it was not the gods but the Platonic Ideals DIV, CLASS and SPAN whose imperfect reflection failed when projected into this imperfect software we call wiki; or maybe I just do not know crap about html; or - yeah that's it... magic! :) Jbh^Talk 13:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like they were all silent until there was a regular post such as yours — as long as the next post also had div in it, no harm was done. Mind you, that's not an explanation, I don't profess to understand it. On another note, I understand you guys think the Jason Scott case is important and needs to be in the lead, but isn't the paragraph about it rather long? Relatively speaking. Counting words, it's more than half the lead. (81 words out of 154.) Is it more than half of the man's notability? Bishonen | talk 16:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC).

The Scott case is what first built his name followed by Waco. Most of the other mentions of him in the press are 'talking head' type reports - and there are a lot of those. If we mention there was a judgement against him he wants the final settlement in the lead and that takes a lot of text to avoid the impression the original judgement was excessive when what happened is Jason Scott went from being represented by a Scientology lawyer to being represented by a lawyer who had worked with one of the co-defendants, CAN, in the past. (The judge had this to say ""The court notes each of the defendants seeming incapability of appreciating the maliciousness of their conduct towards Mr Scott... Thus the large amount....". and "...intentionally or recklessly acted in a way so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." That is informing my editorial judgement in this article.) I would say there have been 3 or 4 threads in the last six months about how much to include. Late last month the lead was [3] and it had been stable for a while but it did not mention the criminal case. I think the most recent expansion was as part of bringing the Scott section in line with the Jason Scott case article.

Much of the tension seems to be between Scott/Waco being his primary notability and his recently (re)launched cult database site being his primary notability and a bit around any author who is critical being a cult apologist or single biased person vs being a large segment of the commentators and the author of the Federal investigative report. The problem with drawing the line with those is some are/could be hit pieces or they could just be people who really disagree. It is great to have Ross' insight into when we need to pay special attention to sources so in that his participation is particularly valuable.

It would be a thorny article even without the subject of the article being massively involved and I (with three other editors in the last week) have clearly stated to Ross that he should step back because the talk page is well in its way to becoming toxic simply from the shear volume of his posts. I have hopes things will settle out and the WP:CRUSHing will end once he understands that SELFPOV is not NPOV and no one at the talk page is out to smear him. On the other hand I also have a fear that the WP:CRUSH tactics could be a conscious reputation management strategy that no confidence building will temper, even in an environment of entirely calm waters. Jbh^Talk 18:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jbh: Regarding who can place DS banners on articles: this is unclear. Why not propose such a banner at WP:AE, and AE would figure it out. In practice, my guess is that most banners are placed by admins. In the case of the RAR article, there was no burning need to add a notice of the Scientology DS. If I saw an article being newly-targeted by obvious single-purpose accounts with a certain POV I might scurry to add a DS banner, assuming there were relevant sanctions. Warning people who haven't arrived yet seems a bit hasty, when you don't yet have an example of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thank you, that is good to know. I really thought it was a no brainer and a simple technical question of who can place the notices since he and his BLP were subjects of that case - foolish, foolish me. Anyway it is not really a big issue now, there is a notice linked to NEWBLPBAN and that should help address the concerns about people (ie cults) targeting his BLP. Personally I think noting Scientology would have been useful (or New Religious Movements - even better - if that combining motion proposed a few months ago had passed) to let people know it is at risk of more concerted and subtle manipulation because it may be targeted by cults as opposed to individuals. Not enough for AE on this one though, much drama for no real benefit to the article. I will keep AE in mind if such an issue comes up again. Happy new year! Jbh^Talk 19:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bish!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Bish, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! And the dinos sing: "Du käre lille snickerbo' her kommer jag igjen ..." ;) Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 05:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

• Thanks, Sam Sailor! Cool dinos. The theme reminds me of my favorite Christmas card ever. Note my family member User:Bishapod (at least, it's very close to the way Bishapod looks) at the head of the evolving reindeer! Bishonen | talk 17:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC).

To all the well-wishers

Happy new year to you too, @Winkelvi, Cullen328, Buster7, Poepkop, Rms125a@hotmail.com, BabbaQ, and Class455fan1: thank you very much for all the fine greetings! Bishonen | talk 17:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC).

IP troll

Hi Bishonen, I saw that you just blocked 46.233.116.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - could you extend the same courtesy to 46.233.116.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who is continuing the trolling? Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 19:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the range 46.233.116.0/23. Please let me know if you should see more, bonadea. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC).

Thank you!

Thank you for blocking User:46.233.116.166. I was going through recent changes and noticed this guy did a lot of vandalization of people's talk pages. I tried to replace them with proper welcome pages, but having to go through all of pages and change every single one was a pain. Hopefully he wont be back for a while.
Have a cookie for your good work

Asm20 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

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

Thanks very much, User:Asm20. The remainder have been nuked and even more rangeblocked (vandalbot), see [4]. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC).

Templates

Fair enough, I'll try to add more detail in the future. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That was quick! Bishonen | talk 22:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC).

Happy New Year, Bishonen!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Bishonen, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Hi

This is just one of many highly inflammatory comments this user has made. I just do not understand the need for such behavior. Regards, --BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And unbeknownst to me when sending my first comment you about this, another editor has also raised his opposition towards this very uncalled for and baiting comment here. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved however marginally (and it isn't really) with The Rambling Man. Sorry, Babba. Bishonen | talk 12:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your help with the Snohomish County page and the tips on how to do it right.

SnoCoReporter (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Lol, thank you, SnoCoReporter, very cute. Linking all those newspaper names may be overdoing it. The principle is that redlinks (showing that an article doesn't exist) are fine, but only for items that may reasonably get their own article at some later stage, i. e. if they're notable. If they're mostly web newspapers, Wikipedia:Notability (web) might be the page to look at to decide about notability. (But nobody expects you to do all that research — do it if you're interested.) If you conclude some of them are notable, perhaps you might even like to create the relevant article/s? Bishonen | talk 14:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

IP block

Hi. Could this IP please be blocked. They have been warned twice including a final warning and they have continued to be disruptive and vandalise. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, DaHuzyBru, my grip on sports is so weak I can't even tell for sure whether that's vandalism or not. Please take it to the WP:AIV page. Bishonen | talk 15:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

Self-Requested Block

Hi Bish, Can you please block me until Friday at 12:30pm UK time? I would've done the WikiBreak enforcer, however i don't want to be locked out of my account forever if i get it wrong. I've read your policy on your self requested blocks, and I'm happy to be Hard-Blocked. I just need to focus on my exams and get the grades i want until Friday, and try not to edit, so thats why I'm asking Class455fan1 (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Right. I usually like to wait 24 hours after a request before I block, to give upset people a chance to change their mind, but this is a different kind of situation. You have been blocked. (Actually for 60 hours from now, the closest I could conveniently get.) Good luck with the exams. Bishonen | talk 22:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

See?!

Do you see what I deal with?! ;) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Masochist. I noticed that person because the other person, WillShowU, complained that we only went after him. So help me, I'll block Chanakya Knights if he keeps editing without edsums. I wonder if that's ever been done? Bishonen | talk 20:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC).

Sockpuppet investigations of Gon266

Given you were involved in reverting the disruptive edits to Austenasia, I thought it might be good to notify you of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gon266.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 03:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

WillShowU

Hi B, predictably, WillShowU hasn't bothered to reply to any of my last three comments on his talk page. I'm not so much requesting any action yet, only keeping you apprised.

The Indian film article world is so bizarre. You get so many editors who seem obsessed about finding the next highest, or newest guess. They're all guesses! "Box Office India's guess is better than Bollywood Hungama's guess!" Mind-boggling... Although in some cases, I know that they're getting paid to do that. Thanks, and I hope your weekend is setting up to be nice. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I should mention, WikiBriefed is off his block. He's doing more rambling than WillShowU was doing. Might be different people, although I still think there's a very strong behaviorial similarity. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I see WikiBriefed editing an archive, I'll drop him a line. What I don't quite understand is why he was gone for so long. He was only blocked for 48 hours in November. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC).

BTW, Cyphoidbomb, I see from WB's page that you are apparently an SRK hater. What's SRK? Bishonen | talk 15:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC).

P.S. I've indeffed Chanakya Knights. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC).

I had problems with Chanakya at the beginning but they seemed to stablilize. Not sure what his deal is. Obviously he's silent. Tended to focus on constant box office gross updating. WikiBriefed is erroneously accusing me of having a bias against Shah Rukh Khan, one of the biggest male actors in Indian cinema. People call him SRK for short. FYI, I'm not Indian and I don't watch Indian films. I've seen a few in the span of my life, but it's not something I'm going out of my way to do. They're far too long and many are shameless ripoffs of popular US films. While it might sound silly for people to fight over actors, Wiki-senetor was one such editor who went through ridiculous sockpuppet efforts to put the name of his favorite actor, Monhanlal, before the name of another popular actor, Mammootty, in articles, lists and even in this category. Sigh... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

History merging

Are you comfortable doing history merging of articles?

I am going through old lingering drafts, finding a few candidates for this, either because the author cut-and-pasted a draft into main space after it had been modified by others or because the draft is superior to an article on the same subject in main space.

If not, can you refer me to an administrator who has experience with this process? --Hegvald (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think history merging is my one fancy trick. :-) It's been a while, but as long as it's just a regular straight up-and-down history merge, I can surely do it. Famous last words, possibly... but tell me what you've got and I'll have a go. Bishonen | talk 15:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC).

How about moving Draft:Kalahari Debate to Kalahari Debate and merging its history there? The original author, Losskakel (talk · contribs), bypassed the AFC process by pasting the article directly into main space (which is fine in itself) but the draft version that was copy-pasted into article space included several substantial edits by Ninafundisha (talk · contribs) who isn't given due credit now. --Hegvald (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean the texts are identical, Hegvald? Or, if not, is it the text at the draft that should end up as the article, with the history fully crediting all contributors to both versions? I can do that. Bishonen | talk 15:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC).

In this case, it is the same, or very nearly the same, text in the final version of the draft as in the first version of the main space article, but this was a result of Ninafundisha's pre-move editing which now isn't given credit because of the cut-and-paste method of the move. So it is only a matter of joining the history to the article where it belongs. Not to revert the text to the draft version. Not sure if I made myself any clearer now... --Hegvald (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. Look at the article history now. :-) I'll just take a look at what should best be done with the talkpages... I think I'll just merge them by hand (there's different text on them), then delete the draft version. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC).

Done, with credit given. Bishonen | talk 16:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks! I'll probably be back. Cutting-and-pasting a declined draft seems not so unusual, but in some other cases I have seen there are no substantial cotributions from others, so no need for attribution (cf Draft:Marian Pepler & Marian Pepler, Draft:Allen Sarlo & Allen Sarlo). --Hegvald (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, welcome back any time, Hegvald. There's so much stuff I don't know how to do around here that performing the old history merge always sets me up. (As long as it's nice and simple like yours. Getting entangled in a complicated one and needing to be rescued doesn't do a thing for me.) Bishonen | talk 20:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC).

Another one: Draft:Jack R. Norton appears to contain the early history of Jack R. Norton. The first edit of Jack R. Norton appears largely to be identical in wording to the declined version of the draft from 11 days earlier (see also the edit summary at creation of the latter).

Is it possible to only merge the first two or three edits of the draft? The rest are of no use from an attribution point of view and will just mess up the history of the article. --Hegvald (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, no — I don't know how to do that. Also, I don't agree it would do any harm to simply merge the whole histories. You mean it would be messy to see "submission declined" and "speedy postponed" in the history? It does no harm IMO, and could turn out to be of interest, e. g. if the article should be AfD'd in the future. I'm against removing information. Of course I agree it's the early history that matters — the fact that Krenny4 created it. BTW I see Smokefoot is an active editor — maybe you want to ask him nicely to move, not paste, drafts by others to article space? And please let me know if you'd like me to do a simple history merge. Bishonen | talk 10:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC).

I have no problem with including the decline, which has some value for the article history. I was actually thinking about my recent tiny edit to the draft, which will look like a very strange revert. But is probably a non-problem and can be explained with a null edit with an edit comment once the merger has taken place. --Hegvald (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, merged. I went to restore the good version, but I see you already did, so all's well, I think. Bishonen | talk 12:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Despite all the harassment you continue; very good! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Joshua! I really don't moult a feather just because some fleeting anon tries to mess with me. Bad and upsetting things can happen on Wikipedia, but that's not one of them: "Oh dear, I wonder if I might have blocked that character's obscene username straight from the user creation log? I must have done something right, anyway. Good." I hope you feel the same, because those sorts of attacks are really compliments. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC).

Help with a newbie, please

I am having some difficulties trying to help an inexperienced contributor who has taken offence at me massively pruning an article. I've userfied the old version, offered to advise etc but they're pretty upset and I wonder if you might be able to smooth things over. No worries if you're budy/not interested etc but the relevant discussion is at User_talk:Sunamikapreeti#Daya_Singh_Bedi. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Trouble in Bangladesh articles

Dear Bishonen, there is trouble brewing in some of the Bangladesh articles between two editors User:Akbar the Great and User:SheriffIsInTown and my efforts to calm the situation have borne no fruit. It probably started with Akbar's edits to Bangladesh and later Mukti Bahini, some of which Sheriff objected to. Then Akbar posted this note on the WikiProject Bangladesh talk page, which I thought was bit much. I reverted it, but it got reinstated. A discussion ensued at User_talk:SheriffIsInTown#Restoration_of_personal_attack, but it has done nothing but to inflame the situation further. I think an admin needs to take look, but most of the IPA-related admins are still away. Can you help? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

My concerns are with regard to the removal of content placed by me in the Bangladesh page's History section, which Sheriff continues to deduct on false grounds. The dispute covers many sentences on the status of the Pakistani union and issues of the 1971 genocide. Sheriff would remove any mention of economic neglect suffered by East Pakistan and 1971 atrocities.

My content has been supported by credible sources. Yet Sheriff contradicts sources, accuses me of misinterpretations, being "anti-Pakistan" and "against the Pakistani leadership" etc. I have endured such behaviour from him for three weeks. I attempted to discuss with him on the Bangladesh talk page. When I presented my arguments, he dismissed them as a different interpretation. Historical accuracy cannot have different interpretations! He simply dismisses their relevance on personal grounds, in contradiction of sources. The persistent stubborn position taken by Sheriff convinced me that he is either strongly politically or ideologically motivated.

I want peace in these articles. I have had enough. Although Sheriff and I have kept a distance from each other in the past few days, Vinegarymass911 and Kautilya began personal commentary on my the noticeboard posts in Sheriff's talk page, which indeed were unfortunate.--Akbar the Great (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, too ignorant. You'll have to find an admin who understands the history and the issues. Bishonen | talk 10:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC).

I'm not the one who asked for your help.--Akbar the Great (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.

Bishonen, Thank you for giving me an actual explanation as to what I did wrong. That is what I wanted. Now I am sorry, and I will refrain from doing it again. Memesarecool (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Happy editing. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC).

ARBIPA sanction

I don't know just what is going on here, but I am going to be adding more templates, tags to pages and editing some more outside "India" so that I don't keep bumping into your pal Sitush and just aim at being a good editor generally. Sigmabaroda (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears I've become so used to placing block notices using Twinkle that I forgot the arb enforcement template doesn't actually place the block. Fixed — you have been blocked. Sorry for the confusion. Bishonen | talk 10:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC).

User:Sigmabaroda

Please clarify. Is it correct that you intended to block User:Sigmabaroda, and, for technical reasons, your block template didn't initially block the user, so that they continued editing after they should have been blocked, and that the user is now blocked? In that case, the Third Opinion request really can be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it can. I intended to block the user but initially failed, not really for technical reasons but more because I'm scatterbrained. Compare my response to SB just above, and a rather more detailed response on their page. Bishonen | talk 15:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC).

As I thought. In that case, no need to offer Third Opinion. Third Opinion is only applicable when there are two good-standing editors, not three or four or one. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

email

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.

Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Got it and replied. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC).

WikiBriefed continued

Sigh... I think WikiBriefed needs a clear explanation about NPA since he is now accusing another editor of being a Shah Rukh Khan "hater".

What discussion Superhero (Salman fanatic) Sir? Why messing in pages of a guy you hate Sir?[5]

Thank you. Please Srk haters. Please stay away. Edit your idols aamir and salman pages. thanks again[6]

Thanks, and sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've warned him. I was sorely tempted to tell him to try to speak like a grown-up, which I suspect he's not. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC).

Wikibriefed started editing again, Cyphoidbomb, after, presumably, a pause for thought, and with civil edit summaries. This seems a little odd, though. I don't think Shah Rukh Khan himself can be called a cruel and clever bootlegger… and yet, the "character name" Abdul Latif that he removed is as such wrong — that's the real criminal the film is "loosely based on". The correct character name (it's supposed to be eponymous for Pete's sake) is presumably Raees Alam, as mentioned in the cast list… but Wikibriefed removed that as well... I thought maybe I'd correct a little — it's stupid to simply remove Abdul Latif, how can it be "not confirmed"? — and also remove the odd sentence "The film criticizes the prohibition of alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs in Gujarat" — does it really? the prohibition of illegal drugs? — which is unsourced, with a quite irrelevant source offered. But obviously I don't want to become, you know, involved, so I won't touch it. I'd better not look at any more sentences, I find it quite frustrating. We probably can't blame Wikibriefed for editing incompetently, it seems to be par for these articles. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC).

Taharrush gamea

Think you could take an administrative peek at taharrush gamea? There are IP-users adding all sorts of nonsense.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's much I can do as long as it's on AfD. But I notice the original stub was much better written. There is some very wonky English being added, apart from anything else. ("Sexual assault in company"? Are you kidding me?) I actually think the stub was a pretty reasonable article, but it's clearly a powerful magnet for… well, nonsense, and may be more trouble than it's worth. There's a complaint about the transciption on the AfD, but apart from that (which I can't judge), it seems a good candidate for redirecting to something or other. E.M.Gregory's suggestion strikes me favorably. Bishonen | talk 13:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC).

One of my friends is missing!

Where has that nice little puppy lady gone? I know she pops in here from time to time, for a glass of wine and rubber of bridge, but she seems to have gone missing. I don't like missing people - it takes me back to when one of our housemaids went missing in the shooting lodge, and we didn't find her until the grouse shooting started the next year - it was all very inconvenient. I don't normally care for Chihuahuas (nasty yappy little things), but I quite like her - so where is she? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please inform the The Lady Catherine de Burgh that Eddie's in the space time continuum, and I went to visit him for a brief spell. I shall attempt to be more available in the future. It touches my heart more than I can say that someone not only noticed, but has missed me. :-) KillerChihuahua 17:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You've been visiting the chrono-synclastic infundibulum, perhaps? Delighted to see you're not missing, and look forward to the future. . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Not outer space. The stars look very different since yesterday. Much sadder. KillerChihuahua 18:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Puppy! You know something else sad... I don't have CNN any more. I guess I won't be watching the upcoming Grand Debate live. :-( I do have access to the Daily Show, though (with some delay); they'll probably air the best bits. (Yes, yes, I know there's an internet out there. But I prefer TV.) Bishonen | talk 19:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC).

You can't find a streaming source online? Hrm... Wait a day or two and see if it's on YouTube en toto, perhaps? Make sure you have plenty of popcorn. KillerChihuahua 21:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The worst article on a Swedish topic?

Peter Estenberg. Is this the worst article here on a Swedish topic? Judging from edit comments in the history, it has been plagiarized from some amateur genealogy website. It uses extreme hyperbole and an "Infobox royalty" to describe what was in fact a circle of recently ennobled upstart families. It claims that Estenberg was ambassador to Poland and advisor to Poland's King Stanislaw, but the citation turns out to not even mention Estenberg. In fact, not one of the citations appears to be to a valid source supporting what is cited. It refers to the "University of Carolinska" and the "Swedish botanist, Linnea". There is not a single salvageable sentence in this rubbish heap of words. --Hegvald (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Incredible sources. The Peasoup PDF, published by the Vasa Order of America, may be my favorite, just ahead of "Google Translate". It's the source for the speculation that the Westerskold crest has disappeared from the Riddarhuset possibly because of the Westerskold connection to Jöran Persson. I'm sorry, I mean Joran Person, but, yes, good theory! Good for AfD, I think. Unless you want to go straight to PROD? There's really nothing redeeming. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC).

Can't be prodded as it has already been. Could be AFD'd but I suspect it would be kept as rewriteable. Estenberg is notable enough, barely. At some point I guess I will try to just stub it by writing a very short article from reliable sources. (There is stuff written about him, or at least about him as a part of his family. His great-grandson became a character in a Lagerlöf novel.)

In a way, it may be worth keeping it (at least in the history of a new stub) as an entertaining example of just how awful articles can get. A kind of chamber of horrors exhibit. The originator of this article has some other dubious contributions, much of it seemingly an attempt to glorify his family, or at least make it look interesting. An interesting edit is the one where he adds to the Eric XIV article that it is "commonly thought" that he was poisoned (through the means of the notorious soup) by Jöran Persson, dead for nearly a decade at that point. I am trying to figure out how that would have happened. --Hegvald (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Profile101

Hi Bish, Hope you are having a nice day. I have a concern with this user. He appears to be WP:NOTHERE. He was being disruptive before with his IP address (which he has also revealed) and it appears that he still is being disruptive because he was warned. He also thinks he can block other editors from editing, despite me telling him he needs to be an admin. I was thinking of taking him to ANI, but i don't want stress from there so i came to you instead. Can you please take a look at this user (and IP address) and take action if necessary. ThanksClass455fan1 (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Right. Obviously both 119.74.47.12 and 219.75.38.135 are theirs. Sigh. But where do you see NOTHERE? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place (they're incredibly busy, in very confusing ways), but it looks more like competence/newbie issues and poor English to me. I've urged them to always log in. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

Hi Bish, I can see NOTHERE, because when this user had used an IP to edit,there was a continued pattern of disruptive editing. And i do think he is still doing this. I left an editing while logged out warning on one of his IP's. Class455fan1 (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, if it was me (which I expect it soon will be!), I wouldn't worry about being mentioned on their userpage, since it's not in a bad way. Please stop edit warring with them about it. You're probably formally entitled to remove your name, but why upset them about a thing like that? Bishonen | talk 12:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

Ok. However, he still thinks he can protect pages and block others from editing, as you can see in the profile table the user has made. Just thought i'd make you aware. Thanks Class455fan1 (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see it. It doesn't really matter. You have informed him, and if he tries to protect a page, he'll find out... I suppose I should watch him and his train of IPs to make sure they don't threaten another newbie with blocking, sigh, but they're so busy and messy that it's quite hard. Please alert me if you should catch sight of anything like that. Bishonen | talk 13:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

I will. Also, was i right to tag Michael John Hegeman for CSD? The subject does not appear notable. I really don't want to make a mistake, as this is the first page i have tagged for speedy. Thanks Class455fan1 (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks quite professional, so one hesitates. But they offer no sources beyond their own website, and Google doesn't find anything else, either, so yes, I agree it's a speedy. It's quite new, but with the source situation the way it is, I don't see much point in giving them more time to work on it; it's about basic notability, not about a problem with the way it's written. Done. Bishonen | talk 13:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks. I was looking over the recent changes pages, and have tagged another for speedy. If i do anything wrong, or stupid, just let me know! Thanks for your help. Class455fan1 (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen, it looks like he is up to no good. He is now claiming that he is part of Charlesdrakew when he clearly isn't. He also said that if someone makes a subsection on his talk page (which you did when you warned him), he will block them from editing, but he has since removed that, so that makes me think even more he is WP:NOTHERE. Class455fan1 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I "normalized" his talkpage — took a flamethrower to the headers — and warned him about adding more nonsense. Another user has removed the silliest bits of the table on his userpage (thank you, Thomas). I kind of hope I won't have to block him, though. Never any fun to block a user with so many IPs, if you know what I mean. If you'd like me to look at your second speedy nom, you'd better give me a link to the article. Bishonen | talk 17:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

Its been deleted. I have opened an SPI investigation against the user who vandalised your page earlier. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bronznazaret. It seems clear that the user mentioned is a sock. Class455fan1 (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I've answered you at the SPI. SPI can be useful in more mysterious cases, but listing all Misogyrn's socks is really just encouragement for him, and a waste of good users' time. Block, revert, ignore, is the best way. It's surely not as if what they say could upset anybody — is it? Bishonen | talk 17:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

I notice that the user has re-added those dates that you removed on his talk page, and has still not replied to you. Apparently he gets irritated by making sub-sections? I'm sorry but i just had to laugh when he said "Anyone who makes sub-sections on my talk page will be blocked from editing (even though he can't)" when i saw that he reinstated this on his talk page. Class455fan1 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Modifying other's messages in talk pages?

Hi Bishonen, are you allowed to modify posts and messages of other's discussions as this user did to mines in here? (N0n3up (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) No, you are not supposed to. WP:TPO explains it all. Class455fan1 (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Looks like an accident to me; it happens a lot, especially with less experienced users. Whether or not it was deliberate, you'll get further if you simply restore your text and say you "assume it was an accident". Don't start off talking about "vandalism". Bishonen | talk 16:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

Not inexperienced, just use to review discussions were this is somewhat normal.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You mean you're used to reviewing discussions on other sites, EnigmaMcmxc? It's not normal at all here, in fact it's a no-no. I hope that clears everything up. Bishonen | talk 16:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

To clarify, peer review, GA, A-class, and FA reviews. Each point is discussee in such a fragmented way. RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, come on, User:EnigmaMcmxc. We were talking about removing other users' posts above, nothing else, and you joined the discussion to say "this" is somewhat normal in review discussions. It is not. The fragmenting thing wasn't mentioned. (Rex mentioned it later, below.) I started by assuming good faith; please don't make me stop. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

The above started with the key term "modify", these accusations of deletion came afterwards. When, where, and what did I remove for which I keep getting accused of?

I admit fragmenting a post, per the reason above and a lack of familiarity with the policy pointed out afterwards, but I did not delete a single character from his argument! I note the lack of outrage for my entire post being unconditionally deleted, even if it was for a small timeframe.EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

It seems you didn't see where RexxS told you on your page that you had removed a chunk of text? I quote him: "In this edit you removed a block of text added by another editor." Click on the "this edit" link, it takes you to when, where, and what. RexxS and I both assumed it was an accident, but your answers are so unexpected that I'm becoming less sure. "Erm" to you too. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

Okay, so I am being accused of deleting that block of text, the block of text I did not delete. The block of text, which I have not denied, I broke up to provide a point by point reply. Something I have seen done on other pages without causing such a fuss, and as noted several times now practically common practice on review pages albeit the various discussion points on those pages are already bulletined to do so.

So since that is apparently "deleting", what about this edit, which deleted my post?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The simple reason why we don't break up other editors' talk posts is that it obscures who made the post which is being broken - i.e. the signature becomes disassociated from what the person wrote - and that holds true across all talk pages on Wikipedia. Both you and the editor whose contribution you are editing may know who posted it, but most other observers will find it difficult, and they are the people whom you inconvenience. In the exceptional case of reviews, each commenting editor posts in a section that is headed by their name which makes clear to whom the unsigned pieces of text belong if they become fragmented. Without such a named header a talk page would soon become unintelligible if each editor felt free to break apart comments from others. It's not a difficult concept: just don't do it. You've been around long enough to understand our convention - Help:Using talk pages #Sections is quite clear: "To respond to a discussion already in progress, click the "edit" link at the section heading and add your comment below the last entry in the discussion. If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it." I'd strongly recommend you adhere to that before somebody takes you to task for disruptive editing. --RexxS (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

As noted, I accept that I did not adhere to the policy and that this was a faux pas on my part. As you note, I have been round long enough, which is my I am finding the attention gleaned from this instance to be a little over the top coupled with what appears to be a series of one sided warnings and to much focused attention on two edits rather than some even handness at another individual who breached the same guideline and has ticked off about as many of the little 'you shouldn't do that' boxes as I have in the last 2 days.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Class455fan1Bishonen Perhaps, and Bish, I wouldn't call it a vandalism if it wasn't for the fact that the user did it again after telling him not to do it in here. (N0n3up (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC))

@N0n3up:. Please disengage now. It is rarely helpful to warn editors with whom you are in disagreement. I've pointed out to EnigmaMcmxc where he removed your text, but assuming good faith would lead me to believe that it was an accident and he probably had not realised it until he reviewed the diff I provided. He also now knows that we don't fragment other peoples' talk page posts on Wikipedia. If he insists on making personal attacks on article talk pages, then my advice is simply ignore it and concentrate on the issues. It merely shows the weakness of an argument if it has to rely on ad hominem attacks on opponents. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

... can either be described as "shit happens" or "great minds think/do alike", take your pick. It's too cold to go outside today, and I'm too lazy to do the things I really should be doing, so I just sit in my favourite easychair and browse through my watchlist (You have 11,444 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)). Which is how I noticed Profile101, who probably isn't from Singapore at all, but from Taiwan, considering both the username (inspired by Taipei 101) and the fact that they tried to create an article about a subway/metro train in Taipei, by adding a bunch of machine-translated gibberish ("translated" from Chinese, judging by the stray Chinese characters that are still in the text). Thomas.W ^talk 17:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Such sudden frantic busyness, so many IP's, which sometimes even warn each other... I'm starting to wonder if it's a role account for a whole bunch of kids. Actually, I like the snow and the cold, though I'm a little afraid of breaking a leg. But it's pretty, it's nostalgic, and it smells really special. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

I think it's a group of kids working together, all of them with just a rudimentary knowledge of English. Just check this obviously machine-translated, and totally unsourced, "article": Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Crystal Movers C810. It's so bad it's easier to just blow it up and start from scratch than correcting everything that is wrong with it ("It is the future and the second type of rolling stock to be brought by Sengkang LRT Line and Punggol LRT Line which will be coupled with the modified C810 to form as two carriage and may can be coupled with the Gangway Connection. The trains will enter from 2016 onwards and the train design will be the same or maybe different."). Thomas.W ^talk 17:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I think you've put up with enough of my crap today! I think you deserve this for helping me and giving advice. If you see me doing anything wrong or stupid, you know where to find me. Thanks for everything you've done today. You've earned this! Class455fan1 (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Haha, thank you! No, not crap, I think you're having a fine learning process. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

Help request

I left a note on Rick Alan Ross's talk page about how he can use WP:AE and WP:AC/DS if he has problems on his BLP [7]. Would you please look it over to make sure I have not misrepresented anything and maybe give him some advice from someone who is much more familiar with the process than I am? Thank you! Jbh^Talk 12:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have responded. Based upon what I have seen regarding enforcement of rules and guidelines at Wikipedia I have largely lost confidence in Wikipedia based upon its behavior. Certain editors like Cwobeel and others know how to game the system and pretty much do whatever they want. Wikipedia has a history of this from Scientology editors to Jossi Fresco. That's what happens to a website that allows anyone to post anonymously. I will continue to post at the talk page per the guidelines. But frankly given the determination of POV editors to control my bio there seems to be little hope it will ever be NPOV or reflect historical reality. This is why Wikipedia is discounted as a reliable source.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll respond on User talk:Rick Alan Ross. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC).

Thank you. Jbh^Talk 21:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you talkpage stalkers

Thank you kindly. Throwaway troll account blocked. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC).

Akif kichloo

Hello again Bish. Earlier today, i came across the above article when i was patrolling the recent changes area to try and find vandalism to revert. What grabbed my attention was that the article had been tagged for a speedy because it fails GNG, and all i can find on the internet for this guy is Huffington Post articles written by him, and an IP had removed a CSD tag from the article, and i restored it, but I've had two talk page messages from two different IP's telling me to remove the CSD template, which i didnt. I then geolocated these IP's and they are both from the same place (Kashmir, in India), so there might be some possible meat puppetry going on here. One of the IP's added the Huffington Post sources, but i said on the talk page that these could be just self-published. I don't intend to be canvassing here, but firstly, what is your opinion on this, and secondly, shall i make an AfD discussion for this page? I decided to ask you because i am quite fed up of getting messages from these IP's telling me to withdraw the CSD tag. Thanks! Class455fan1 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Bishonen, could you protect my page? Even if it means I can't edit it, which is okay by me. Perhaps a number of articles need to be locked at this point, as well. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:9889:7AE0:D477:36FB (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Done, 4 days. Bishonen | talk 12:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC).

• Much appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:9889:7AE0:D477:36FB (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Have you considered creating an account? But if not, just let me know if you need to write something on your page and I'll unprotect briefly. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC).

Brief explanation tendered here: [8]. And thank you again. Best, 2601:188:0:ABE6:9889:7AE0:D477:36FB (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at Class455fan1's talk page.
Message added 13:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Class455fan1 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Language concern

use of foul language by user: Yashthepunisher at the editing summary on page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salman_Khan_filmography&action=history WikiBriefed (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any foul language by that user in the history, so not sure what you're talking about. WikiBriefed, it's less helpful to link to a whole history. If you want to complain about an edit, you can link to that particular edit; such a link is called a diff. See the Simplest diff guide for how to create a diff. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC).

user cyphoidbomb

he is continuously following my edits throughout community. i know i m new. but this is really mean how he is harassing me wherever i edit. WikiBriefed (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb is an experienced editor and also an administrator, which shows the community has had enough confidence in him to give him the responsibility of administrator tools. He has been trying for a long time to explain the problems with your edits and your sourcing. You don't seem to be taking his explanations on board very well, and if he follows you, I suppose that's why. Following a problematic editor and checking that their edits are all right (and reverting them if they're not) is a service to Wikipedia. It's actually also a service to the editor being followed, as they can learn from it. If they wish to learn. While you're here, who is it you're calling a "Salman fanbot" on your page? Whoever it is, it's extremely rude, and comes after my warning to you about such things. And this edit summary is rude and hostile too. Stop attacking people and assuming bad faith or you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC).

I go where the problems are, and Indian film articles are ravaged by problematic editors. On top of that, WikiBriefed has drawn a lot of attention to himself through his combative editing style, his unilateral proclamations about which sources to use (I had to drag him to ANI because he insisted across multiple articles that BoxOfficeIndia.com was, from now on, the only legitimate source for Indian box office values), his pissy edit summaries, and his baseless name calling. As I've explained to him before, any editor worth their salt would scrutinize any person doing this. WikiBriefed, if you don't like the attention, elevate your behavior, but you will still find me all over Indian film articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Debriefing

Hi B. I think WikiBriefed should take a break. Continuation of personal attacks on me at his talk page, namely the "Salman fanbot" nonsense, which is clearly in reference to how he perceives me (as a Salman Khan fan). I also now believe that WikiBriefed is a sock of AniceMathew, who was (according to the SPI) known for "egoistic" behavior, combative and snippy edit summaries, selective use of sources, and a focus on Shah Rukh Khan. Take a look at some of the edit summaries in the sock contribution histories:

• [9]
• [10] <-- Includes dislike of Bollywood Hungama as a reference. We'd recently clashed of my use of BollywoodHungama at Raees (film). I allude to that clash on his talk page here
• [11] <-- This includes "fanatic" accusation in an edit summary.

I'm not pitching that you indef as a sock, because I haven't done a really in-depth investigation. But this seems like a strong candidate, and we should keep our eyes open. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Right. Your eyes are likely to see more than mine in that respect, since the subject is a jungle to me. But peering into it and using a flashlight, I can actually see that WikiBriefed doesn't seem to understand the social norms here, no matter how many times he's told about them. There was a previous block for personal attacks, so I've made it 72 hours. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks B. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response!

Good to see it fixed quickly. Can you delete the page they added too? Blythwood (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I saw it, read the history with interest, and... then I guess I busied myself with blocking her etc. It's approaching bedtime here, I may be a little more woozy than usual. Done now. Thanks for reporting, and for reminding! Bishonen | talk 23:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks. Incredible article. I saved a copy for my extensive file of awful articles! Blythwood (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Revdel request

Not a rush, but in a spate of vandalism/block evasion, a series of edit summaries was revdel'd a while back. One of the evading IP's contributions was missed. Could you take a quick look at this[12] and maybe erase them, if you feel it is warranted? Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 13:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Pity one can't do 'em as a set... but yeah, that is overly colourful. Done. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks - that was a fun couple of hours! One day, someone will create a Rollback option for Admins to help with revdel - you are not the first Admin I have heard complain about the difficulty of revdel'ing multiple edits. Scr★pIron^IV 13:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

deleting my page was uncool, and VANDALISM

I read the page and what it says is that Deletion nominations are editing, but it doesn't talk about direct deletion. Why are you defending a person who, instead of making useful constructive comments, just deleted a page?

Make my page reappear and make constructive comments, isn't that what good editors are supposed to do? Instead you choose to add salt? I can see why people don't bother trying to contribute to this unwieldy project. --Potguru (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Viriditas is not an admin, so he can't delete your page. What he did, as he said several times (in the comments that you removed, and also on your own page[13]), was that he moved the article back to draft space because it wasn't ready for article space. Here is your article: Draft:Cannabis dispensary. Not deleted. Bishonen | talk 23:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC).

I understand that Wikipedia's systems and different "spaces" are baffling to a new user. But please don't be so suspicious of experienced users when they try to explain how things work here. And stop with the "vandal" and "vandalism" right now. Being new actually isn't an excuse for insulting people. Certainly not after you have been told about it once. One of our basic principles is that you must assume other people are trying to help Wikipedia too. Read about it here. If you don't understand what they're doing, don't assume it's something bad. Bishonen | talk 23:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC).

I see that you've been blocked. And you didn't read a single word of the Guide to appealing blocks before you appealed the block, did you? I can see you didn't. Bishonen | talk 23:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC).

Kandi Barbour

I noticed that you recently added some protection to Kandi Barbour because of vandalism. The question I have is: Who do you consider the vandal? Me, who is trying to put out the correct information and has repeatedly answered the requests of Big Wullobitz for more sources each time I posted. Or him for not only reverting my edits, insulting me, but also for making his own edits which took out half of the page?

Because, quite frankly, if the sources weren't good enough, doesn't it make sense to add more? Isn't that how people (like me) learn how to do things 'the right way'. He was certainly no help, other than demanding more and more. I have learned nothing and am doomed to repeat whatever error it was that I made in the first place.

And, just to let you know, if you had read the talks as well, I am done trying to please him - which is why I reverted it back to the old page last night. Your protection request isn't going to change the situation because I was already finished trying to get the proper information out there. It's just not worth the hassle trying to deal with the troll. 2601:983:8001:3540:D97F:4F1:877E:BB38 (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)friend of Kandi

Sock/meat on caste articles (no surprise there)

Hi Bish, we seem to have a sock or meat situation going on at three caste articles, being Balija, Telaga and Kapu (caste). There is some protection in force at some of those but the overhead on the talk pages is becoming silly. I know that we really would rather not protect talk pages but there has to be some sort of limit to how much disruption we allow. I suppose one solution would be for the likes of myself, Kautilya3 and Allthefoxes just to ignore the various comments but I'm not sure that will work because unactioned edit requests to semi-protected articles will most likely just draw in yet more experienced people who end up responding to the requests in the same manner as has already happened. More bloat, more time wasted, no change in outcome.

You have more experience of dealing with this sort of situation than me. Do you have any suggestions regarding what could be done to curtail what is becoming something of a timesink? - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I spent as much time as I could working with the user but they don't seem to understand. It is starting to be a huge time-suck --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 01:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, I'll take a look this afternoon and maybe ask a CU. Just as a tourniquet, I've blocked the range 2602:306:8bc0:4660::/64 for disruption and legal threats. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

And also 166.170.56.0/22 for disruption and socking. That range may be too small, let me know if there's more from related IPs. Bishonen | talk 09:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I've written to a checkuser, who is probably asleep right now — watch this space. Note, it would be easier for admins to act decisively if problematic new users on these pages were alerted as soon as possible to the arbcom discretionary sanctions in force. (I've done it now for these accounts — no point with the IPs, nobody's gonna "topic ban" or indeff a dynamic IP.) All you need to do is place {{subst:alert|ipa}} on their talkpage and sign. You may want to keep that in mind if new socks turn up. Looking at the output of the user/s, I realise they may well not understand the template either, but it's still an important formality. (Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy ha ha.) There are also special community discretionary sanctions for caste pages, with the template {{subst:Uw-castewarning}}. I'm not sure why, as the arbcom sanctions surely cover caste as well, and personally I find them easier to administer. What do you think, User:Sitush, is it better in some way to warn specifically about caste editing? (Of course they can get both templates, no problem, but I didn't like to overwhelm them with more formalities than necessary.) Bishonen | talk 12:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

• The caste sanctions came in first but, yes, they're probably redundant now. As for notification, I've never seen the point of doing it for anons because we're so limited in the actions we can take. I realise that you've rangeblocked here but my experience is that usually we can't even do that. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Quite, alerting IPs is pointless. But alerting accounts can be useful. (On the other hand, it looks a bit like the person behind the accounts is now using IPs instead, doesn't it?) Admins can only discretionary-sanction users (such as topic banning, which is not otherwise in admin discretion) for disruption they've perpetrated after they were alerted. It's a little paradoxical, because I can block indefinitely any time I feel like it. Zap! Zap! Bishonen | talk 13:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

Heh. I think we may have a sock at Nikam now. One thing is for sure: editors to caste articles who have "history" in their username are never inclined to follow our policies. I'll template them both, even though I'll probably be accused of biting. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are, just point out frostily that it says "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date". It's a very sweet template. (If you use the arbcom template. The caste template is sharper, and does imply misconduct, at least last time I looked.) Bishonen | talk 16:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

Hey, don't edit war, Sitush. It's not exactly "obvious vandalism" you're reverting, even if it's clueless. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

I am at 3RR but Cluebot also reverted. I haven't claimed it is vandalism, nor used rollback, but I did tell them that Raj sources are unacceptable - and still they continued to reinstate. This has been going on for days with anons. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I know. If it's a genuinely new user, they may not have found their talkpage, nor the History tab, and are just wondering why their edits don't seem to "take" — so they repeat them. It's possible. I keep reminding myself how confusing this place is. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

• Note: the Balija / Telaga / Kapu (caste) sockfarm has been checkusered and blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Naidu1234. Well, the accounts, not the IPs, and I'd be surprised if my rangeblocks hold the individual back for long. Anyway, they're thwarted for now. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC).
• Also, perhaps somebody would like to clean up the relevant article talkpages by "archiving to history" (blanking) all the disruptive edit request creep and similar? I started to, but lost momentum when I realized how few of the posts were signed, making them cumbersome to distinguish. Is there somebody less lazy out there? Bishonen | talk 17:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC).

• If you post the names of the affected articles, I'll see if I can do something. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Balija, Telaga, and Kapu (caste). Thank you, Ed. Posts from the IPs listed at the SPI can be cleaned up, too, although the CheckUser (my little Ponyo) speaks discreetly about them, as they always do. Archive the whole sections "properly", if you like. Bishonen | talk 18:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC).

I fixed a few at Balija and Telaga. The one-click archiver works wonders. Telaga is now *indef* semied by a checkuser, which suggests we are now serious. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

[/me pats the good Little Pony]. Thanks, Ed. I see you spared the comments from the IPv6's, 2602:306:8bc0:4660:99fd:1a10:2866:d22f and 2602:306:8bc0:4660:4439:553a:9995:903a; they're blocked too, by me, for disruption and legal threats. I blocked their range, 2602:306:8BC0:4660:0:0:0:0/64.[14] (I don't pretend to understand IPv6, but my son tells me an entire /64 range is normally a single user, so it won't affect anyone else.) Bishonen | talk 19:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC).

I only meant to protect Telaga for three months. I've corrected that now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI, you were mentioned

Just FYI, I mentioned you on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/David_Adam_Kess. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Especially for listing all the Spanish-language accounts. I saw them, and went to block 'em all as username vios yesterday, but SQL was faster on all but one. Nice research! Bishonen | talk 12:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

Reply from Sfarney

A conviction of conspiracy to defraud 40 years ago ...

This is topic material. Please post to topic talk. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please create a new header for your posts. (I have added one. Feel free to change it.) The focus of the "material" was my warning to you that you may be topic banned from the article if you edit it with a hostile agenda. That kind of thing is for user talk, to make sure you see it. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC).

The Little Prince

Hello ! I don't really understand why you're letting someone write false information on this film Wiki page. He's saying the film is also Canadian, but all the sources he's indicating say it is a French film. Yes, it is ! He pretends producer Aton Soumache said it but the article is restricted content so it cannot be verified. Whereas on an interview by BFMTV, his colleague producer himslef says exactly : "it is a 100% French film". Just after the word "Canada", there is this ref http://frenchflicks.com/read/items/the-little-prince-a-franco-american-animated-feature.html, which demonstrates there is an American director, that the animation was done in Canada, and that the PRODUCERS are French. On wikipedia, we always indicate the country of production, that is to say the country the production companies come from = where the moneys come from. We can't just rely on a few sources of English or American press articles that may contain mistakes. IMDB is not a reliable source as anyone can edit it. As you can seen, I have indicated different sources proving this film is 100% French-produced. That is perfectly indisputable. Production is different from animation, shooting, storyboarding, etc. Otherwise we should write that Despicable Me 1 and 2, for example, are also French, because they were entirely made in Paris. But the money comes from American production companies, so they are 100 % American films. I think you're just wrong about who's writing nonsense on this page after you've read him writing "Can a mod stop this dude obsessed to prove that..." Please have a closer look to this issue and help me write correct informations of this wiki page ;) Have a good day ! Herve.toullec (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Herve.toullec. I protected the page for four days in order to make the disputing parties sort out their differences on the talkpage instead of edit warring on the article. I haven't taken sides as to "who's writing nonsense" (actually it looks to me like both parties make a reasonable case in their edit summaries, so nobody is writing nonsense). That's not the way protection works: an administrator is supposed to just protect, at the moment when they see a page needs protection; not to take sides by protecting on a particular version. (Compare Wikipedia:The wrong version.) I hope you will make your case on talk and try to convince your opponents so that you can arrive at consensus (click on that link). If you can't, please get back to me and I'll suggest other steps you can take. Bishonen | talk 11:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC).

Hi. All right, thank you. Writing that this film is a Canadian production is completely false, it is only French. English is a foreign language for me, so it doesn't make it easier. I've been putting several refs proving my "opponent" is wrong. But even facing these proofs and quotations, he keeps putting "Canada" in the article. I will try but I don't know what else I can do. Herve.toullec (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This conversation really belongs at Talk:The Little Prince (2015 film) #Country of origin, so I've left a comment there for you. --RexxS (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiBriefed ANI

Hi B, it might be overkill, but I opened another ANI case on WikiBriefed for all the past issues, plus his recent decision to copy/paste a promotional plot summary as if it were totally cool to do so. SMH... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I started to type something, to propose that we might wait till he edits again after your warning and mine on his page yesterday — I mean, I believe he needs indeffing, really, but he hasn't edited since those warnings, so it would make sense to first see if he takes them to heart. (Admittedly unlikely by previous experience.) However, not unreasonably, Boing! has already indeffed him for copyvios. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC).

Well, there ya go. Oy vey. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If you've got a few minutes to spare ...

... would you mind taking a look at this User talk:DanJazzy#January 2016? I caught an editor trying to sneak POV changes into African Americans, and then edit-warring to keep it there. The edit added a gallery where there should be none, but that's just a minor problem, the big problem is POV removal of sourced content, removing material and the sources for it and replacing it with unsourced claims etc. And then when confronted by me on their talk page trying to change the subject all the time, denying having done anything but adding a gallery (even though I posted diffs...), accusing my of lying etc. I'm fed up with them right now, and also have a couple of other things I absolutely must do this evening, so "pretty please"? Tom Thomas.W ^talk 20:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I've solved the problem, look at this diff, showing changes between September of last year and their first edit today, and note that there are no changes whatsoever below the image gallery. They've picked an about four months old version of the article, rearranged/replaced the images and then clicked save, in spite of there being a large warning banner saying that they're editing an old version of the article. Thereby wiping out the more than 200 edits that have been made to the article since September (tala om tummen mitt i handen...). But, technically speaking at least, everyone is responsible for everything they do here. Thomas.W ^talk 23:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Aha! I just worked out for myself that they must have saved an old version — see my new comment on their page — you actually found the old version. You might go back and tell them, I suppose. But I wouldn't blame if you don't want any more of their refusal to listen. I don't much blame them for making the original mistake... but for the way they dug down, I do. Bishonen | talk 23:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC).

Anni Dewani article...again

Hi Bishonen, I am not sure how but Lane99/AHindocha has managed to circumvent whatever block you enacted and is again posting rubbish on the Dewani article talk page, as well as sprouting the usual stuff on the Ahindocha talk page requesting to be unblocked. There can be zero doubt that it is one and the same person. Lane99=noanon=Forbeshighland=AHindocha. Same obsession with the same handful of murder trials, same combative tone. Perhaps best to bring some other admins in so as not to become too personally involved yourself. Can I leave it in your hands? Clearly it needs some attention. And for the record (in case you have any doubt), any allegation that I am a PR representative is both absurd and baseless. Best Dewanifacts (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's any help, per Checkuser evidence AHindocha and blocked sock ForbesHighland are editing from within mere kilometers or each other. Given the extreme advocacy, strong behavioural connection and technical overlap the account should likely be blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Dewanifacts, I'm afraid it was only too easy to circumvent... I forgot to actually log the block! :-( Done now. Thank you my little Ponyo. Ahindocha has requested unblock (even though they weren't blocked, but now they are..), which hasn't yet been attended to; I don't know if you might like to leave a note for the reviewing admin? Bishonen | talk 21:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC).

The unblock request has already been declined, however I left a note there should it be helpful in the future.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For dealing with sockpuppets and BLP-violations at Murder of Anni Dewani. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert. Now I feel a little embarrassed that I didn't even manage to log the last sockblock in a timely fashion...! Bishonen | talk 09:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC).