User talk:Bishonen

Indo-Aryan migration

Edits on this page Indo-Aryan migration have been reverted by many editors. I don't want to cross the 3RR limot nor I want to revert again. Notably, there is a set of usual editors have made baseless accusations and seem to be removing my content just because they don't like what I add. It's not just me, another editor Wiki841 too has reverted them and restored my edit.

In the interests of avoiding edit-warring, I request you protect the article. I don't simply want my preferred version to be protected, so whatever version you protect is up to you. I am open to discussion but they shouldn't falsely blame me of copyright violation and outdated translation when there is none. They also keep using Wikipedia policies like WP:SOAPBOX which have nothing do with my edits. I suggest you tell them to discuss and prove themselves first and not make bad-faith baseless accusations. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want the ban removed

Hi, I want the ban removed as I never added unsourced material to any of the articles. May I know how I can appeal? Sharkslayer87 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Sharkslayer87: In fact, the template at the bottm of your talk explains everything you need to know...I advise though, that appealing the TB ten minutes after it was placed has a 100% chance of not being successful, I'm afraid. Try editing elsewhere for a few months, be productive, non-controversial, and then this can be revisiyed with more chance of success, perhaps. Just FYI. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sharkslayer87. I have not banned you for adding unsourced material, but for using poor sources, and/or making claims unsupported by your sources, despite warnings and advice. The place you can appeal is the administrators' noticeboard. But Serial Number 54129 gives you good advice: you'll have a better chance of a successful appeal if you edit uncontroversially in other areas for a few months first. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Bishonen, I apologize if I did disruptive editing. But I beg you to understand me. I never added poor sources. My sources are genuine. The below two sources really provide synonymity between Raju and Kshatriya. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Kanumuri-Bapiraju-faces-uphill-task-in-Narsapuram/articleshow/33795850.cms https://books.google.com/books?id=oQOF7tkWXjIC&pg=PA98&dq=kshatriyas+rajus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD-s67t4PaAhWGxFkKHcyxBUY4FBDoAQhUMAk#v=onepage&q=kshatriyas%20rajus&f=false.

The first source says "Rajus (Kshatriya)" and the second source clearly says "The rajus are a small, close-knit community of the Kshatriya caste"

These are the sources that I used. I also used Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard who is considered by many as one of the greatest social anthropologists ever. He has more than a hundered thousand results at google scholar and he has been cited by thousands and thousands of scholars. “The Raju caste, classified as the Kshatriya or warriors among the Twice-born castes, is the second highest in the village. The Raju are descendants of former rulers of the area and though their wealth and influence has declined they still bestow patronage in the form of land, money and political connections. Several Raju families have Shudra and Harijan field laborers attached to them by yearly agreements”.

He states in no uncertain terms that Rajus are classified as Kshatriyas.

Please kick me out if you want but please don't say that my sources are not good. I have never added bad sources. All my sources have been good. I might have been a little aggressive in my editing for which I apologize but I never used poor sources. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharkslayer87, since you have already appealed at WP:AN as well, I'll leave the community to deal with it. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Bish and Writ Keeper, this doesn't seem to have been logged. Think the block is fine as they were notified, but noticed the lack of paperwork and all when I was looking at the AN thread. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, I know I forgot. I'll do the paperwork. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now logged; I think Bish was a good bean and had already logged the topic ban. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I got my respective South Asian discretionary sanctions log pages mixed up, sorry Bish. I should head over to BN, I suppose... TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the community bans are so much rarer than arbcom bans that it can get confusing when one is applied, especially because they are also called "discretionary sanctions". But even though we now have arbcom ds for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, which of course cover caste as well, it's somehow rather pleasing to have a special thing for caste disruption. It tends to be so... disruptive, and there are always new caste warriors arriving to tell us they're descended from kings. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
My "favorites" are those who try to add their descent from various gods as a fact. Yes, my great-great-...great-grandfather was actually Vishnu! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kind talkpage stalkers ahoy

Oh, dammit. I've been trying to fashion a bright red obnoxious box to post at the top of Talk:Ghirth, with the text "This page is for civil discussion of improvements of the page Ghirth. Caste glorification, attacks on living people, and other irrelevant material will be removed." It's supposed to be used as a last-ditch attempt to manage without semiprotection of that talkpage, which is currently at the mercy of ~~clueless~~ inexperienced caste warriors expressing their frustration at being unable to "improve" the semi-protected main page. Check it out, especially the stuff that Utcursch has removed. So, I have some boxes, that I've been trying to adapt, but it's bloody impossible. I probably keep missing out some really important dot or curl. Would a clever talkpage stalker like to create one for me? How about you, RexxS? NeilN ? Bishonen | talk 20:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

TonyBallioni obliged, I made it a bit more obnoxious. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely stream today in the picture, Bish. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I love you guys! Bishonen | talk 20:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Nice work folks! I wanted to add "... as will all posts from any editor who has a deity anywhere in their family tree" but eventually I managed to suppress the impulse. --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Utcursch has also pointed out that we have the template {{Not a forum}}, I suppose I may use that another time. The angry warning is cooler and more obnoxious, though. Bishonen | talk 22:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Strictly, the talk page should be empty by now :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 03:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young Luna, my plan with asking for a box was in fact to follow it up with blanking the talkpage. But then I felt hampered by the fact that Utcursch and another user have answered the SPAs in good faith, telling them things that they might conceivably benefit from. I doubt it, going by experience, but it's possible. And blanking Utcursch himself seemed just rude. Did you see this gem btw? The name mentioned, and indeed the account name, probably refers to the author of the main academic source for the article, just with a spelling/transcription variation for the first name. I thought of asking for oversight, but with the different spelling.. nah, bah. Bishonen | talk 08:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

That comment was rather out of line, so I've gone through the page history and applied some revdel. Better safe than sorry. And FTR I prefer the angry warning; the other one gets ignored basically always. Vanamonde (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was pretty specialist stuff! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just wanted to personally thank you for your comments on the unblock request. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 331dot. I think you did right to reject the appeal, though I was ready to leave it to you. 24 hours isn't much, and I hope he uses them to review 3RR and dispute resolution. The "Shakespeare authorship question" is also under some of our less known discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Grawp,

who was? Sounds vaguely familiar.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grawp is User:JarlaxleArtemis. If you click on the username, it'll take you to his Long-term abuse page. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

My pages

Thank you all for your recent vigilance on my user and talk pages. Much appreciated. There are some very odd and bored people around. Giano (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Bishzilla sticks the little Giano in her pocket for safekeeping and cakes.) bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 16:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

That won’t be necessary, thank you Mrs Bisonen. I am in town for the Royal Wedding, although quite why that silly Harry is marrying some American thespian of very odd and vocal family, when my own beautiful and very well bred daughter, Muriel, is still completely untouched by human hand, I cannot imagine. So I am very well placed to care for darlingest Giano. I cannot think what the world is coming to; I blame Donald Trump and Wallis Simpson. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt, two of the great villains of history. Your obedient servant... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Probably much more suitable and could even have had a Eurovision tie-in)? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you are quite right Mr Evans. While I admit poor Muriel's brain is mostly in the heavens, her breeding is impeccable and when scrubbed up, sh is almost pretty. The people don't want a royal family who lectures them on rocket science, feeding the starving millions and developing their bodies. I can't help wondering if Ms Markle has not been sent by Mr Trump to undermine the Establishment. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. did you know that Prince Phillip was, in fact, a giant lizard? [1] [reply]

How interesting, and no I didn't know that. But it doesn't surprise me because the Battenburgs are riddled with morganatic marriages. Whenever the hands of my daughters have been requested, I have always insisted on 16 quarterings, just to be on a safe side. Once one has a reptile in the family, short of charging the public to view it, there is little one can do. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if American politicians can hook up with alien lifeforms, why can't English monarchs marry safely terrestrial lizards? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Captions

David Bowie's maternal grandfather Charles "Ziggy" Knight scratches behind the ears of his pet dinosaur Stega Tom. Floquenbeam talk, 23:06, 10 May 2018‎ (UTC).[reply]
Bishzilla..? It's lovely to meet you, but I figured you taller! Bishonen | talk 10:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
"I've had to wait 150 million years to get this hip done, and I've still got very restricted movement." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The inevitable evolution of Darwinfish and Darwinbish has resulted in...DarwinBishZilla! Tex (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tex: I suppose that's Darwin himself (in younger days) in the picture, admiring the sensational new Darwincreature? Bishonen | talk 20:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
While the debate over the metabolism of dinosaurs rages on, all members of the House of Windsor are known to be homeothermic, as are their knights. Shown here: an atypical knight in atypical armour. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you Mr Rivertorch that there is nothing homoerotic about the British Royal Family. I am fully aware that one has these gay people in all walks of society being gay and whatnot, but not in the Royal Family. Edward II, William of Orange and the Duke of Clarence were most likely all adopted, and the rumours concerning my own artistic brother, during his Capri period, are completely unfounded. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for clarifying, Lady Catherine. Got to love the atypical armour of their knights, though! Bishonen | talk 20:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
"My mind to your mind" Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
""To me, to you" .... The Chucklingosaurus Brothers.
"The little-known origin of the reptilians, was this forbidden love" Jytdog (talk)
Was or not was? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC) :[reply]
"The bleeding from the stump of his left wrist was finally staunched, and the brave dinosaur whisperer recommenced his efforts." Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Purrrrrr" Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gott im Himmel, Jytdog. We do seem to have struck a vein here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Well, duh! After all, veins have layers, layers are chickens, chickens are birds, birds are dinosaurs. Basic logic, isn't it? If you doubt this, go ask Alice; I think she'll know. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably wait 'til she's ten feet tall. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]
How does your new head feel? Personally, I think Dr. Frankenstein sent us the wrong size. Dr. K. 20:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
David Icke, moments before he was bitten by the monster. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian at ANI. —SpacemanSpiff 01:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As he hesitantly tried to establish some form of communication, he wondered why he had ever agreed to go on this blind date. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After 150 million years, thanks so much for a lorra lorra laffs. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]
"If you stop petting me, I will set your hair on fire". Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Few people knew that it was upon the spine of the Stegosaurus that Rev D'Arcy styled his arse-crack haircut". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Ah, how I think of thee when I fondle my tiny monster". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The caption contest is over

The caption contest is over, and young Martinevans123, who provided the image and the invitation to caption it, is invited to crown the victor. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Recuse, naturally. This isn't the BAFTAs you know. luvvie. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Disgruntled) Edit conflict! Little Martinevans much too fast for important cautionary hint from Bishzilla! HINT HINT careful crown right person! Little User:Jytdog caption king! No recusing! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 19:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

CROWN NOW!! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 19:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

ROARRRR!!! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 19:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Such a demanding dinosaur! Martinevans might be on the pooper for all we know, oh great impatient fearsome monster. Please pity our human frailities. Or he may be eating an icecream cone in the sunshine, away from glowing screen. While I do appreciate the nod for my effort, the best should win, with no claws on the scale. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

[Recovering her dignity, pats down flames starting to consume little Martinevans's hair.] Very well. Bishzilla crown little user herself. [Trudges off towards Jytdog's page.] bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 20:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

"A charming caption, painted in glowing pastels, I feel Jytdog has really captured the Zeitgeist here, in a personally moving and yet wistfully lambent caption-for-the-everyman-on-the-Cheltenham Spa-Omnibus. My heart sings. I crown a worthy winner." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Suspiciously.] Which one captured the Zeitgeist? The reptilians, was it? All right then! Right on topic, there won't be a Nobel prize for literature this year,[2] so Jytdog's caption prize gains all the more weight. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I learned a new word today! This is what I love about Wikipedia -- it is such a wonderful place to get yourself educationalized. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word has a way of showing up in a certain kind of book review - I can find no better example than this from the Guardian: "Refreshingly different . . . exhilarating . . . a compulsively readable, life-affirming tale told in direct, lambent prose, and Chait does a masterful job of juxtaposing a traditional African setting with a convincing depiction of a far-future alien society." [3] They left out lyrical and luminous: one has to use a lot of adjectives beginning with L in a review. Acroterion (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acroteriobatus, or whatever you call yourself, I find your laconic locution a little lamentable, not to say rather laden with lacrimatory laziness and leering lampoonery. --Leeds Varieties 123 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought I was some kind of Greek gargoyly thingum on the corner of a roof, bit a lesser guitarfish is even better. There's also the R review genre: "A roistering, rumbustious romp ..." Acroterion (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right.. yes, the caption contest was supposed to be closed, but the young Boing! said Zebedee is nevertheless awarded a special Bishzilla Order of Merit with Smileys for caption 15. 😀😃😄😆😊😍😈👽😸🙌 Bishonen | talk 20:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Closed captions, you say? E Eng 21:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bit cheeky, I thought. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Infobox Mess starts up on Kubrick article AGAIN

Hello, I have seen your comment on Cassianto's talk page "Please feel free to alert me on my page if you should see new infobox discussions being started where there's already a recent consensus." On Talk:Stanley Kubrick an editor has just started a "Straw Poll" on whether or not an infobox should be included when the last of numerous such discussions was closed on 4 April.Smeat75 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But is there a recent consensus, Smeat75? The hidden edit-mode-only topnote in the article refers to a consensus against infoboxes from 2015. I asked Cass, in the comment you mention, if there was any more recent consensus, but he didn't reply. The discussion you mention was closed by Ritchie333 on 4 April with the comment "This is going nowhere. At least wait for the main Infobox RfC to finish and let the matter settle; doing it right after an Arbcom case is counter-productive." So, would you, or somebody, like to link me to this "main Infobox RfC" so I can take a look? If it's still not finished, I agree it's too soon to start a straw poll on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Sorry to be ignorant, but I'm trying to learn. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

OK, it's hard for me to act without information. I've been reading this page to try to learn what main infobox RfC Ritchie was talking about, but all I see is arbs complaining that there isn't such an RfC. So does it not exist? Re-pinging @Smeat75 and Ritchie333: I'd like to help, but I'll be going to bed soon. Still, tomorrow is another day. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The Rfc-in-question, is at the Village Pump policy page. It's been stale for a while & has yet to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ritchie333 must have meant the RfC on infoboxes at the Village pump [4], not one on the Kubrick article specifically, where there is no consensus. Never mind. This bickering is obviously just going to go on forever (even gets a long article about it in the Wall St Journal).Smeat75 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I can most heartily understand the reluctance to close that. All right, so we're on our own at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. I'll try to craft a page restriction. Not sure whether that has ever been done per the "Civility in infobox discussions" discretionary sanctions, so I'll run it by WP:AE first. Though not tonight, as Wikipedia is down, up, down, up, down for me — it took 10 minutes just to get this posted. Good night. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've tried to summarise the previous debates and suggested a rest from the topic for a while. It might be enough to give the regulars a bit of a break, but if not, a page restriction carefully crafted to include a threat of incineration by Bishzilla ought to do the trick. --RexxS (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bishzilla is with uncharacteristic timidity proposing a page restriction on AE. Clearly she has the discretion and the roarr factor to just impose it, now that we have discretionary sanctions, but I suppose she wants advice. Bishonen | talk 07:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

There's a general opposition to arbitrators posting at AE, so I'll add a comment here that a) the DS are there to be used, and b) as someone entirely uninvolved with the article, the Stanley Kubrick page seems a good example of where they might reasonably be applied. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young Euryalus perhaps need sock for posting at those boards! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 09:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Syracuse isn't registered as a username, fwiw. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: I was surprised to find that User:Nisus seems to be available as well. --RexxS (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bish, I did the paperwork for the restriction. [5], [6] The editnotice is especially important as Arbcom won't consider a restriction as valid unless one is present. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, an editnotice as well? Thanks very much, NeilN, I didn't realize. I haven't applied a page restriction before — indeed, I tend to dislike the regular "consensus required" and "1RR" restrictions, having seen the kinds of "gotcha" filings they give rise to. That's why I was so keen to have a really simple infobox restriction. And now we wait to see what kinds of wikilawyering it'll invite, because, for sure, nothing is ever really simple. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, it makes sense as a bold editor might unknowingly break a restriction because they haven't read the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense, sure. Bishonen | talk 15:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

This seems simple enough, stable for years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Not sure what you're getting at here. If there's no prolonged dispute then editing restrictions aren't needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to "nothing is ever really simple" (further up, edit conflict), by mentioning an exception, wishing it could be the rule. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. But I've found sometimes mentioning simple things on highly watched pages suddenly makes things less simple :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might want to reply but was trained successfully (by restriction) to leave it at 2 comments per discussion. The simple case was on my mind because his birthday is coming up, and I think TFA would be nice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bish. Not wanting to ping the very people who've nurtured behaviour like this for the fear of harassing them (even though, IMO, they should be held accountable for the continuing bad behaviour on this subject) the editor of the edit I linked to evidently ignored the politely put hidden comment in the edit screen, asking for the box not to be uncollapsed, and they went ahead and uncollapsed it anyway. It is this type of pig-headed, rude, selfish and ignorant behaviour that is disruptive. Could you make this clear to them? Cassianto^Talk 22:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added and logged obnoxious note. [7] Editors still have to be notified appropriately before action can be taken. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Neil. I've done the alert but not obnoxiously (I must be getting old and tired of the strife). Here's hoping, Cassianto, that you'll be able to get back to your usual productive self now. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Neil, shouldn't your obnoxious box be on talk also? Thanks for not pinging the committee, Cassianto. There's hardly ever a good reason for pinging the lot of them as individuals, IMO. I note the user in question didn't even use an edit summary for his uncollapse. That's odd.. no, it isn't really, because he hardly ever does use edit summaries. I'm going to put a note on his page about it. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Posting a talk page notice is optional. I thought about it, and decided in this instance, sticking an obnoxious note on the talk page for one specific template parameter restriction is overkill. What do you think?

Not sure. It's clearly a parameter that people feel strongly about. And I can understand them: the infobox is pretty big and ugly, sticking down below the lead. Anyway, they do feel strongly. I wish there was a better way of collapsing an infobox, something that would make it easier for the reader to unfold it. We're used to looking for the tiny "show" link, but most readers presumably are not. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Sill, glad to know that re-litigating an idiotbox discussion and edit warring is something that ArbCom will frown on. How about re-opening a discussion less than 24 hours after another discussion had been closed, then adding the box back after 11 days, while the RfC is still open? Excellent news that ArbCom managed to sort all that mess out then. Once again I suspect that if the re-litigating and edit warring had been to remove the box, rather than force it back in, all hell would have broken out and it would have been ANI, blocks or ArbCom to ensure punishment was meted out. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bish, you can obviously handle this however you want but I won't be looking at any complaints that use the term "idiotbox". Completely fed up with that nonsense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't like it either. A lot has happened in the last few hours, but please don't stoke the flames further, SchroCat. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

NeilN: Its a word: get over it (and after you've takenthe publishers of For Dummies to task, I'll take it more seriously). Personally I get completely fed up with people opening an idiotbox thread the day after it's been closed, then edit warring to force it back in while the RfC is still open. I guess the use of an inoffensive word is soooo much more disruptive than the continual re-litigating until the IB warriors get their own way, but I've seen so many gutter tactics used that I guess mileage varies. - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: As the Arbcom case was named "Civility in infobox discussions" and there was a finding of fact regarding baiting, I don't think I will "get over it". Admins can now take action to curb the disruption you describe. They can also take action to curb the baiting you self-servingly describe as "inoffensive". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not baiting, so please don't try to smear me again (and given the near-trolling by one user at the previous clarification thread, I would have thought that disapprobation should be directed in that direction, not towards something that doesn't even reach the level of For Dummies). Either way, I see no actual action being taken in the case I've highlighted. An editor has acted unilaterally to re-litigate a closed case and force back in what was agreed to look out, and yet no actual action. Still, if you think venting at me is a good use of time and effort, there's little I can do about it. - SchroCat (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Brexit. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goodone121, you really shouldn’t template an administrator who was enforcing policy (or any regular user for that matter.) besides, using Twinkle on Bish means you miss the nature pictures. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

to TonyBallioni, 1. I didn't know Bish was an Admin.

2.I normally use templates, as my Aspergers Syndrome Autism means I do not write too well.

3. The main thrust was on-topic (even though the recommended wording was unencyclopedic), so IMHO, WP:NOTAFORUM isn't implicated.

P.S. I didn't use Twinkle, but the default editing interface. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you got to see the nature picture then :)

I got pinged before I could place a note on your talk page, but in the interest of keeping this together I'll be brief here: a 19,000 byte rant by an IP on a talk page that involves serial quotations and discusses how we are going to be judged based on our reporting of an article may not fall within the exact boundaries of NOTAFORUM, but it certainly falls within the spirit of it. If you don't like that, try the spirit of WP:SOAP, if that fails WP:DE and if all else fails WP:IAR.

Re: templating I appreciate that you may have other conditions that affect the way you interact with others. That's fine, but we have plenty of editors who are somewhere on the spectrum, and while learning the social norms of this only community can be more difficult for them than it may be for other editors, they tend to get along fine eventually. A brief note saying "Hey, why did you remove this?" would have done the trick and encouraged communication. Templates have a place, but that place usually isn't communicating with experienced users

TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony. I have already written to Goodone121 on their talkpage, as I had no way of knowing the person here on my page, with a totally different sig, was the same editor that had reverted me. Please see WP:SIG, Goodone121: "A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page." Anyway, I was concerned about your revert, not because you reverted an admin, but because you reverted a user who had given an ample explanation of their edit, and your revert gave no explanation at all. Do you have an excuse for that? Bishonen | talk 08:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at Richard0612's talk page.
Message added 13:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Richard ⁰⁶¹² 13:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock

Hello Bishonen, can you please take a look at Ashishdpune who appears to be a possible sock of Koltepatil2017 (talk · contribs) you blocked in February (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kolte Patil). Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 07:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's not a sock, it's a meatpuppet. I've blocked, and deleted the article. Thanks for creating the SPI, GSS. Bishonen | talk 11:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for looking at this and I doubt it was created by one of their employee per this Linkedin profile. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

German war effort arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have moved one of your comments to a separate section per the usual structure at arbitration case pages; threaded discussion is not allowed and an arb has asked that we enforce this strictly here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TFA talk page moved

+ a user page: [8] - (any) admin needed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

was fixed, thanks all who did --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Module:Carousel

Module:Carousel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you're invited to not be a busybody. What a pointless nomination. Bishonen | talk 03:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Well; that seems to be going the way of all things :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You are not yet mentioned but your block may be raised following this at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think you should raise my block yourself, Sitush? It's pretty recent, and blocks for ridiculousness aren't common. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Not common enough perhaps ;) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SitushTheBrahminbazturd

Care to do the honours with SitushTheBrahminbazturd (talk · contribs) ? - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link and it shows that the user has been indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Brahminbazturd? You should add that compliment to your userpage. Bishonen | talk 08:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yep. I am trying to recall whether I have ever known a Barry ("Baz") Turd. They will be back: long-term block evading sock. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SitushTheBrahminbazturd is a super-sobriquet. The 'best' I ever received was "feminized nebbish" (he thought I was man), but it pales into insignificance. I file my brickbats as a special subsection in my talk archives. Modesty forbids me from adorning my user page with them

. Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meatfarm

Hi Bishonen.

You created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm. I have searched the Internet for a definition of "meatfarm" and all I get is thousands of references to places where livestock is raised; as an internet term, it appears to be uncommon and obscure, even when I use the search string "meatfarm internet slang." What do you mean by this term?

Thanks. — O'Dea (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A collection, "drawer", or "farm" of meatpuppets. Compare the common expression (on Wikipedia, at least) sockfarm. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed games

Just a heads up. Randfal2 popped up on my watchlist making 20+ single character edits at Misha Frid. I noticed TurnPike37 doing the same thing with a bit more subtlety elsewhere last night. I suppose they may simply be really obsessive about, yet not very good with, grammar but I bet they will be less concerned after they hit 500 edits. Jbh ^Talk 16:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention, Jbhunley. Randfal2's little edits are mostly bona fide corrections, or at least reasonable expressions of comma fanaticism. (Though this one is simply wrong, and I just reverted it. A more careful look would probably find more like that.) Also, you notice they've been editing in exactly the same way for six months, which makes extended confirmed gaming inherently unlikely, I'd say. Those gamers are normally in more of a hurry. I'm more inclined to be suspicious of TurnPike, who made all their edits today. (!) That's a comma fanatic in a hurry. (How do you mean, "more subtlety"?) Anyway, I'll try to keep an eye out. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. TurnPike was only doing 3-4 rather than 30 edits on a page … not subtle, just more subtle than 20

Jbh ^Talk 20:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh. I've just reverted two more: They think an Arts Centre is "based on a farmhouse" not "based in a farmhouse". Then there's the subtler one which changes "The Open University's headquarters are in the Walton Hall district, though because this is a distance learning institution, the only students resident on campus are approximately 200 full-time postgraduates." to "The Open University's headquarters are in the Walton Hall district, though, because this is a distance learning institution, the only students resident on campus are approximately 200 full-time postgraduates." The comma after Walton Hall district actually should be a semicolon because it's a run-on sentence. Somebody needs to ask Randfal2 to get the sense of what is being edited, rather than applying generalised rules indiscriminately. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody like you, young Dino? bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 18:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Not me, sorry. I've finally reached the end of my tether with this place. The sheer stupidity demonstrated at Peter Southwood's RfA has convinced me it's no longer worth the effort. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. Still, currently at 73%. I think he'll make it. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Luxury

Could the "home collection" be the collection and absorbance of drips that might arise, or rather fall, in the home?
"Writing instruments": Oh yes, tools to stick in one's top pocket.

I'd always thought it was a sensation one enjoyed. But this and the like have reminded me that it's instead merely things that demonstrate that income tax should be more progressive.

Er, where was I? Yes, conversion from "watch" to "timepiece" made me chuckle. Looking more closely at the article in question than I'd done in years, I found it was even worse than I'd vaguely imagined. For one thing, there are a lot of "Citation needed" flags that have been in place since 2012. Should one let the article stew in its obsequious juices, or apply editorial leeches to drain these out? -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you even say "luxury" nowadays without a fake Yorkshire accent? Also, even Cartier's own site calls them "watches". I've fixed the "writing instruments"; guess what they are? Come on, guess! But the "home collection" defeats me. I can't imagine what it is. Alarm clocks? Napkin rings? Bishonen | talk 23:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Ah yes. . . . Hoary (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"[year]: Appointment as official purveyor to King [etc] [Somebody] of [Somewhere]. [Citation needed]". Again and again and again. Did the nob in question buy anything? Even if we have evidence that he/she did buy some bauble, is this remotely encyclopedic? -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime in the 70s there was some fuss about vendors falsely claiming the ol' "By appointment to Her Majesty the Queen" distinction. One such was a manufacturer of hernia trusses. I clearly remember a palace spokesman saying, "What on earth would the Queen do with a truss?" E Eng 02:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JuanRiley, long-time stalker and block evader

I'm afraid that I'm being stalked by an editor that has been blocked since November 10, 2016 by the name of JuanRiley. Even after being blocked this editor began creeping up on the talk page of his blocked account, then eventually mine twice one in May 15 and this one being recent as of today (yesterday). And if you look at these IP's they all begin with "75.161." and they all come from New Mexico [9][10][11]. This is really worrisome because apart that he was a troublesome editor, more than anyone I or anyone had dealt with, the fact that this editor has always been stalking my edits and talk page to a personal level even after being blocked is really frightening. (N0n3up (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry the IP range is a bit too big to block, N0n3up. I can semiprotect your page if you like. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, that would be great. At least temporarily till JuanRiley gets tired of stalking me, since I sometimes get messages from IP's as well. (N0n3up (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

N0n3up, sorry, I missed your reply, and I haven't protected your page. On the other hand, nobody has bothered you on it since June 1. Shall I leave it? Bishonen | talk 20:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Self requested block

Can you please block me with the expiration of the block being on the 19th of June? I have a series of important tests I must take and I wish not to be distracted. Thanks, 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 19:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Money emoji. Have you read my info page User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks and do you accept the conditions outlined there? Bishonen | talk 20:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yep, I forgot to mention that. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Happy studying. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for doing this, I’m back now💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 03:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the tests went well! Bishonen | talk 09:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Mr Kebab

If that account is banned and Kbb2 is allowed, isn't it also a conflict of interest for kbb2 to edit Mr Kebab? It's like he is hiding it's a banned account, should it not be completely locked down so kbb2 can't edit it? Govvy (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. The Mr KEBAB account is indefinitely blocked for technical or "procedural" reasons (=to make sure the user does not have more than one account), not for doing anything bad. All he did was lose his password. See the block log: "procedural reasons". There is nothing to hide. Bishonen | talk 14:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I find that too convenient! But then I can be quite suspicious! I just leave it then. Govvy (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And when Bish says "No" she means it! She has some very snarly allies, some small, some big, some look cuddly some really don't but they all mean business!MONGO 14:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:David A

David A's six-month topic ban, which he appealed at the halfway mark, has expired. So, naturally, he's gone right back to the same ways, dumping piles of links onto talk pages and asking that they be shoe-horned in somewhere:

Or canvassing:

Do you think this is significant enough to raise at ANI or AN? --Calton | Talk 17:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly appreciate if we could please avoid that. I am under tremendous amounts of stress as it is, and do not want to be constantly severely attacked by lots of strangers on top of that.

All that I have done is to try to inform people about various relevant and reliable statistics that I have found, and recognised that I am not very competent when it comes to edit them into the pages, so I have avoided doing so, and asked for help instead. David A (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David A, trying to get other people to edit the primary sources you have found "into articles" is not the way to edit Wikipedia. You have also gone to individual user pages and tried to persuade those users to work your material into articles. Please pay attention to the replies you get. NiklasBr took the trouble to write you a long, thoughtful answer, and I hope you read it carefully. I'm afraid if you keep doing the things that got you topic banned in the first place, it's unavoidable that another discussion will be opened on AN or ANI. I'm sorry your worries about crime, immigration, social security etc in Sweden seem to be your only real interest on Wikipedia; you haven't edited much while the topic ban stopped you from expressing these anxieties. I can understand you don't want to be "severely attacked by lots of strangers" (I don't altogether understand the "constantly" bit, I must say), and that that's what ANI discussions feel like for you. Please avoid these stressful experiences by avoiding the editing that gives rise to them. I'm sure there are other websites out there that would suit this material of yours better. If you do persist, I'm afraid I will advise Calton to start another ANI discussion. You're the one who can stop that happening. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

David A, both NiklasBr and Bishonen (of course) have given you good advice. You're repeating the same behavior what led to your topic ban, and if you can't understand why that's wrong and continue, that topic ban is likely to be reinstated permanently. And I will say, straight up, that I am a LOT more cynical than Bishonen about your claims of stress and autism: either they're excuses to continue your behavior and should be ignored, or they're reasons you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. In either case, they're irrelevant to your not repeating your behavior.

I will (obviously) take Bishonen's advice and wait. To use an English idiom, the ball's in your court. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My claims of stress and autism are not remotely made up. I am far from some kind of political extremist, or even a right-winger. I voted for the Social Democrats in the last election, so in terms of purely economic policy I am likely to the left of the Democratic Party, and want elderly, sickly and disabled to get good social security, and everybody to get good education. However, I am moderately conservative in some other areas, so it seems to even out towards the middle, going by the political compass test, and since then I have read lots of news about how my country is collapsing in terms of crime, education, infrastructure, and social security that make me very worried, and that worry is increased by that I have limited mental filters, am fairly literalminded, and tend to focus on facts rather than ideology, likely due to the autism, and get severely fixated on things, likely due to the OCD.

In addition, I am extremely stressed out from managing one of the world's biggest entertainment wikis an average of around 10 hours a day, which includes withstanding lots of abuse from trolls and vandals, including one that uploaded over 2000 porn videos in my (user)name just so a few hundred of them would show up in a Google search, being very aware of various existential threats to humanity, such as global warming, environmental and animal species destruction, resistant diseases, artificial intelligence, overpopulation, and nuclear warfare, and in addition there is now the latest problem with the EU's new Article 13 law, which as far as I understand will illegalise news article links, quotations, images, and video clips, to turn Europe into a new China in terms of thought policing.

In the previous AN incident I felt extremely disoriented and assaulted by people who used my mental disabilities and worries as weapons against me. I am not very socially adept or well-equipped to deal with that sort of situation. It felt like being caught in some sort of Kafka novel where no matter what I said, or how politely I said it, it would be used against me by hard to understand bureaucratic standards, and my focus on reliable facts and statistics did not matter, as my concerns in themselves were treated as a crime, even though there are other users who freely go around systematically character-assassinating anybody they disagree with based on nothing but quoted opinions, which I perceive as far worse.

From my perspective the entire world seems to have gone insane, as it is far too focused on partisan ideology/personal preferences, rather than facts and statistics/what is actually real, and finds those who research and mention them far more offensive than those who do not and strictly go by personal opinion or even fundamentalist doctrines that happen to coincide with their own. I find all of this an extremely depressing tendency of humanity as a whole, but again, I am rather literalminded, so I do not seem to function in the normal manner in this regard. I wish that a much larger amount of humanity were literalmided as well in that case though.

Anyway, my current worries are technically not my only interest in Wikipedia. I have traditionally mostly focused on entertainment media, and I still need that to shield myself from the onslaught of horrible information that I have been assaulted with in recent years.

The fundamental problem here is that to me, facts and statistics are what is most important to form an accurate coherent picture of the world, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should ideally relay such information, so when people tell me that I am not allowed to mention such information, simply because I have turned very worried from reading it, and openly admit it, it gives me disoriented "does not compute" reactions, and feel even more helpless and despairing about being unable to help the state of society as a whole.

I will read NiklasBr's reply in any case. I had not noticed it given that he did not tag me in the response. In addition, if I am not allowed to even mention reliable statistics links in the talk pages, which I thought was acceptable, then I am almost completely crippled in terms of being able to get any important information out there, but there isn't anything that I can do about it, as I do not decide the rules, so I suppose that I will have to do my best to try to shut up to not get in trouble, as usual. David A (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The basic solution to your problem, David is not to become worried simply by reading statistics. By putting your own interpretation on statistics, you are creating problems both for yourself and for Wikipedia. There is good reason why Wikipedia forbids editors from publishing original research (i.e. your own interpretation) in articles.

If that is too abstract, let me give you a concrete example. At Talk:Immigration to Sweden #Help needed, you posted a statistic showing that "60% of students born abroad are among those with the lowest academic test scores", and I understand that the statistic worries you. But what if someone suggested that most students born abroad have a poorer grasp of the Swedish language than native-born students? and that it would be expected that they performed less well in tests conducted in Swedish? Perhaps if Syrian refugees took the tests in Arabic, they would score much closer to their peers? Similarly, refugees from a war-torn state are far less likely to have a school to go to, so perhaps we should not be surprised to find that many of them have not finished 9 years of school? Anyway, I'm not suggesting we debate those points. I am suggesting, however, that in order to give meaning to statistics, we need expert analysis. We need to find someone with a reputation for that sort of analysis who has looked at the statistics and published their views and conclusions. That is what we call a "secondary source", and it is what Wikipedia is built upon.

I would strongly recommend that you broaden your search for information about social issues by looking for high quality secondary sources. Does Sweden have a publication similar to The Economist, for example? or something else closer to your political tastes? Seek those out and you'll probably be reassured that despite all its problems, the world we live in is still a place that we can have some optimism about. Good luck to you in your search for enlightenment. --RexxS (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. Sweden is a small country, so we do not have any major specialist newspapers that I know of in this area, but I think that I have cited some of the ones that we do have in the past.

I am admittedly a very negative and anxious person, with limited mental filters and obsessive tendencies, so I act as a sponge for any information that indicates upcoming disaster. In addition, due to my mental disabilities, I am in need of social help from the state, so if the country goes bankcrupt, there is always the chance that I will die on the streets, so that increases my concerns considerably. David A (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Vanamonde (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Bishonen! Could you please block me until 26th June (please also revoke talk page editing access)? I am having a important exam now and I wish to stop being distracted by Wikipedia. Thanks. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Abelmoschus Esculentus. Lots of study breaks now, it looks like! Have you read my info page User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks and do you accept the conditions outlined there? Bishonen | talk 14:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yep. I’m ready. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have been blocked. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 14:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

User talk:CCTV Camera Bangalore

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 08:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the support. I'm sorry to have bugged you, but you're one of the few editors on Wikipedia I trust unreservedly: I knew I could rely upon your opinion, whether I was right OR wrong. If I were right, you'd tell me, and if were wrong, you'd also tell me, and I'd take your word in EITHER case.

Support or sanity check: I'll take either. --Calton | Talk 04:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard B. Spencer

How can you say it would have been fair to block me for reverting clear-cut BLP violations? Would you like me to walk you through them? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: I said "fairer", not "fair". I'm never happy about blocks of constructive long-time editors, and I'd rather not see either you or Calton blocked. That's why I said "a block of both 'would have been fairer. In lieu of that, ... please consider unblocking Calton" (italics added). Secondly, no, I don't particularly want you to walk me through them, unless you insist. Presumably you already brought your best arguments on Talk:Richard B. Spencer, which I've read? You don't have consensus there for your view of BLP violations. That's putting it mildly. And no admin has agreed with you about BLP on AE. Is it possible that it's not everybody else who's wrong? Please think about it. You have now complained here on my page, and you have also, on AE, expressed shock that admins are criticizing your behavior, briefly stating that you're more than willing to explain it.[12] The AE discussion is still open. What I don't understand is why you haven't explained it right there, if you think you have good arguments. You might consider including an explanation of why you didn't warn Calton and give him a chance to self-revert, something I already brought up,[13] which you haven't mentioned anywhere. It's definitely best practice, and you may want to consider it another time. Bishonen | talk 11:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The reason I didn't explain the BLP violations at AE was because I didn't want to turn what I thought was a conduct dispute about edit warring into a much longer content dispute. I'll also note that Calton's edit warring wasn't in a vacuum; they were restoring edits by Steeletrap, who had also edit warred (and been warned by NeilN for it), and had called me a "clown" who was "spinning for neo-Nazis". No admins asked me to explain the BLP vios; they just decided that I was wrong without soliciting my input. If you think it would be helpful at this point for me to explain the BLP vios at AE, then I will do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I didn't ask Calton to self-revert is because that editor has told me to leave them alone and has been about as intolerant my suggestions as any editor here, ever. Literally every time I have interacted with them they have told me to fuck off. I don't think I can recall a single time Calton has ever disagreed with anyone and behaved in a constructive manner. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I take offense to "fairer." Calton violated 1RR and that is undisputed. I did not. There would be nothing fair about mutual blocks for 1RR violations on one side and enforcing BLP on the other. Yes, a bunch of editors believe these weren't BLP violations. But I did and still believe so, and I'm one who initiated the talk page discussion while others were edit warring, refusing to discuss, and attacking me personally in their edit summaries, Calton included. So "fairer?" Not by a long shot. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The putative BLP vios are still being discussed at AE, see Neil's recent comment. To take part in the discussion seems the obvious thing for you to do, though I can't say if it'll be helpful — depends rather on whether you have anything more to say than you have already written on article talk, which I'm sure all the commenting admins have already consulted. I don't see how you can separate conduct and content in this case, since the BLP vios, if any, are at the heart of the edit warring dispute. Calton violated the 1RR restriction, but unless you can convince the admins you were reverting clear BLP vios, then you yourself will also be seen as violating it. Bishonen | talk 16:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Go to the talk page. We have a problem of tendentious editing by Dr. F, who has been removing RS that in his view create an unduly derogatory view of Spencer. Nobody agrees with him, and (until I pressed him) he wasn't even specifying what the allegedly problematic content was, just making blanket reverts while vaguely citing "BLP". Steeletrap (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get involved on the talkpage, because I want to be sure I remain uninvolved in the sense of being able to "admin" these articles, Steeletrap. You can take it to WP:AE or WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 19:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Stanley Kubrick

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Stanley Kubrick and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALLROADSLEADTOINFOBOXES E Eng 00:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador: you could have saved yourself and others some trouble by first asking me about my reasons and the situation in which I placed the sanction, rather than taking it straight to ARCA. I'd have pointed you to the AE discussion, which would hopefully have resolved your concerns. Also, were you even aware that the talkpage restriction is time-limited (four months)? You don't give any hint of it in your amendment request. Bishonen | talk 07:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

A little light relief

I was glancing at my watchlist a few moments ago, when I noticed a change to an editor’s page (an editor whose pomposity always amuses me) so I took a quick look, as one does, and was startled to see, amongst his many little boxes, that he is a Grand Master of Wikipedia. I had no idea one could award oneself these things, it’s all explained here Wikipedia:Service awards. In order to preserve our well known modesty, rather than elevate ourselves, I thought we could award each other something. I would like to be Grand Warlock of Wikipedia, and I thought you might like to be Platinum Godess or something similar. Giano (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Now let's see if some clever talkpage stalker is up for designing handsome awards or plaques to that effect. <subliminal>hint hint RexxS</subliminal>. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Could I be a Worshipful Grand Warlock? I’ve always felt I missed something by not being a Freemason. Giano (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civility in infobox discussions arbitration amendment request declined

Hi Bishonen. The Civility in infobox discussions arbitration amendment request filed 16 June 2018 has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bishonen | talk 08:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

FWIW

I saw you left a message on my talk while I was away (I appreciate the thoughtfulness and I'm sorry I didn't see it before now). FWIW, I'm sort-of back, though I don't know for how long. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by disappearing like that, MPants at work? Go sit in Bishzilla's pocket! Bishonen | talk 16:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I got sick of the competing-POV-pushing that is American politics, and the oft-denied-yet-blindingly-obvious love of pointless drama shared by many Wikipedians. But I'll happily sit in the pocket. (I heard there's an XBox One in there...) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XBox..? Is kind of infobox? Enjoy classical pocket pleasures! Craps table! Victorian poetry! Best-stocked fridge on Wikipedia! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 19:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Nope. Completely different kind of box. Truth be told, if there are any infoboxes in that pocket I would run screaming from its warm, comforting embrace. I'll take a well-stocked fridge, though. (I am currently working on a "Platinum Goddess of Wikipedia" award, for the record.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe. Don't forget the Worshipful Grand Warlock, though. He can be sensitive. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

He's next on my list (I can use stock art to get started on the Goddess, but the warlock will require some original artwork, and I want to be home with my tablet for that). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Sudhan warrior

Hi Bishonen, if you ever thought that the castes were just a Hindu thing, here is a counterexample. Despite my detailed advice, there is no change in behaviour. Some roaring from you would help :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rev Del

Hi Bish. Could you rev del these two edits on my user page: [14], [15]. It's a personal attack by the user in Hindi. — LeoFrank ^Talk 03:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

Done. Vanamonde (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Bishonen | talk 07:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Leaving

Ok you can block me now I'm quitting form editing 😑😩 Akshaym1234 (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative would be to stop insulting people, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Just saying. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion at Kudpung/What do admins do?

Hi Bishonen. I would really appreciate if you could take a moment to participate in this. Your comments would be particularly valuable. It's not an RfC or anything like that. It would only take 5 minutes of your time. Just a few days left.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry, Kudpung, I should have looked more closely, I thought it was more just a survey. Bishonen | talk 09:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

This is too tempting, but I will just say that the admin I looked for amongst the replies isn't there. I'm not surprised as they don't do anything useful anyway. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Bishonen escapes into pedantry.] You may be reading too much into the absence of any particular admin, Roxy, as it looks like Kudpung only invited some thirty admins. Well, unless I've missed another burst of invitations in his contribs. It's for a Signpost feature, so too many responses might have been overwhelming rather than useful. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Some administration

In light of the discussion(s) at Talk:Udayar (caste), me thinks that Aravindkrishna088 might benefit from your words.Also, pinging Sitush.∯WBG^converse 06:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The article is under extended confirmed protection, but it's clearly possible to be pretty pushy and time-wasting on the talkpage alone. I've topic banned for three months. Bishonen | talk 11:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah; a time-sink on the t/p.The topic-ban ought to re-prioritize his editing goals, if he wishes to stay among-st the community.Thank you:)∯WBG^converse 04:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page image

File:T-Rex Modell.JPG

Ticks all the boxes

If you're looking for an image for your talk page, maybe File:Smokey Mountains overlooking Bryson City, NC.jpg? II know it's not the best photo (I took it with my phone a year ago, which was pretty old at the time), but I tried to fix it up a bit, and I think it turned out pretty nice (it's my desktop background). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe a Waxholmsbåt? It's the right time of the year for travelling on one... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The forest picture is nice too, it's more typical of where I live than of where Bish lives, though... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC) (the trees are European beech, Fagus Sylvatica, in case anyone wonders...)[reply]

I expect to see at least a dozen images here by this time tomorrow. Get to it, talk page stalkers, and keep the same formatting we're already using, with new images thumbnailed at the bottom of the stack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants and Tom. In case people are nice enough to look out images for my page, I'll just mention that I like a) landscapes, b) animals, preferably angry and/or dangerous animals, suitable for representing abusive admins. No kittens, please. Bishonen | talk 09:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

That's a fantastic photo of the Smokey Mountains, one of my favorite places! Doug Weller talk 12:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgeous, isn't it? I think I'll put it up with a few words by Dan Andersson. Bishonen | talk 15:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Off topic, boring, not needed here.

"<center>caption</center>" within the image link centers the image caption... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tom. Bishonen | talk 16:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict) So does the {{center}} template, but it doesn't use the deprecated <center>...</center> tags. --T-RexxS (rawr) 16:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: "<center></center>" may be officially deprecated but unlike {{center}} it should work also for mobile devices (a big banner at the top of Template:Center says: "This template does not function for the mobile view and mobile applications"...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: There's no may about it. The <center> tag is deprecated and has been since html 4. Despite what that big banner says, the template does function perfectly on my mobile phone, on my tablet and on my desktop when set to mobile view. You really shouldn't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Check it for yourself with that photo of me taking a stroll in the park, and let me know if you can find any modern browser where it doesn't work. Why would anybody prefer a solution that can become unsupported at any time (and causes the page to fail html validation), when you can have a solution for which support is only increasing? --RexxS (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to assume that Bish will have changed image on her talk page before browsers stop supporting <center></center> (and a number of other deprecated tags), considering the huge number of old, but still very popular, websites that exist, and with all probability will continue to exist for many years to come. Adopting stricter versions of newer incarnations of HTML, versions that don't support deprecated tags, is also just a recommendation, a recommendation that no one seems to care about, judging by the fact that even the latest versions of Microsoft Edge for Win10 and ditto versions of Google Chrome still support the old "deprecated" tags... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latest version of Firefox still supports <center> tags, and the {{center}} works on every mobile device I have on hand (including a 3-year old smartphone). "Deprecated" does not mean "non-functional" or even "soon to be non-functional". First rule of programming (or indeed, any sort of creative engineering): if it works, it works. Second rule of programming: arguing over two different methods that both work is pointless and stupid. I once watched two guys come to blows over whether If (conditional) { statement; } was better than If (conditional) statement;. They both lost their jobs, and I rewrote both of their statements with conditional ? statement : null; ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First rule of software development is actually "Don't make life difficult for yourself". Second is "Don't make life difficult for other developers". Latest version of Firefox still supports <font>...</font> tags, but MediaWiki software doesn't. Folks like me have recently had to spend time cleaning up shitty markup that "worked" before, but doesn't any more. So I'm frankly not impressed by your thoughtless reasoning. --RexxS (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was it as unimpressive as an editor who can't take a hint to stop bickering like a child over something pointless, and instead starts bickering with the hint-giver over something even more pointless? I seriously doubt it was. So by all means, ignore my hint and let the temper tantrum continue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2A01:4A0:4A:52:0:0:0:E2DA (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hey Bish, this IP is now trolling on their talk page. Needs revocation, and probably deserves a longer block. Home Lander (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me, Home Lander. Their talkpage isn't for continued arguing — that's not what the talkpage access during a block is for — but even so, I hesitate to revoke tpa for that. It's not incivil — nothing like this crap, that I blocked for. I'll hold off and see what happens. I was going to say that if NorthBySouthBaranof is smart, he won't respond to the ping — but I see he already did. Well, I'm still not inclined to wade in and steamroll civil communication. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I don't mind giving a quick grammar lesson, but that's all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on my Lauren Southern edit

I saw your post on my talk about the recent edit I made to Lauren Southern's page. I have no affiliation with Lauren Southern. My name is obviously a portmanteau of "southern justice" and "social justice warrior". My edits are to bring an even-sided information to the article which is written with hints of negative tone. It conveniently leaves out supporting information in many sections. SouthernJusticeWarrior (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Just a friendly note that you just responded to a question about a possible WP:COI by essentially declaring yourself a POV pusher by both describing your user name (which is actually very creative user name which I like a lot) and by declaring that you were attempting to change the POV of the article. Note that I'm not trying to come down on you; I'm just explaining that your comment here will not be seen as exculpatory, but as a sort of naive admission of guilt by most editors.

Just as a friendly head's up, check out our policy on the Neutral point of view and maybe read my essay on how to go about correcting bias on WP.

One last tip: some people have been subject to published coverage in a predominantly negative light. These people may be very good people, and they may sometimes accomplish very good things that get little coverage. One thing all editors here have to remember is that it is NOT our job to fix this. We can't balance it out, adjust our coverage or change our tone to account for it. We must treat all subjects in the same way that the preponderance of reliable sources treat them. If that treatment is negative, then our article must, by policy, reflect that negativity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SouthernJusticeWarrior, thanks for getting back to me. What MjolnirPants said. So your name is nothing to do with "Justice for Lauren Southern"? OK. Since 11 out of your altogether 18 edits have been to Lauren Southern and its talkpage, I thought the account name might express a special interest in her. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

MjolnirPants, thank you for your response. It was very well explained. You essentially vindicated my efforts, not exculpatory, but as a naive admission that any attempt to turn the dial to neutral when the prevailing tone has been established as negative is not allowed, especially when the figure is controversial and has a political slant disapproved by many. It seems to me that it's first come, first served, and future edits can only be for additional information, formatting or grammar. Bishonen, Bishy, baby, if my other edits were constantly redacted by angry incels I'd probably have a more balanced editing history. Then again maybe not. Controversial articles are always the most fun. Have a nice day, chaps. SouthernJusticeWarrior (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just a sock spoiling for a block? Don't call other editors incels, and don't call me Bishy or baby again, sir. I'd advise MjolnirPants not to waste any more breath on trying to clarify what was already very clear, but which you didn't choose to understand. Bishonen | talk 17:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@SouthernJusticeWarrior: You do not seem to have understood my response at all. The POV of any article should be the same POV as the preponderance of reliable sources, regardless of whether or not you agree with that POV. Attempting to change that is contrary to our policy and can result in the loss of your editing privileges. It is not a "first come, first serve" basis. If the first editors to work on an article give it a POV that does not align with that of the preponderance of reliable sources, that POV must be fixed, per our policy.

Additionally, referring to another editor as an "angry incel" is a personal attack and can also result in the loss of your editing privileges. Referring to another editor as an "angry increl" on Bish's talk page is functionally identical to asking to be blocked.

Here's my advice, as a highly experienced editor: Do not edit political or socially controversial articles. At all. Stay away from anything related to the culture wars until you have at least 2,000-3,000 edits under your belt, and then approach cautiously and with small, syntactic and grammatical edits. Diving right into that subject as a new editor with a username that loudly declares your political affiliations is the opposite of a smart move. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably too late. In this editor's short history they've already adopted at least two tropes of a particularly mean crowd ("SJW" and "incel"). Of course everyone is entitled to their own views, and we're not all angels by any stretch, but I've never seen any editor of that particular stripe accomplish anything useful here. Maybe SouthernJusticeWarrior can prove me wrong and be the first. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: File:Salt.sill.jpeg

You uploaded or restored , File:Salt.sill.jpeg, but for various reasons did not add an {{information}} block, or indicate your (user) name on the file description page. Media uploaded to Wikipedia needs information on the SPECIFIC authorship and source of files, to ensure that it complies with copyright laws in various jurisdictions.

If it's entirely your own work:
please include {{own}} in the relevant source field, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, ensuring that your user name (or name you want used for attribution) is clear in the author field, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant (if such a license is not already used). You should also add an |author= parameter to the license tag, to assist reviews and image patrollers. You can also add |claimed=yes and an |author=to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

If it's not entirely your own work, or the media is based on the work of others:
Please update the source and authorship fields, so that they accurately reflect the source and authors of the original work(s), as well as the derivative you created. You should also not use a "self" license unless the work is entirely you own. Media that is incorrectly claimed as self or {{own}}, will eventually be listed at Files for Discussion or deleted, unless it's full status is entirely clear to other contributors, reviewers and image patrollers. You should also read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission which details how to confirm any permissions you obtained for works by others that are still in copyright.

Whilst this notification, relates to a single media upload, it would also be appreciated if you could ensure that appropriate attribution exists for other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

~~It's okay to remove or strike messages like this once the concerns have been addressed. :).~~ ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also File:Santa's little helpers.png~~ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also File:Bishzilla Lucia Looking Right.gif~~ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also File:Bishzilla Lucia.gif~~ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also File:Plush.rhino.bearing.gifts.jpeg~~ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~And others..~~ ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a template, ShakespeareFan00? It's certainly mysterious enough. I don't know which source field is "the relevant source field", what "the {{information}} added by a third party" refers to, and "change the license to an appropriate "self" variant" is gobledygook to me. And as for "You can also add |claimed=yes and an |author=to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate)"... You'd better just nominate the lot for deletion.

I don't understand your language and you don't seem to understand mine. It says "photo taken by uploader" in two places on the Salt sill file page. Did you not see that, or really not understand it? I think it's clear and simple source information. You probably think your template (unless that's the way you naturally talk) is clear and simple. You sound very tired of me, with your "And others dot dot..". Well, I'm tired too now. Bishonen | talk 22:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Well.. previously I would have taken lines like the ones you mention to mean 'own' work and added in the appropriate Own work line and author line myself. However, I got a note of concern about doing this, hence the approach of asking the original uploaders to confirm directly that something is indeed own work, even when such lines are added and placed as the source parameter of an {{information}} block. 22:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Three colons and four tildes, please ShakespeareFan00. I've already written on your page, in response to RexxS's post there. Another question, though: do you absolutely have to comply forever more with an obsessive-compulsive "note of concern"? No matter how many other people you disoblige and mystify by doing so? Please think about it. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Noted. I've fixed the indentation on the previous comment, I've now moved hthe code that genrate the notification back to my userspace. If you as an experienced contributor can't understand it, an ordianry uploader is also going to have issues, this defeats the intended purpose of the template. I've also updated the other two templates {{Media by uploader}} and {{presumed self}} that suggested using it in specfic cirsumstances, until (and if) it's re-written. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing on old PD images

File:Thomas Betterton2.gif - It's clearly old, but what to put as the source parameter? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't remember. But it's terrible quality, isn't it? I probably uploaded it (in 2004) for the purpose of illustrating this article. The article now has a better picture, File:Thomas Betterton by Sir Godfrey Kneller, Bt.jpg uploaded from NPG in 2009. Apparently NPG had to give up its claim to copyright at that time, see links on the file page. But in 2004 I still believed I couldn't take anything from them. Would you like to nominate the poor-quality one for deletion, as unneeded? Or I'll do it myself when I have more time, I'm on the run. Bishonen | talk 07:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

It would be much appreciated if you could also re-examine some of you older uploads, so they can be brought up to the insane standard of proof Commons needs, (Most of them are clearly PD, but Commons can be a bit pedantic.) ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

File:Thomas Betterton2.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thomas Betterton2.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ShakespeareFan00. I have added my opinion. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Oshwah

Missed my ES with my revert. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't exactly miss it, Jim1138 — I just had to do it separately, because the last edit in the history needs special treatment. Fixed now. Thanks for your care! Bishonen | talk 08:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your message. I've un-archived the post you referred to. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 09:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

PS; on the other hand, Sangdeboeuf, the topic banned user has now edited Talk:Linda Sarsour again, violating their ban. Feel free to remove that post. Bishonen | talk 09:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Image information requests....

Have a look here, User_talk:Ccmarathe#Don't_forget_to_claim_your_credit!_(File:Dhakbahiri8.jpg)

Would you be more likely to respond to that or to the overly worded ones you got previosuly? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for simplifying, ShakespeareFan00, I appreciate it. That's much easier to respond to, but "the {{information}} block" remains baffling, since the word "information" doesn't appear on the file page (not until one clicks "edit", and I might not get that far). It would help a bit if you used an edit summary when you added it; say {{information}}. Also, how about saying "review the {{information}} block which has been added to an upload you made and make it more complete"? "Review" is less than clear in itself. And you might say where to add the extended description. Because it does sound, the way you put it, with "also", as if that is something separate from the {{information}} block. Maybe "add an extended description at the "description" header in the {{information}} block, which expands upon", etc. Where to do stuff is generally the most baffling thing, and the way you worded it there might have me adding an extra descriptive paragraph somewhere else — at "additional information", or below the information template. You see how dumb an experienced user can be. Regards, Bishonen | talk 08:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

User:ShakespeareFan00/un-claimmedia is the current version based on your feedback. I'd probably suggest there's other wordings that are possible for other situations (Maybe you can come up with some other wordings? (check out some of my recent requests on talk pages for customisations). Perhaps you could also help come up with non-bite wordings for the following situations

images that are not own work, ( like for example an old PD archive photo) , but on which the sourcing/authorship is lacking? ( I don't want to use F4 for these because using CSD on images that clearly are PD is bit confronantational.)
Images that are most likely the uploaderswork, but a self-license hasn't been used ( the original {{Media by uploader}} use-case)

Asking for an enhanced description whithout contesting the authorship ( sometimes the description is all that's needed to be changed).

I'll keep the original Un-fileclaim around in my userspace though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really prefer "and make it more complete". I'm afraid I don't have time to engage in detail, or with your question below; I'm just packing to go on vacation. Again, type four tildes, please! If you sign with five, you only get the date, not the sig. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Uw-notself1

The wording on this could be improved, I felt the initial stronger version was better than the current one, This was essentialy a Level1 warning, and it would be appreciated if stronger wordings for higher levels were drafted. The level1 verswion was essentially a friendly reminder not to wrongly claim self. The higher level wordings would be more like the No Permission wordings already used, but suitably customised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kulbhushan Jadhav page needs attention.

Hello,

I need you to look at the Kulbhushan Jadhav page where a very important piece of information is under threat. Is it vandalism/edit warring, not sure. The report by the U.N needs to be told in the article. I'm new on Wikipedia so request you to please look into it asap. Thank you. Adding The Truth (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

I don't have the "thanks" function turned on, so this is by way of thanking you for your comment on the German WWII arb case. I completely agree with both you and Mastcell that the committee has almost entirely missed the boat, and that Cinderella157 needs something more than na admonishment. I haven't said anything because, frankly, I thought it would be useless effort on my part, so I was glad to see that someone of your reputation spoke out. Thanks again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you overcame your modesty on the talkpage, BMK. You have plenty of weight yourself. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

130.132.173.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The best part is this is a Yale computer. Immediately reminded me of this. Home Lander (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed it geolocated to Yale. After I'd noticed your smiley at the edit filter reports page. At least it didn't take the "physical delivery of the excrement" to catch my attention! Bishonen | talk 15:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Saybrook College, the home of the "Saybrook strip" although that was after my time. Mine was Branford College, much nicer. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now you folks are reminding me of The Mad Pooper. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AR-15 style rifle DS

NeilN is on vacation, so I was hoping you could weigh in on a dispute at AR-15 style rifle. Discussion is taking place in several locations: [16] [17] [18] [19]. –dlthewave ☎ 15:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can fully understand if you don't want to stick your head into that hornets' nest, Bish. I'm all for gun control, but discussions about gun control in the US should be kept to articles about gun control in the US, and not spill over to all articles relating to firearms. In this case it's a couple of editors who, judging by their edits, know absolutely nothing about firearms, who try to add pro gun control POV to a whole bunch of firearms-related articles, and even try to change longstanding, 70+ years, internationally accepted and used technical definitions to suit their POV (by making a certain type of military firearms, a type that can not be legally owned by civilians even in the US, also include some purely civilian types of firearms, apparently in order to make them seem more menacing...). Which is how I got into it. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arghh. Sorry, dlthewave (belatedly, sorry again) and Tom. No, I really don't want to. Nobody can know less about firearms than I do. Bishonen | talk 15:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

From the editor: If only if

Op-ed: The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise

Opinion: Wrestling with Wikipedia reality

News and notes: Another newspaper for Wikipedia; Wikimania 2018 ends; changes at NPR

In the media: Blackouts in Europe; Wikipedia and capitalists; WMF Jet Set

Discussion report: Wikipedias take action against EU copyright proposal, plus new user right proposals

Featured content: Wikipedia's best content in images and prose

Arbitration report: Status quo processes retained in two disputes

Traffic report: Soccer, football, call it what you like – that and summer movies leave room for little else

Technology report: New bots, new prefs

Gallery: Independence days, national holidays, and football – all in July

Blog: Motivation of two editors

Recent research: Different Wikipedias use different images; editing contests more successful than edit-a-thons

Humour: It's all the same

Essay: Wikipedia does not need you

From the archives: The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why the SBDFB

Yesterday, a new user "Senator Begs-Ducks-For-Bread" was randomly adding a somewhat crass statement to several other new user pages. Examples:

"Yo, dawg, you don't wanna be messing with those teegers. I saw one bite my old man's leg right off. Now he just hobbles around on a stump. Senator Begs-Ducks-For-Bread (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)"

"Yo, dawg! Welcome to Wikipedia! I know you gonna edit it up real nice, so get to slinging, brother! Senator Begs-Ducks-For-Bread (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)"

I thought that the new users might be perplexed by these mysterious messages, and so decided to tell them that SBDFB has already been blocked for vandalism. David notMD (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: Ah. Yes, I'd seen those messages; indeed, I was the admin who blocked Senator Begs-Ducks-For-Bread. Even as such, I didn't understand your acronym — I went looking for a user called SBDFB, if you'll believe me. ;-) (Editing before coffee.) I'd be willing to bet those new users could easily fail to understand you, too. You know how people always say "Don't spout alphabet soup at newbies"? Of course that refers to our policy abbreviations, WP:NPOV and the like. But you'd be safer not turning usernames into acronyms, either; it's a habit here, but may not be familiar to everybody. Anyway, it was all just a misunderstanding, for sure. Happy editing! Bishonen | talk 11:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Knole House to Knole!

For some reason ([20]) I can't move this page. Can you do it please. Most odd, I've always been ale to move pages before. Perhaps it about time I became an admin or something. Giano (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably! The reason you couldn't move it was that "Knole" already existed, and not just as a common or garden redirect (if it had been that, you could have) but as a redirect that had been edited several times. (In 2004, no less.) In such cases an admin needs to delete the redirect to make way for the move. Done. It's so nice to see you around! Bishonen | talk 15:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, isn't it nice to see us all around; we have returned to London for the escape the heat of Europe. Of course, I would have moved that page myself, but one doesn't like to interfere when one is a close friend of the owners (as, of course, I am). As a student of English literature, you may like to know that dear old Knole was "Chevron" in Ms Sackville-West's "The Edwardians." One of my all time favorite books as it depicts one of the happiest eras of my very tragic life, even if poor dear darling Vita was a little odd. I suppose today her problems woudl have qualified her to be a star editor at Wikipedia, what with all this Cis business and whatnot, but then if she had been patrolling gender disparity or whatever here, she wouldn't have had time to write he books, so it's an ill wind so to speak. So nice to see you again and thank you so much (on Giano's behalf) for sorting the page out. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: So sorry to hear about your crown jewels! Perhaps your king would like to borrow some of mine? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lady C, how kind of you to pay attention to such a mishap. But you know what a pinko I am, I assiduously avoid news about royalty. Carl Gustaf lost some crown jewels? Who cares, in this heat? Bishonen | talk 16:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Well it made the BBC lunchtime news and is infinitely more interesting than that horrid Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump who otherwise hog the news bulletins! If you're hot use your parasol don't moan. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Use your parasol"? I always thought Her Ladyship employed someone to deploy the parasol for her. Isn't that amazing! --George Ropping (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My, what a young user. Mr Ropping, in her ladyship's case I think the parasol is probably wielded by her muscular Swedish handyman (Sven). Bishonen | talk 17:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request to lift topic ban. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some ice cream

		A plate of Bebinca with ice cream for you
		Here is a plate of Bebinca with ice cream for you. Traditional Bebinca has 16 layers, but you can make as many as you like The ingredients include plain flour, sugar, ghee (clarified butter), egg yolk, coconut milk and almond slivers to garnish. Thank you for protecting InfoWars and hopefully virtual ice cream can comfort during the heat wave. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 11:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

Thank you, PaleoNeonate, it looks delicious. The editing of InfoWars just today was something to see. There seems to be an unending supply of autoconfirmed users who don't care that [Bishonen attempts unsuccessfully to snap her fingers] for consensus, or indeed for the talkpage altogether, so I'm trying extended confirmed. Bishonen | talk 11:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't think it hurts to leave PC in place when applying EC. If at some point, the need for EC disappears, then it saves somebody having to look and see whether a different/lower level of protection was in place prior to the EC being imposed. not a big deal either way, of course. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - RexxS, in my experience, PC goes out the window in any case as soon as the article gets a higher level of protection, from semi on up, and if it's then wanted again, it has to be applied again. When the article was semiprotected, just before I extended-protected, it sure didn't look like it had PC. (PC gives the history a characteristic colour scheme, at least in MonoBook.) I only removed it because I thought it looked untidy for two different levels of protection to be marked as active simultaneously, when they actually can't be. Anyway, I doubt that article will ever again have less than semi. It's InfoWars! Bishonen | talk 15:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    - [TonyBallioni muses about how pending changes also is a nightmare on any page with more than 1 edit a month] TonyBallioni (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's as much work for patrollers anyway. —Paleo Neonate – 18:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- - - (edit conflict) That's strange, as I always thought PC was meant to be separate from the usual levels of page protection, so one wouldn't affect the other. Fortunately, fixing that sort of thing is somebody else's problem. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-requested block

Hello, can you block me until the end of August to cool down? I recently noticed that I am abusing Wikipedia as a way to procrastinate after blocking other venues such as facebook, reddit etc.

I cannot block access to Wikipedia similarly to all these other time-wasters because i also use it for useful stuff, you know.

I know that such blocks are typically declined, so to help you in your decision, I pinky-swear that I have created a bot that will start:

clicking the unlink button on featured articles
moving pages on wheels!
changing logical quotation to illogical:

…and MOAR!

The bot is to start in two days and stop at the end of August 2018.

It is not in Wikipedia's interest for me to run such a bot, and blocks should be preventive, not punitive, thus you should block me as soon as possible, before the bot starts.

It is also not in my interest to actually run such a bot should you not block me, therefore I have to use the magic power of pinky swear to ~~make you believe that I created and would run such a bot~~make me really run the bot against my future self's wishes.

Nowak Kowalski (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nowak Kowalski, I don't think so. Cool-down blocks are deprecated, and you're a little too funny for me. You may have better luck with another admin in the Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks category. Bishonen | talk 07:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen,

I'm a brand new user and got a bit confused. I'm not sure exactly what the sanctions mean. I did not know I even had a "talk" page until a few minutes ago. Whatever they are, could you please remove them?

I was attempting to edit an article and thought that consensus was achieved after publishing. Someone decided to delete my work. I wasn't sure why. So, I put it back up.

--Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Remove Sanctions

I have no idea what the sanctions you placed on my page mean. I just noticed them. I'm a brand new user who tried editing the Alex Jones page. Someone took down all my work for not getting "consensus". Apparently, consensus is achieved after publication. I'm confused. Anyway, I put it back up and they took it back down again... and I put it up again.

Again, I'm a new user and confused about everything. I'm not even sure if this is the right way to communicate to you. Please respond.

Thanks --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Intellectual Property Theft, welcome to Wikipedia. The next thing for you to do is engage in discussion on the article's talkpage, Talk:Alex Jones, where PaleoNeonate has already started a section for discussion of the changes you wish to make. About the sanctions: I haven't given you any sanctions. The blue boxes I put on your page are only information about the possibility for admins to sanction users in the areas of biography and American politics. (The article Alex Jones belongs to both these categories, so I gave you both boxes.) Please don't worry, you're not in any trouble. Just read the alert boxes carefully, and, as I said, engage on the article talkpage. Bishonen | talk 11:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, Thanks! --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA Notification

There is an ARCA request in which you're involved. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment request: post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claim about being involved

Hello Bish. What Atsme's claim about you being involved is based on can be seen in this thread on her talk page (showing what it looked like just before being archived on 30 June), and my comment about the "involved" claim in that thread can be seen here. Judging by what has been posted at WP:ARCA since you posted there I don't think there will be a need for me to comment there, but if there's a need for it I will. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tom. No, I don't really think there will be any need. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Just curious

Do you really find the I-have-no-idea-what-topic-ban-means-and-I-don't-want-to-find-out syndrome common? I only ask because the vio appears on the surface to be so blatant. A warning wouldn't hurt from my uneducated POV. A waste of time, maybe, but isn't time on our side?. Tiderolls 21:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tide rolls. I'd be OK with a warning, too. Yes, I find the syndrome to be extremely common, but my perspective may be skewed by the fact that I place many topic bans in the India-Pakistan area. Newbie editors there sometimes have poor English, and sometimes arrive breathing fire after being told on some caste noticeboard about Wikipedia's lack of respect for their great caste/social group, which is as everybody knows actually descended from kings, or maybe gods. The regular DS sanction template is no picnic for anybody, and incomprehensible for the average caste warrior. RexxS has helped me make a simplified, topic ban specific, template to use for them and others with limited English, but I can't say it has made that much difference. 😕 Bishonen | talk 22:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

At least you and RexxS are trying and have skills. I get to plod through RCs and remove poop and derp9000 from articles. I'm checking into DS to find out if I have anything to offer. If you see me struggling there please leave me a note with any amount of clue you think necessary. See ya Tiderolls 23:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-Cameron11598^(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello Bishonen. @NeilN: FYI, there's an unfortunate sequence of events at Stephen Miller (political advisor) that began with a DS violation by User:Winkelvi on the article page and that has continued on the article talk page, most recently with needlessly uncivil and pointless comments and edit summaries by Winkelvi there. In my opinion, this user is unable to engage in constructive content-and policy-based collaboration and has demonstrated that inability over an extended period of incivility and disruption on numerous articles related to American Politics. However, I'm here just to point out the current incident, which I've documented, and I don't expect any reply from you here and am not making any accusations or aspersions about my opinion of his history. Thanks for your volunteer efforts on WP. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~SPECIFICO - You've pinged me but I don't see my name ? .... It looks like you've pasted someones userpage ? .... Rather confused.... –Davey2010^Talk 17:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Also when I clicked on a section to reply I've ended up somehow posting on Winkelvi's userpage .... –Davey2010^Talk 17:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

NVM you've pasted someones userpage, Many thanks for the confusion just what I wanted. –Davey2010^Talk 17:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now an edit conflict with Davey, fantastic. Davey2010, SPECIFICO didn't paste it, he accidentally transcribed it on to my page by using the template {{User:Winkelvi}}, i.e. curly brackets by mistake. Thank you, SPECIFICO, but I'm kind of tired of American politics right now. (Also please use preview.) Bishonen | talk 17:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict) This is interesting. Especially when you consider I immediately did exactly what SPECIFICO requested I do,[21][22] after pointing out my error at the article talk page.[23] I think it should be further noted that I asked/encouraged SPECIFICO to add to the discussion "Do you have anything to say here that will support your contention that the content belongs in the article and will lend to further discussion and coming to consensus?" that I started there.[24] SPECIFICO chose to decline taking part in a discussion [25] re: their concerns "My valid and sufficient endorsement of the consensus text is fully stated in my edit summary. I will have no further comment...". Even after another editor stated they didn't have an issue with either my preferred version or SPECIFICO's preferred version [26] and another editor commented that they were not in favor of SPECIFICO's preferred version [27], SPECIFICO chose to retort with "BS" [28]. I do find all of these comments and actions at this particular article talk page ironic in light of their charge against me that I'm "...unable to engage in constructive content-and policy-based collaboration and has demonstrated that inability over an extended period of incivility and disruption on numerous articles related to American Politics". I think I've exhibited nothing but a desire to engage in constructive content and policy based collaboration as well as civility at this article and article talk page with SPECIFICO. Because of that, I'm puzzled by them coming here and posting the above. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm puzzled by you posting the above immediately below where I say I'm of tired of American politics right now, Winkelvi. Please take it elsewhere. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't see that you said that. I only noted the edit conflict but didn't investigate further. Again, my bad and there was no malintent. What I posted was entirely of good faith. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot. YOURE THE PLATINUM GODDESS OF WIKIPEDIA? I'm sorry, I should have realized... Drmies (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Yes, you should. But your remark is amazingly apropos, because I just today got a civil e-mail from a user complaining that the text which appears on mouseover of the goddess can be intimidating, especially to new users. We don't want that, so I've asked the kind artist, Mr Hammertrousers, to see if he can change it to something more inviting. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

It's so Wikipedia, having four different names for the same thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That badge was begging for some light punning anyways, so I've made a little tweak. It should look a tad less foreboding now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MjolnirPants. Yes, I'm hard as nails! Not sure about the other bits. Bishonen | talk 08:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I'd have added "humble" too, but I'm not sure that platinum is know for its humility. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUNDING

Do I need to file some kind of formal case to get Winkelvi to stop hounding me? Or can any of the multiple admins who are aware of what he's up to just act? In the last hour, the editor has gone to half-a-dozen articles that I created more than a year ago, and added tags to them. The articles are literally as far away as is possible from American politics, and it's obvious that Winkelvi is going through them as part of his daily harassment routine against me[29][30][31][32][33]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: Actually I see Winkelvi only took two minutes to tag five articles created by you. Yes, I regard that as harassment. I've warned him. Let us now await the troll IPs coming out from behind the open proxies. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

DS review

Bish, can you review the IPA discretionary sanction I instituted here, especially for the effectiveness and clarity of the scope of the topic-ban? Abecedare (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good ban, Abecedare, and great to see you around. What an unusual thing — a Wikipedia mule! The scope should be large enough. Perhaps it would help the user if you gave a couple of examples of 1) edits concerning only India or only Pakistan, which are OK, versus examples of 2) edits concerning the conflict, which are out of bounds. For 2), preferably the kind of sneaky edits that are related to the conflict but which don't explicitly address it. The borderline cases. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bishonen. Examples seem like a good idea. Will add them if the user still seems to be around.

By the way, Obaid is not the only account being used for such purpose: see User:مھتاب احمد who I blocked yesterday. Obaid and مھتاب احمد are active admins on Urdu/Sindhi wikipedias respectively, and there is probably ongoing coordination at one of those wikis (see this) or at one of the associated Whatsapp groups. Nauriya was another account used for complaints-muling, although they seem to have stopped since |they were warned. Abecedare (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear both, thanks very much for paying attention to these "mules". Unfortunately, they are hardly an unusual thing. There are dozens of them around. They receive the wikisource for an entire page from somewhere, and dump it on Wikipedia, tens of thousands of bytes of contents in a matte of minutes, all using a mobile phone! Look at this account for example. It comes alive on 9 August 2017, and starts making major edits. Major content dumping on 1 September 2017. Journal articles and scholarly books, with perfectly clean citations appear. Occasionally, some uncleaned citations too roll in, e.g., [34] and they tell us where the content is coming from. Australia!

This user requested a self-block, but he is still around under a new user id. Yunshui can tell you the new user id. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kautilya. I guess I was naive in thinking it unusual. What a horrible swamp the area is. Abecedare, I saw your block of User:مھتاب احمد, and tried to investigate, since they have appealed the block, but I kind of gave up because I couldn't make much of your diffs. They seemed to lead to whole pages. Was there something I didn't understand? Bishonen | talk 11:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Essentially compare the topic-of-interest and forceful English in edits such as [35], [36], [37], [38] versus the adequate but halting and non-idiomatic English language use in prior edits [39], [40], [41], [42]. Abecedare (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also the latest SPI formatting is probably a result of a cut-and-paste job in which the line-breaks didn't transfer properly. Abecedare (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. I'm convinced; I've declined the unblock request, since I'd already started working on doing so before you mentioned it here. Bishonen | talk 11:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the review, Bish. Btw, did you intend to remove the admin note? May be of use if the user appeals again. Abecedare (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, no! Sorry. Fixed. Bishonen | talk 12:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Incidentally, while keeping up with the Sarah Jeong reading last week (don't ask), I came across this Jelani Cobb quote, "They understand the current debate around free speech and social media not as an attempt to create parameters of decency around public dialogue but rather as part of a board game in which each side attempts to remove valuable pieces from the other’s team." The second emphasized part captures what is going on in the India-Pakistan area with the tit-for-tat complaints at SPI, ANEW, ANI etc. Anyway, enjoy the rest of Sunday! Abecedare (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Late to this party; good ban, for certain. Obaid Raza's editing has given me pause before. I've just been too swamped with RL deadlines to investigate. The Cobb quote is spot on. What I find most depressing is that none of these folks realize they are provoking the same behavior they are engaging in themselves; it's an arms race to the bottom, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor. Socking is met with socking, meatpuppetry with meatpuppetry, proxying with proxying, and so on and so forth. When will they ever learn? Vanamonde (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good ban indeed, but what's to learn? Socking is cheap, as is meatpuppetry in some places. The benefits of POV-pushing are apparent to the pusher, and the downside of getting caught is almost negligible to them. Trying to keep the 'pedia honest is an increasingly difficult task compared to the ease with which those gaming the system can operate. That's what's really depressing. --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point though, is that the benefits shouldn't be obvious; most disruptive and/or suspicious editors in the ARBIPA area that I know of eventually end up blocked, and their contributions removed. In the long run, it really isn't beneficial; all it does is to drive admins and reasonable editors in the area up the wall. Vanamonde (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is what of the state of the articles in that area while we're waiting for the POV-pushers to be eventually blocked? Does blocking prevent them from creating a new account and getting back to their agenda sometime later? It does not. The greater the success of Wikipedia, the greater the reward for getting a favourable article about you, or your organisation, or your caste, etc. Thank heavens for folks like Sitush who shoulders so much of the task of spotting these problems and 'Shonen who's willing to use the measures available sensibly and fairly.

But we're just discussing ARBPIA here, which is high-profile and where we have extra measures available to shorten the time and effort required to apply sticking-plaster to the problems. Now multiply that by the hundreds of areas where there are big rewards available to anybody who can get "product placement" in our encyclopedia, and were we don't have DS available yet. Undisclosed paid editing is worse than it's ever been, and again, there's virtually no disincentive for UPEs. I'm full of admiration for admins like yourself who are willing to work on the front line to keep our project going. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways I'd say the problem of UPEs is ultimately worse for the encyclopedia, even if ARBIPA makes more trouble for the admins; the nationalist conflict that began this threat is at least localized, while UPEs are everywhere. You're right about the state of the articles while disruption is being dealt with. One of the reasons I write about speculative fiction on Wikipedia is because I need some stress-free content building after dealing with the appalling mess that some of our social/political/religious topics in South Asia are in. Thanks for the compliment, and thank heavens indeed for the platinum goddess and the mighty bishzilla. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration amendment request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Arbitration amendment request and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbena (talk • contribs) 04:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The request just appeared at ARCA. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. It's gone again. Bishonen | talk 05:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Bishonen! I've rmeoved the request at the direction of the committee. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy Editing! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. Thanks, Cameron. I practically always check page histories anyway — you tend to miss a lot if you don't. Bishonen | talk 06:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

A sensible personal policy

I should probably do that more myself. Have a good day/night/morning/afternoon --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Box on My Talk Page

Hi Bishonen, I am committed to a fully neutral Wikipedia and I am interested only in encyclopedic representation of politics. I do not intend to, nor have I ever, edited any content for purely political purposes. The vast majority of my edits are custodial fixes to apolitical pages, and any edits related to politics are treated in the same way I would treat any other edit. Please assume good intent - I am not a POV pusher and my edits to the Sarah Huckabee Sanders page were conducted under the advice of administrators at IRC.

Thanks -Dmezh (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmezh: If you're committed to editing neutrally from now on, that's great, and I don't have any quarrel with you. However, it's no use blaming anybody else, including admins, for edits you make, especially when the advice is not publicly posted. Did somebody advise you to post this? Bishonen | talk 18:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: You're right, that was less than appropriate - POV pushers of any kind, no matter the political orientation, should not be welcome on Wikipedia. Happy editing - Dmezh (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dmezh, I hope you realize that a "fully neutral" Wikipedia does not mean that all content and sources are neutral. Far from it. This is a common fallacy believed by many new, and even some experienced, editors. We aren't interested in only blah and boring content, because we're supposed to document the "sum total of human knowledge", and it's anything but neutral.

NPOV refers primarily to editorial conduct, IOW editors should treat (often very biased) sources and content "neutrally". They should not censor the bias in the sources, but faithfully document it. The result will be an article with content which documents bias, IOW the article may not seem "neutral". Wikipedia and its editors don't take sides, we just faithfully document the sides, and they are often far from neutral. I have written an essay on this subject you may wish to read: WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise (film)

I can see that Cruise (film) has been recreated. Can you userfy the version that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruise (film).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tony. The article was moved in March 2017 without leaving a redirect to User:Koala15/Cruise (film), so I had some trouble finding the exact version that was deleted. I think it's this one. As you can see from the history, User:Koala15 did a little work on it in 2017 — not much. If you want it in your userspace, you might as well copy a suitable version yourself, since I'm not sure which revision you'd rather have. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Can you merge the histories together and I'll merge the current content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: Don't you ever say please? I'll think about it and get back to you. There are considerations. Bishonen | talk 08:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the userfication. I apologize, if you don't feel appreciated. Please think about the history merge when you have time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The way a history merge is done, it'll mean that Koala15's version disappears from his userspace. I shouldn't think he'd mind much — his edits will be preserved in the merged history — but I still don't like to do it without asking him first. So I've done that. Hopefully he'll notice my question despite the mass of bot image notifications on his page. When he has replied, I'll hopefully be able to take care of it. Bishonen | talk 18:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

TonyTheTiger, Koala15 probably did miss my post, and doesn't have e-mail, so meh. I've done the history merge. You are now officially the creator of the page! Bishonen | talk 06:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. However, I think the talk page history also needs to be restored. This article was previously a DYK (Feb 2016). That part of the talk page history needs to be restored. Could you please do that as well.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did restore the talkpage history — look at it. That doesn't mean everything in the history appears on the page; the page shows the most recent version. I don't see why you shouldn't readd the DYK thing on the top page if you like. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I was probably having a cache problem. Thanks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or somebody put the DYK notice back on the talk page for you. --T-RexxS (rawr) 11:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Full of self-satisfaction.] Hey, T-RexxS, did you notice I got the history merge right this time? (Minor blip here, but I put that down to the pathological interfering helpfulness of the interface — hardly my fault!) I'm back in business! Bishonen | talk 11:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

*cowers behind Bishzilla* Galociraptor (flap) 12:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[T-RexxS rawrs approvingly] Dino saw 'Shonen did good. Old dino feel redundant now. --T-RexxS (rawr) 12:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poor old dino! Maybe go to school to the clever new generation, learn new tricks? Bishonen | talk 14:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

More sock IPs of Lexghi Raa

Hi Bish, you recently blocked this account (Lexghi Raa) per this ANI complaint. He's still abusing sock IPs however.[43] Perhaps a range block? - LouisAragon (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: I've blocked the 31.173.80.0/21 range for a couple of weeks. There are only two IPs of this character at the article, so potentially a bigger range is involved. We'll see Bishonen | talk 14:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Aight. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now, or have you ever ...

Watching Cullen328's talkpage? Because this is a real beauty: User talk:Cullen328#I've removed your obnoxious comment from my talk page. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Yaay! Civility lessons from Jimmy "fucking bullshit" Wales!! :D ...it's like putting Nero in charge of the fire-brigade. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Setting the goat to tend the garden", we say in my language. Bishonen | talk 09:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I've always been a bit suspicious of all that elevated fiddling. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dino favourite is "employing King Herod as a baby-sitter". --T-RexxS (rawr) RexxS (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just been told by an automated message that I can’t edit your page as I’m not auto confirmed. Would you mind confirming me? Reminds me of an amusing story concerning the Archbishop of Vienna and Palermo Cathedral, best left untold. Giano (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, just had an edit conflict here, what has changed all this complicated form filling just to resume editing. I suspect I have obliterated somebody’s edit. Giano (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darling, if you have made at least ten edits and have been editing Wikipedia for at least four days, you are autoconfirmed. And in fact you do seem to be editing my page right now..? I think the automated message must have been a bug. Talkpage stalkers ahoy? Anybody understand this? T-RexxS? About the edit conflict, I don't think you obliterated anything. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, no, you did, you annihilated Gerda. Do not be concerned, she has been restored. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

We expect less biblical knowledge and say: Den Bock zum Gärtner machen - make the buck gardener. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How extraordinary, but what a relief to know one has not been deconsecrated. Many apologies Gerda, as we say in Italiano: Wir mussen eine spaziergang in die biergarten haben. Giano (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, judging by the portrait on your talk page, you look like the kinda guy (gal?) who does a lot of deconsecrating... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I'd love a stroll to a Biergarten with you! - Edit conflicts happen to all of us, no problem, really. Funny that in Swedish, it's the goat, and in German her male companion ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page usage while blocked

Hey Bishonen, I have a question for you. I thought I had a clear understanding of blocking policy and how it relates to talk page usage while blocked, but I've had an admin tell me that I am incorrect. My understanding was that when blocked, a talk page should only be used to discuss the block and post potential block appeals. I've seen an indef blocked editor who is using their talk page repeatidly to post citations for other users to use, sometimes even with instructions/pings for said person to apply the edit. I went and looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors and the wording there seems ambiguous to me, seemingly placing the onus on the editor rather than the person who is blocked to not do the edits. Since I may have been misunderstanding this policy, I wanted to ask your opinion. Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tarage. I know many people, including some admins, say the talkpage of a blocked user is only for requesting unblock. I don't agree with them. If that was a rule, which it isn't AFAIK, it's certainly being applied very patchily across the site. Talkpage access should only be revoked if it's being used obnoxiously, such as to attack others (though a bit of venting is allowable, too) or to make many frivolous unblock requests. As for edits on behalf of blocked editors, notice that you're linking to edits on behalf of banned editors — not the same thing. But in either case, the onus is on the user making the edit, yes. But I'm sure you didn't come to my page merely to ask a general question. What conflict is this about? Bishonen | talk 20:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

(talk page stalker) There was discussion about this in March, here:Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_8#Proxying_for_blocked_users?. I was surprised by what some admins said there. I don't think trying to get others to edit by proxy is OK. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) This block by me (my thinking behind its somewhat unusual nature discussed further here). And Tarage, Bishonen is correct; I think you're confusing banning and blocking which are very different concepts from an administrative point of view (a ban means "you're not welcome here, go away", a block—which is what we have here—means "for whatever reason we don't currently feel it's appropriate for you to be editing"). This is very much the latter; IHTS is a valued part of Wikipedia who's currently unable to edit directly and not some kind of wiki-leper, and in such a case other editors are perfectly within policy to make edits at his request provided they're able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. This is not an unusual situation; The Rambling Man is probably the highest-profile recent example of a similar situation. ‑ Iridescent 20:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did just come to ask the question. Since I'm wrong, I won't pursue it further. --Tarage (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP range block request

Please can I request a range block to cover a user who is making unsourced edits after having been blocked twice for the same sort of edits. They are currently editing on 2600:8800:4480:5D10:E42F:DB9E:E33B:379A, and have been blocked on 2600:8800:4480:5D10:6D07:80A0:8A4C:3529 and 2600:8800:4480:5D10:7DCB:D8CA:764A:B15D. They have also edited as 2600:8800:4480:5D10:10B6:DDB8:3E13:DA98 and 2600:8800:4480:5D10:E42F:DB9E:E33B:379A. The consistent pattern is claiming that there will be new editions of Fall Brawl and Bash at the Beach, and/or that Extreme Rules (2018) and Hell in a Cell (2018) are the final events under those names, all without providing a source.

The edits are all within the 2600:8800:4480:5D10: range, so a range block would cover them. I believe this is the same user who edited on a different IP range (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4480:3820:0:0:0:0/64&target=2600%3A8800%3A4480%3A3820%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F64]. See in particular their edits to Fall Brawl that made similar claims that there would be a new event. Silverfish (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've blocked 2600:8800:4480:5D10::/64 for a week. Bishonen | talk 17:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

They have continued making the same sort of edits after the block just expired. See [44]. Silverfish (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's downright stubborn. Range blocked for three months. I can't see anything useful coming out of it; it's all of a kind. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Self requested block.

Please can you impose an indefinite self requested block on my account please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, I'm sorry to see it has come to this. If you've read my selfrequested block page, you'll know six months is the maximum term I will consider. I'll block you for six months in 24 hours (please do read the page I mentioned, where this delay is also explained) if you confirm at that time that a) you have read User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks and understood my conditions, and b) you still want me to. Provided, I suppose, that JzG hasn't already blocked you by then. Any special reason why you asked two admins? Bishonen | talk 20:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

And indeed I see JzG just did. Well. Bishonen | talk 20:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I hope Spartaz will be back soon. Everyone needs a break form time to time. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If Bishonen doesn't mind me polluting their page, it's getting fucking stupid. There are more admins resigning in principle than we have principles. Hmmm. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 23:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor you had topic banned

here was recently reverted by me for disruptions in ARBIPA. May I know if that topic ban was ever lifted by you or at another location ? asking because there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Saladin1987 on this editor. Thanks. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I figured out from the template itself, it was only for 6 months. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Yep. Nowadays, I'm more likely to T-ban indefinitely and encourage an appeal after six months, so that lifting the ban comes to depend somewhat on constructive editing in other areas. But I guess I thought differently back in 2016. We live and learn. Bishonen | talk 22:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the kind reply. I was under the same impression that admins TBAN indefinitely which is why I assumed the same and asked in the first place. Have a good day, cheers.--DBig Xrayᗙ 22:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at this essay and, if possible, add to it, correct it or tweak it?

It's at User:MjolnirPants/nonazis. I've also mentioned it to Drmies and TonyBallioni, at Drmies' talk page. See my final comment and the usual trust I have in your judgement for why I'm asking you to weigh in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time zone forbids, but I'll be glad to take a look tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

No rush. Thanks! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WV's talk page

Just so you know, I posted the following a WV's talk page:

Good block, Bish. The constant squabbling between these two is very disruptive to the project, and it always seems to be WV that starts it. I have wondered in the past why we don't impose an interaction ban - either one-way against WV, or two-way against both of them. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WV chose to delete it, along with another edit he didn't like. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know, MelanieN. I always read Winkelvi's page via the history — it's the only way. Thanks for your comment there. Bishonen | talk 09:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User: Thomas Paine1776

Hi Bishonen. Since you were the last admin to warn Thomas Paine1776 (talk · contribs)[45], I thought I'd see if you had comments or recommendations on his continued sanctionable editing [46]. I only quickly looked through his edits in BLPs since you warned him, and I think sanctions are long overdue. @Thomas Paine1776: --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He also has a tendency to use deceptive edit summaries (on the very rare occasions when he uses edit summaries at all), e.g., labeling this edit as "grammar." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz and Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: The user doesn't have any up-to-date discretionary sanctions alert about biography articles, unfortunately. I've given him one now, as well as a warning about uncollaborative editing. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. He was given an alert about modern US politics, which I believe Joey Gibson (political activist) falls under. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several of them fall under that. But not Boris Johnson, and perhaps not purely religious American figures, either. Also, the Am Pol alert will "expire" in November. Of course it doesn't have to be a discretionary sanction at all if the user continues to be uncollaborative; that's something that's sanctionable in itself. Thanks for alerting me, Ronz. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Mail

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

—AE (talk • contributions) 09:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it. Bishonen | talk 09:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

TripleParen Useage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lucky_Gregory_Smith Please lose this antisemitic troll. --Tarage (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Abecedare (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also watch the article, as I'm guessing this sort of vandalism isn't a one-off. --Tarage (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Tarage, I've added those articles to my watchlist, but of course the trouble with that kind of vandlism is it can be added anywhere. Bishonen | talk 09:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

IP 78.0.220.160

Hi Bishonen. I understand your posts here and here. Your AN3 close, however, didn't restore the article back to the version without the infobox logo, so I've gone ahead a done that. If that was inappropriate, please advise. I'm willing to try and continue to explain to the IP as to why, at least currently, the image is not being used in the article, and encourage them to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page. At the same time though, I'm a little concerned that the IP isn't a completely new editor and might actually be connected to LivinRealGüd, but I'm willing to drop that if you think that's not likely the case with this IP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most likey the same person back again as IP 93.142.68.155. I've asked for PP at WP:RPP#Croatia national football team since that's probably the only sure way to prevent any more IP's from showing up once one of them is blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Right. Yes, the 93 IP is obviously the same person. (That one has actually written on their talkpage, so the concept of a talkpage seems to have gotten through.) I've blocked it for good measure, since it's not nice to abuse our good faith. I don't know about LivinRealGüd — itself a sock — that person's English is much better. Do you think they're disguising their competence when editing as an IP..? Anyway, thanks for following up. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The article's now protected and the 93 IP at least did post a query on the article's talk page, so maybe things will settle down a bit for the time being. Hopefully, they now understand after being blocked twice that edit warring is not going to help them achieve what they are trying to accomplish and instead will try to do things according to relevant policy. In hindsight, my theory about LivinRealGüd might be nothing other then thinking I see smoke where there's really no fire, and there's most likely no connection at all between the accounts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More schiesse

I just ran into this mess. I don't know if there's anything to be done, but this is getting worse than a Corsican clan vendetta, and it needs to stop...Vanamonde (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

just wondering if you mean this (better capital, with ß - even by latest orthography - and sound). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Well, "shit" was what I was going for, I don't speak any German but "Schiesse" sounds so much more vehement...I don't actually know the song. Vanamonde (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak that much German, but I nevertheless come over all German occasionally. Very expressive language for some things. I'll go look, Vanamonde... Um Gottes Willen!! Was ist diese verdammte Scheisse!!! (Translation for non-German speakers: I have closed as keep.) Bishonen | talk 17:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Cheers. Much more of this, and I'm going to have to propose an IBAN, or four. Vanamonde (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"verdammte Scheiße" (damned shit") as long as you can control the vehemence of your typing ;) - while "ich schieße" means "I shoot" which is possibly not intended ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time to schliessen the Scheisse, ja? (not talking about this thread) Softlavender (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not just in German (scheissen/schiessen) that "shitting" and "shooting" are very similar but also in English, obviously, and other Germanic languages (for example Swedish skita/skjuta and Danish skide/skyde). Could it be because of many people shitting if someone starts shooting? Sorry for the "low level" joke, but it's Friday evening and I've had a couple of pints... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor etymology nerd here: It's a coincidence that "shoot" and "shit" are spelled and pronounced the same in German, the two words are unrelated AFAIK. In both languages, I'm afraid. What's far more interesting is the etymology of the German words ficken and fick which are actually different words with different roots ("moving back and forth" and "pierce or penetrate") as far as I can tell, but both transliterate to "fuck" in English. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of a slogan from the roaring 1970s: "Illegal! Scheissegal! Wir ficken überall!". "It wasn't me who started it, mom!" - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"schießen" and "scheißen" are NOT spelled and pronounced the same, the former has a vowel as in "sheep", the latter like in "shine", more or less. Got it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That... would actually explain some of the funny looks I got when I was in Germany... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and to make it even easier to understand for someone who speaks English but not German, "schießen" is pronounced "she-sen" and "scheißen" pronounced "shy-sen" (if someone wonders how to get the fancy double-s on a keyboard that doesn't have it, try Alt+0223 if you use MS Windows...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say this because my wife laughed her ass off. I learned to speak German 20 years ago, and there was about a 2-year period when I spoke it to one degree or another almost every day and wrote in it at least once a week. This thread, today, is the first time that I realized I've been pronouncing and spelling "schießen" incorrectly.

Oh and that two year period? I was in the Army at the time. Guess what word was a pretty regular part of my vocabulary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ai... wonder what you did at the lavatory... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure of Articles for deletion/Zahid Ali citing a supervote

Hi Bish, Can you please explain your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Ali (politician) KEEP on the basis of 1 person's unfounded nationalistic "rant" Please note that The Election commision of Pakistan has already nullified the victory notification. see ECP withholds PB-41 victory notification .So This article clearly violates WP:NPOL, WP:GNG and WP:FUTURE. I am clearly dumbfounded here on what basis is this AfD been closed. Does this admin (edit:whom you quoted in your closure statement) has some kind of a super vote on AfDs where the policy can be trashed and AfDs can be closed on the basis of his rants ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a vote, it's based on the policy-compliant comments in a discussion — not the other comments. Please see WP:Consensus: "Decision-making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". I've italicized the important words. I closed as Keep based on Vanamonde's analysis. I'm sorry, but I don't even understand whether you're calling Vanamonde's comment, or my close, a "supervote". Your header suggests you're talking about Vanamonde. But of course only an actual close is capable of being a supervote, which suggests you're talking about me. Perhaps you can clarify. Bishonen | talk 18:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Some of the contributors have erroneously voted KEEP saying that he is NOTABLE because He has won the election. Other contributors including me in the AFD have clearly pointed that this person cannot be claimed as a winner of election since The ELECTION COMMISION has already trashed[47] its previous notification and called for fresh re-election which can have a new winner. So basically the sole ground for keep vote that "he is elected hence notable" is already void. Can you please explain why you are overlooking this simple fact pointed out by several AfD contributors. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) He's still been elected. And if they have another election and some other guy wins, great—then he'll qualify for an article too. But, thank god, we are not yet in the position where our policies on notability are dictated by Pakistani election officials. Or anyone else for that matter. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: The Dawn article you have linked to, twice now, is dated August 7 and states that the next hearing will be held on Aug 19. In other words, events have obviously overtaken the "withholding" you speak of. (No, I see you don't even speak of it being "withheld", but talk of it being "nullified" and "trashed". Very misleading even according to your own outdated source.) So what happened at the Aug 19 hearing? And after that? It's September now. Why do you keep linking to obsolete information? Bishonen | talk 18:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Here is the second link from Sept 11 [48] that ( I missed linking above) it clearly states the Hearing has already happened based on the petition and re-election has been ordered on the basis of the hearing.

Re-polling ordered in 2 Balochistan polling stations due to alleged falsification of results
So chronologically On 7th The victory notification of this candidate was cancelled. and on 11 Fresh polls has been ordered. The Winner will be decided on the basis of this repoll. This person is not winner, and hence the Keep arguement is void. This was already pointed out by Saqib and myself in the AfD --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)style="color:#10AD00">rayᗙ]] 18:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Can you please take a look at this comment above with the links and share your response. thanks. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point (which you refer to as a nationalistic rant, for reasons I cannot fathom) is that several editors, including you, are completely misrepresenting WP:NPOL. Your argument here is somewhat facetious, as the second sentence you posted to the AfD was "even if he is elected, he fails WP:POLITICIAN". This is just plain wrong, but was nonetheless repeated by several others. This is, to me, evidence of battleground editing, because I can see no other explanation for why several editors, many of whom have been censured for their behavior on articles related to the Indo-Pakistan conflict, would misrepresent a very straightforward guideline to support a "delete" argument on an individual elected to a Pakistani legislature. Vanamonde (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@VNM, Keep looking for WP:BEANS to stuff up your nose, good luck.--DBig Xrayᗙ 18:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing BEANS does rather proove a point, though. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does rather...Vanamonde (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sour grapes seems the more appropriate food item here. --regentspark (comment) 18:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VNM, Contributors were discussing on this AfD, the merits of the AfD. Among all of them, you were the only AFD contributor who first started bulshitting about your pre-concieved Nationalistic biases on the AfD page and then brought the same on Bishonen's talk page. Please note, I am not here to argue over your preconceived notions. I am here discussing an AfD closure with the Admin Bishonen who closed it, Kindly take your rants to the section above which you started for reasons known only to you. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Was ist diese Scheisse? It's not for you to order people about on my page and tell them where to post. Vanamonde is welcome to post in whichever section he chooses. So are you. But in any case, you need to stop calling Vanamonde's views "bullshit" and "rants"; it's not just rude, it's ridiculous. You are free to take my close to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you think you have a good argument against it. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

My take: He was elected. If the election is invalidated and someone else assumes the post via a new election, the article can be merged or redirected; or, if there is enough press coverage of the controversy surrounding the whole thing, the article might be able to stand with added material from RS, since overturned elections are noteworthy. Also, what I think was happening in the AfD is that some people were misunderstanding WP:NPOL, because they do not understand the difference between local (which would mean town or district) versus regional or provincial (state, province, or region). The two are very different, but people were conflating them. Softlavender (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I don't think the issue isn't as clear-cut as it is being out to be. Thee Election Commission gets to say whether he is "elected" or not, not us. If the EC has ordered a repoll, that means that he is not "elected" (yet). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is almost besides the point, K...the problem here, as I noted above, is one user making, and three users parroting, a completely incorrect argument. DBX now insists that Ali hasn't been elected, while the comment at the AfD that I really took exception to was that he wouldn't be notable even if elected. Also, as to the AfD; the arguments need to be judged on their merits; and the arguments were off the mark. Vanamonde (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what is meant by "elected" is unclear and different people might be meaning different things. I am going by what Saqib wrote in the nomination: by 30 August, the Election Commission hasn't notified him as the winner. Now it has ordered a repoll, i.e., the previous election has been invalidated. In this situation, we can't go by what the old news reports said. They don't decide whether he has been elected or not. Only the EC can. And the EC seems to have said no. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Kautilya3, Election commision already cancelled [49] the earlier result on Aug 7. So after that announcement itself it is fallacious to call this person a winner despite clear evidence that says he is no longer the winner. The sole reason for all the keep voters was he has won the election, hence notable, This is clearly a void argument. Moreover, on 11 Sept [50], Repolling has been ordered so a new winner will be announced later. This is exactly the reason why the article had come to AfD as per nom and the reason why folks have voted for delete. The central argument. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I have answered your query[51] above and would like to hear your final thoughts on the closure. thx--DBig Xrayᗙ 20:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Bishonen answered you here [52], which is the standard procedure for any AfD close you wish to contest. Softlavender (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not sure she saw my comment embedded above, So I will let @Bishonen: speak for herself if she saw my links and already gave her final reply . --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bishonen doesn't like to repeat herself. Softlavender (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXRay: You have now pinged Bishonen five times on their own talk page. This is unecessary as they will get notifications for every message they receive, and which you have just increased by ~30%. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: Sorry, I was busy. I don't believe the article should be deleted, at least not yet. This article, from Sept 11, speaks of "re-polling on Tuesday", which is pretty confusing (Sept 11 was a Tuesday) but surely means the matter will be resolved pretty soon. We can wait for that. I agree with Softlavender above: "If the election is invalidated and someone else assumes the post via a new election, the article can be merged or redirected; or... the article might be able to stand with added material from RS, since overturned elections are noteworthy." Or if the election really is overturned, it can be AfD'd again, if people want to. Bishonen | talk 23:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen thx for the reply. The sidekicks here had kept me entertained while you were busy, so no worries.

nothing is confusing. The hearing was done on Tuesday 11 September. The result of the hearing was re-election. The re election will not happen "pretty soon". As of now Even the dates of re-election have not been declared. Rest assured It will take months for the process of relection to be completed and new winner to be declared.
it is not correct to wait for months because there is no guarantee that this same candidate will win again.WP:FUTURE
Since Mr Zahid's only claim to notability that was "his election win" is cancelled more than a month ago. The AfD should have been closed as delete. There is absolutely no valid argument for a keep. Since he is not the winner.
I am not sure why will someone redirect or merge Mr Zahid's bio article to Mr New winner's bio. It makes absolutely no sense to me. But I guess it makes sense to you.
I would have appreciated if after knowing the facts you could have reconsidered your closure to close as delete. Since you still believe that keep is a valid closure, I guess the next stop will probably be DRV.

Regards --DBig Xrayᗙ 00:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The re election will not happen "pretty soon". As of now Even the dates of re-election have not been declared. Are you saying the statement in the source is wrong? The first sentence states "Re-polling on Tuesday at two Balochistan’s PB-41 polling stations was ordered by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)". I know Indian English word order is sometimes different, but I find it quite hard to read that as saying anything other than that re-polling on Tuesday was ordered by the ECP. Did you see my previous post, where I also talked about "re-polling on Tuesday"? Anyway, please note that I'm going to bed now, it's very late. Bishonen | talk 00:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

it means that order was passed on Tuesday that re elections will happen at a yet undecided date in future. This pakistani site you linked to, has shoddy editorial team. Take a look at the same news on another site that i also posted above [53] this one uses proper English that makes sense. Quoting them The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Tuesday ordered re-polling at two polling stations in Balochistan's PB-41 (Washuk). Regards--DBig Xrayᗙ 00:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shoddy? It's like a separate language! Anyway, since I misunderstood it, I have reverted my close. Kind talkpage stalkers, can somebody help with restoring the discussion to the list on the main AFD page? I don't understand how to do it. Bishonen | talk 07:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Discussions aren't removed from the logs or anywhere else when closing so there's nothing to do; the discussion also now shows up as an open discussion for September 6, so everything is good. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good. September 6 for when it was re-listed? I was looking for the original date (August 30). Thanks, Galobtter. Bishonen | talk 08:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yup, relists comment out the discussion from the original date log and add it to the top of that date's log Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:D well yes, I would not even call pakistantoday site a reliable "news" site. ~~You~~(Edit: Saqib) found that page. Dawn is a much respected source in Pakistan, so I had only linked Dawn in my comments above. Thanks for patiently reading my comments and reverting your close. I rechecked and the revert looks good to me. nothing else to be done. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't exactly find the page; it's offered as a source in the article. Thanks for your patience too, DBigXray. Bishonen | talk 08:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, I stand corrected here. redacted my lines. cheers. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]