Jump to content

User talk:Bishonen

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mbark22 (talk | contribs) at 23:18, 3 April 2019 (→Cryonics: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Come into my parlour!


Platinum Goddess of Wikipedia. Cold and hard, but also beautiful and priceless.


Vandalism on Kamma and Raju Article

Hello Mr./Ms. Administrator, this user User talk:Sharkslayer87 is vandalizing Kamma (caste) and the Raju Caste and essentially cyber-harassing me. This user has deliberately deleted the work that I have placed many times because he said it was my POV. However, I directly quoted almost all of the content I added, and I made sure to cite them properly. I also verified the credibility of those sources. If a source from the British Raj was already used in that caste article, used by modern college professors and authors to cite their work, and the source is derived from a reputable man, what harm is there to provide the Wikipedia audience with direct quotations, with no influence from me? These quotes also don't say anything that is outside the norm for the topic in terms of what is already present in the article. Sharkslayer87 already has a history of caste based editing, which got him banned until very recently. Other editors, like Sitush, have commented on his talk page about his lack of credible source and vandalism. It's clear he is unfortunately engaging in it again. Please see to this. Thanks and god bless all of you. NagarjunaSarma(talk)

  • As so often, I saved myself trouble by sleeping through this, as I'm sure Sitush also did, and RexxS would have if he wasn't such a nightowl. Thanks for the CU block, Bbb23. What I'd like to know, preferably from Sitush, is if everything is A OK now that NagarjunaSarma has been blocked as a sock. In particular, does any shadow fall on Sharkslayer87 as regards this conflict? I don't mean that I'm impressed by NagarjunaSarma's insistence (here and on WP:ANEW) on Sharkslayer's previous caste topic ban; I'm not. Sharkslayer's ban was lifted with something like acclamation in December.[1] I don't myself see any problems in this instance (except that, trivially, Sharkslayer could do with reading up on the 3RR rule, which he mistakenly invokes). Bishonen | talk 05:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Hm. I'm starting to have doubts about the acclamation - see this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, man. "Wikipedia articles should reflect all the views of any subject matter." Apply that to caste articles, and they will all purvey the view that the caste is descended from kings, because that is certainly always a "view". Bishonen | talk 17:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

article Falooda and rum

hi,

my edits in the article 'Rum' which was backed by RS has been reverted, there is also an issue with article Falooda where persian users have reverted my RS there, and have imposed their persian blog source which is about faloodeh, a persian dessert and not indian falooda and its not an RS. your intervention is needed falooda and rum, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. And it's pathetic to assume that everybody who disagrees about a dessert is necessarily "Persian". Bishonen | talk 22:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I would expect Persians to know a lot about deserts. EEng 00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and that's why it easier to bake Persian desserts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jfrb

Not that I myself have been exactly Christ-like in this, perhaps you could have a word before the phoenix immolates himself in flames. [2] EEng 00:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It's roughly on the level of the Lilliputian wars, so I wouldn't recommend anybody getting worked up over it. I actually think the argument really went downhill when it got personal at this point.
And FWIW, doesn't our own Manual of Style guide us to use a hyphen to "link related terms in compound modifiers" at MOS:HYPHEN? Just stirring gently --RexxS (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't come here for an adjudication of when "the argument really went downhill", but rather to enccourage Bishonen to help Jfrb course-correct before the community's resources must be further squandered on another expensive Arbcom case about him. But since you bring it up, I'd say the argument really went downhill when Jfrb posted that he didn't realize it was EEng, who has his own, admin-approved MoS; do forgive me. As for the underlying typographic question, see (both already cited by me to Jfrb) MOS:SUFFIXDASH and CMOS's explanation that The en dash can be used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements consists of an open compound or when both elements consist of hyphenated compounds. (An open compound is a compound that contains a space.) EEng 03:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be "course–correct"? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, a hyphen is used there (not an endash as you have it) because there's no open compound. Try reading the CMOS passage again. EEng 06:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know goddamn well that was sarcasm, a means of illustrating how silly your edit looks. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you still think my edit [3] looks "silly" then you still don't understand when to use hyphen vs. endash when forming compounds, and your sarcasm reflects that lack of understanding.
I don't know whether, since you came off your Arbcom block, your behavior is better or worse overall, but you certainly continue to display, at least at times, the attitude that earned you that block. You just can't seem to say, "OK, thanks, I learned something today." This endash–hyphen point is admittedly an esoteric one, but you're the one insisting on pressing it, so you should be prepared to do the work of learning the nitty details. If not, then leave the matter to others who know such things. EEng 07:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're still projecting. Nice! Joefromrandb (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
QED. EEng 08:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
QED, indeed! I was fairly sure you were aware that you were wrong. Acceptance is the first step! You're halfway there! Joefromrandb (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Longterm professional editor and proofreader here. EEng is correct about the en-dash. Perhaps an admin (Bish) should lock the page so that discussion could occur on the talkpage rather than via edit summaries on null/dummy edits. Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's not.Joefromrandb (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Groan. Hyphen, and course-correcting? I'm busy. I'll take a look later, unless some kind tps has taken care of it, HINT HINT. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

As a tps - I'll say it's telling that the last edit to the talk page is from October 2018. (That's a hint that the dicussion needs to take place on the talk page, not here and not in edit summaries). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: I'm really surprised you say so. I'm with RexxS and Joe. But that doesn't matter; there's definitely not a vote about it, here on my page. I've full-protected for 3 days (I'll make it longer if necessary) in order to push the combatants away from their lame null-edit war and on to talk. Rather than keep shouting at each other there, I would suggest getting a third opinion. Unless you're embarrassed to invite guests to a dash/hyphen conflict? Bishonen | talk 15:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
We're off point. I'm not worried about the underlying punctuation question (on which I'm sure you'll come to your senses should Jfrb resume disputing it, though I doubt that will happen). My hope was you'd counsel him about the lashing out. EEng 16:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm always happy to hear the wisdom of the learned and perspicacious Bishonen, I feel I've perfected lashing out to the point where there's little room for improvement. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your irony needs work, however. Please have the last word now. EEng 17:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time to just now. Maybe later. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dino spoils joke. --T-RexxS (rawr) 20:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I'm sorry that your talk page has been tainted with this trivial nonsense, Bish. You can unlock the MoS page if you're so inclined. I've no intention of making further edits, null or not-so-null; excuse me, not–so–null; oh, fuck it; not—so—null. I know the difference between a hyphen and a dash, and that's good enough for me. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) My advice is to do like me and install a font that has ndashes display as identical to hyphens. --T-RexxS (rawr) 15:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've always liked Herostratus' suggestion: Possibly the best solution would be a line at the beginning of each article containing a couple dozen commas, and also some semicolons, quotation marks, and so forth. The reader could then be instructed to mentally sprinkle them throughout the text in whatever manner she finds pleasing. [4] EEng 16:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, both excellent suggestions, T-RexxS and EEng. It's fine, Joe, my talkpage gets tainted with worse on an almost daily basis. For your aim in coming here, EEng, I rarely find "counselling" has a good effect in cases like this. People counsel me sometimes, and it usually makes me behave worse, not better. Also I think the difference between Joe's edit summaries and yours was fairly subtle, even though I do agree with you that the descent started with this edit summary. Bishonen | talk 18:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I win! EEng 19:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." - J K Galbraith, I think. I keep thinking I should stick it on my talk page somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Try these too: User:EEng#Museum_of_great_things_Galbraith_said. EEng 17:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User report

Really? They look like a good-faith editor to me. @Sitush:? Bishonen | talk 10:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Like me and everyone else, they sometimes get it wrong (you heard it here first, folks!). However, yes, they're definitely working in good faith from what I have seen and they do a lot of discussing when things become contentious, which is preferable to edit warring. They also definitely do a lot of sourcing for those discussions. Do you have any specific examples, Panda619? - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly review my edits carefully. I have made edits on topics of science, Regions and Comics as well. I have made many many edits on subjects like DNA, Suppandi, Cities like peddapuram , comics like tinkle, champak

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DNA&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peddapuram&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tinkle&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champak

Also I do lot of discussion, put in academic sources and get concensus from other editors. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Sangitha rani111[reply]

Yes, Sangitha rani111. Panda619 made a rather vague and sweeping accusation against you, but as you can see, neither Sitush nor I agreed. I consider you a good, constructive editor. And it's hard to take Panda619's opinion that you're disruptive and don't use good sources seriously, since they haven't given any diffs as examples of this. Sitush asked for examples, but got no reply so far. Bishonen | talk 01:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

This week's best rant

See here. I've left them a note. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh. "I'm aware that you're both Indians but please keep your feelings out of this ..." Is there a word for projecting your own prejudices onto other people and getting it comically wrong? If not, we ought to invent one. I'm going with 'lumixosity'. --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It did wonders for Wikipedia rhetoric when it became possible to leave much longer edit summaries, didn't it? Sitush, you're not just Indian but frequently a Brahmin, I believe? Just like me. 😛 Bishonen | talk 19:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Umm......His editing privileges needs to be retired; at least temporarily.∯WBGconverse 07:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They rarely edit, so it would have no effect unless indef. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. They've cleared the notes from their talk page and have started warring. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked now. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mockery of adminship?

See this at BN. Surely someone is making a mockery of adminship there? Can CIR be applied without evidence of current incompetence? That is, because someone who has been an admin for so long but with so little activity cannot reasonably be expected to be competent as an admin now due to the numerous changes to policies etc in the interval? I'm not suggesting that they should be blocked, of course, but they have no obvious use for the extra bits. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual, Sitush. I mean, missing the one-year hiatus by 17 days is unusual, but there are quite a few heritage admins who make one or two edits once a year, just to keep the tools. I don't like it, no. I hope most of them take it very easy if they return to activity, and admin very cautiously or not at all at first, because they are to all intents and purposes newbie admins. But it has been known to happen that one of them, presumably after being contacted by e-mail, has jumped up and made a wildly inappropriate block or unblock — some admin action which might or might not have been acceptable in their day. And then there's an angry discussion of the rules, which runs into the sands. It'll be interesting to see if the 'crats refuse to restore the tools because of the 17 days. I think they should. On the other hand, I also think the requirement for hanging on to them, detailed in WP:INACTIVITY, should be tighter. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Well, Xaosflux has been chatting with me on my talk page, pointing out that there is an open RfC regarding the inactivity requirements. I've read it and the thing is mind-boggling: admins I know well, trust and respect are circling the wagons to stop change. I'm paraphrasing but if someone says "increase by ten", they reply "just as easy to game as if we leave it as it is"; if someone says "increase by 100", they say "woah, this is a volunteer thing and we can't expect people to put in the time like that". I'm sorry, but if someone thinks they have a need for the bits then I'd like to imagine they're reasonably active. I can understand breaks lasting several months but not twelve, and if it does get to twelve then they're out of touch. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't know about the RfC; I should have checked out your page before I replied here. Bishonen | talk 18:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Hardly your fault. Had there been a discussion at my page when I posted the initial message here, I would have told you: I prefer to treat you like a sunflower, not a mushroom :) - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may be alone in that; I have a coworker who once told me that she wished the local pizza place offered bishonen as a topping. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel weird now. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha!. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shame he left. Anyway, this particular request seems to have hit a dead end, sense might have reigned. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we're encountering is that the admin group has become much more like an American college fraternity than anything else. It started off as easy to get into, and the difficulty has steadily increased over the years until we now require the inductees to go through a hazing process during 'pledge week' and overcome multiple bars and obstacles, which will vary at the whim of the gatekeepers. Once accepted, of course, the member is there for life, barring some egregious action. It's hardly surprising, therefore, that most members don't want to run any greater risk of having to go through the pledging process again. And who could blame them?

As for asking for the tools back after a period of inactivity, my view is "why not"? We trusted them with powerful tools before, surely we are going to trust them to use them carefully once those tools are returned? --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^(+1) to this comment. Sorry, I'm all out of dirty jokes at the moment, so let the fact that I'm agreeing with Rexx on something be funny enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The person in question has barely edited. They got the tools back in 2006 with 3600 edits and haven't even doubled that number since, mostly in the period to 2008-ish. In 10 years since, they've almost not been here so, sure, they haven't abused the tools but they haven't done so because of their absence. And the two times when they have used them in that period, they messed up. - Sitush (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so Sitush, what you're saying is that you don't trust them to use the tools, hence they should not have had the tools in the first place. Well, there may be some mileage in that, but you can't use the inactivity mechanism as a proxy for de-sysop on grounds of loss of trust; it simply wasn't designed for that purpose. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying they are making a mockery of the system and should be ashamed of themselves. - Sitush (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of appeal

AP2 t-ban. Atsme✍🏻📧 20:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sotuman

(comment moved to Admin Noticeboard) Sotuman (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luciusfoxx (talk · contribs)

Hi, an editor you blocked has made a new account (Luciusfoxxx (talk · contribs)), and I believe may be editing from an IP as well 124.171.23.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'm heading out, but they appear singularly interested in my edits. :/ —Locke Cole • t • c 19:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Locke Cole. Already blocked by Favonian. The IP looks extremely dynamic. Well, you took them to AN3, so of course they're interested in harassing you. That's how these charmers roll. 🙁 I can semi your talk against new socks if you like, but I don't think it'll make much difference, sorry. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Sure, can you do it for 3 months? =) Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 19:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three months, really? That's a little unusual. Don't you think he'll get bored sooner than that? Look, I've semi'd for one month, but you only have to drop another note here if you want it extended. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
The new accounts are Nsmutte, a long-term vandal who imitates recently blocked users. Pay them no mind. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, block them, but pay them no additional mind. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, even more charming. Thanks, Ivanvector. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
FTR, Luciusfoxxxx has also come and gone; awaiting Luciusfoxxxxx. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One month will suffice, thank you very much! =) —Locke Cole • t • c 08:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was certainly not

trolling and I would remind you, as a very senior editor, that we are all supposed to assume good faith. Having watched for an hour with mounting astonishment at the behaviour of all contributors edit warring over a blocked editor's TP, I said what I felt was needed. In fact, I didn't even realise that you had edited through full protection to interject with humour which some people might regard as grave dancing. Whatever it was, it wasn't appropriate in the middle of that dispute at that time. I suggest we go our own way. Should you wish to reflect and apologise, you know where I am :) Rgds. Leaky caldron (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gravedancing??? Me dancing on MjolnirPants' grave? He's a friend of mine, I'm very sorry he's gone. Humour, what fucking humour? Don't answer, just get lost. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I ran away after my last post on TrouserTalk. Haven't been back yet. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No more grave dancing than an Irish wake. Your interpretation is awry. O3000 (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bishzilla will get the next person who edit conflicts me. You're a good dog, Roxy. Sorry, Leaky caldron, I shouldn't have got quite that angry with you. Of course you're not obliged to know whether a couple of unknowns are friends or not. I do think, though, that when you don't understand something (=my post to MP), it shows a good deal of ABF, and a low opinion of humanity (or just of me), to interpret it as intending to tease or humiliate a user — any user, even if I disliked them — who had just crashed out of Wikipedia like some hard Brexit. I had recently blocked MP at his own request for three months, and talked quite a bit with him off line in that context. I was concerned he might easily lose it in that kind of situation, and was sad when he did. I'm not at all worried he'll misunderstand my post as anything less than friendly. But I'm sorry I shouted at you. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I am grateful for that. I fully appreciate that some people form special / supportive / working relationships. I think if the half a dozen people involved in edit warring on the TP of your friend (who could not intervene) reflect on their actions they might agree that many actions were sub-optimal. My edit was a failed attempt to provoke a halt and definitely not to inflame or invite conflict - which was already present. Best. Leaky caldron (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As one of those half dozen, I want to say that I agree strongly that there should be more AGF. That includes more AGF for what I was trying unsuccessfully to do, and of course it includes even more AGF for MPants. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest a lot more AGF for all the oversighters/admins who were doing their best with the page, but unfortunately tripped repeatedly over both each other and you, Tryptofish. That's how this interface works when many people are simultaneously interested in a page. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
As a sort of meta observation, I've noticed over and over that whenever there is an incident involving oversight of something, or discussion of the outing policy, there is an immediate outbreak of hyper-emotional over-reaction among lots and lots of users. It's like lots of people's hair suddenly catch on fire (not Zilla's fault either) and editors immediately go into fight-or-flight, and it takes a couple of days before enough people calm down. Even when there actually isn't an emergency. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trypto, I feel you should try to develop your more cynical side. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! You prompted me to look at Wikiquote:Cynicism, and it's actually quite funny if one looks at it the right way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a longish edit to be placed on MPants’ page titled “For fuck’s sake” asking him to grow up, explaining exactly how he is of great value to this project, adding that some of us have enabled his dark side (which Tryptofish has more than touched on) , reminding him that he knows full well how to respond to an unblock request, suggesting that he understand that the average human IQ is only 100, and suggesting he shut up and wait six months, mellow with age, and respond the way he knows how to respond. Then, the Chardonnay faded and I deleted the intended edit. As I said before; what is best for him is best for him. If participation here causes him problems – let us wait and not try to force him to participate. (And yeah, I saw the oversighted stuff and a not surprised folks tripped over themselves deleting it. Also in his favor.) (And yeah. Quotes about cynicism are hilarious.) O3000 (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The odd thing is MPants does good work, and I thought the project would suffer when he took the self-imposed three-month block, but it didn't. Wikipedia went on fine without him, plenty of other people were watching and curating the exact same articles he did, except in a mature, civil, adult, and much more effective way. Which just goes to show that no one is irreplaceable, and if we feel it is our mission in life to guard the door and right great wrongs, we are not irreplaceable, especially if the way we are doing it is counter-productive. Softlavender (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Word. Many of us, including no doubt you, didn't need MPants to teach us that lesson. Many of us will never learn it. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that everyone is replaceable. But I think it's tacky to point it out when someone has just been shown the door and may be weighing an appeal. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He should not appeal for six months, IMHO. And, by then he should have realized the meaning of several posts here. I hope he does come back after a long vacation as I enjoyed his presence and contributions. And frank language (which he uses himself) is not tacky. But, an early return would just result in the same ending. O3000 (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand what I said, but I'm getting used to that happening to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph

Hello. Is there a CIR problem with this user? On my talk page and at the ANI thread about VM on the AE thread his commentary seemed totally disconnected from what was actually happening. I see this now on his talk page regarding the current AE thread. Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed my original answer to you, Dlohc, because I don't think I'd better say anything about Sir J at all. I don't want him to come to my page, for some very good reasons of my own, so I'd better not talk about him here. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Deletion review

I opened a DRV as you suggested. Would you be willing to temporarily undelete User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles or should I make that request through the DRV page instead? –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I just did, because I saw your note at AE. No problem. Bishonen | talk 22:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]


little help

Hello Bishonen! User:Cinadon36 keeps folowing my edits in English in various articles of EN:Wikipedia and reverting them without any explanation. Please i need your help, i think that i followed your instructions and i never insulted him again, from your last warning.

Now my alert button is full of notices of reverts of my edits.

Please check that in many articles he didn't wrote anything. He just follows me and revert me. 1 2 3.


What i can do? Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I can't really see where they attack you: This is about it, and saying Cairn info is a RS while that bunch of links you presented is not is in no way a personal attack. And the rest of your discussion on that page consists of equally polite, but informative, destruction of your argument that someone is an anarchist when reliable sources would indicate otherwise.
Further, regarding their reverts of your assertions on other pages, per WP:FOLLOWING, Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended. ——SerialNumber54129 14:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1st i didn't mention at all personal attacks. 2nd the topic about Cairn is irrelevant 3rd He is following me and keep reverting my edits without explanation. If it is ok, then i have no place here. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I misread what you said about attacks (I see you meant that you have a history of attacking them—apologies for misrepresenting you) and have struck that portion of my remark. I'm afraid the rest still stands though. Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 15:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that Αντικαθεστωτικός deletes unsourced text from articles. Wikipedia's policy is that we shouldn't delete unsourced text, it is better to add a template {{citation needed}} or mention it in the talk page and re-address the issue after a month or two. (per WP:USI). Αντικαθεστωτικος provided 3 diffs of mine. I explained the reason at two such diffs. At the third one, I have not explained but it is because I have told him so elsewhere. (ie here (today's diff). He could have asked me at my Talk Page or at article's Talk Page. Nevertheless, from now on, I will keep repeating in every edit summary my doings. Cinadon36 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user follows me, and keep reverting at once my contribution. p.e Christos Tsoutsouvis in the content of the article he is not described as an anarchist. But someone have put him in anarchists category. So i removed him from this category with the proper explanation (not an anarchist. Left terrorists group during 1980 was socialist and nationalistic like Revolutionary Organization 17 November, and he reverted me 2times with this the 2nd time as an explanation Tsoutsouvis is linked to anarchism by some,! Is it possible to write by some? Who are they? It is not my problem to justify that he wasn't an anarchist, but it his problem to justify that he was a one. (Just for the record the previous organisations of this anarchist Revolutionary People's Struggle). Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. Your contribution that is in line with WP policies stays untouched. ie: [5], [6], [7]. I will not comment on your remarks regarding the content. If you had any questions, why did n't you use the talk page in neither of those articles? Cinadon36 (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As i said before: It is only your problem to support that X was something. Not my problem. I won't write anywhere. Tsoutsouvis is linked to anarchism by some is just original research from you, and nothing relevant exists in his article. I think your aim is to revert my contribution, but you did it only to 50% of my contributions. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Αντικαθεστωτικός. There is nothing wrong in itself with following a user's contributions — the link on every userpage to that user's contribs exists for a reason. Cinadon36 has seen some problematic editing by you, and so he looks at the rest of your contribs. Administrators do that every day, when they notice problems — it's normal. What is wrong, on the other hand, is to "hound" an editor: to follow them around "to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work ... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor", as it says at WP:HOUND. But I can't see that Cinadon has been doing that. Are you saying he has? Bishonen | talk 17:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
again and again.1. He prohibit my presence here. please do something.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much like that, Cinadon36. Why would you ask a pertinent question of Αντικαθεστωτικός but then remove the exchange an hour later, without giving them much chance to reply? I don't see that it was a WP:NOTFORUM matter, exactly. Bishonen | talk 09:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I did answer at the first time, asking for citations, but then I was thinking, "if someone goes to a Talk Page and state his opinion, isn't that a forum?" per: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." (WP:TPNO- it 's circular to WP FORUM) I have seen it many times, users going to articles like atheism, trying to explain the fallacies of atheism, how atheists get it wrong, and their edits are deleted due Wikipedia is not a forum. Lets break down Αντικαθεστωτικός comment (3 sentences)

  1. "i[sic] think they are 1 or 2 greek persons in Syria." Clearly his opinion on RUIS
  2. "Its[sic] a common way to present as it is something bigger." Nothing backed by evidence or RS, his opinion on the users who created the article (violates AGF, note: I didn't contribute)
  3. "its a funny thing i[sic] guess". Can't see why it relates to the article.

Which of those 3 sentences is about the article?. He is not discussing how to improve the article. He is projecting his own opinion on RUIS. On the other hand, Αντικαθεστωτικός keeps complaining of censorship, (he is continuing the censorship campaign I told you Bishonen before[8]). Noone should have a free pass or not have his edits checked by various other users. That wouldn't not right. Instead of asking me what the problem is, he is trying to initiate a battle.Cinadon36 (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

he is making fun of my bad English. he also explains my intentions. Ok i can do it also about him.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA

Please note that I have opened a request for clarification from the arbitration committee that involves you. I would be grateful if you would give your views at WP:ARCA#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Gun_control. GoldenRing (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'zilla request

Hi Bish! Please take a look at everything that's transpired since your last block here: User talk:VwM.Mwv/Archive 2. Some highlights:

Bish, that was just part one.

That's just the last few days. If you look at the user talk page and archives, you'll see that a number of our fellow editors (you're one of them) have very generously spent an inordinate amount of time trying to help this editor contribute constructively. Unfortunately, this editor doesn't seem to listen to any of them. I'm concerned about how many different editors have been disrupted by this one user. I was preparing an ANEW report and realized that the other non-EW-related diffs didn't really fit; so I thought ANI; then I saw your name as the last blocking admin, so I thought I'd dump this in your lap. :-) I'm not sure what the best way forward is, but I look for your advice as to whether I should "take this somewhere" or "leave it alone" or what. Thank you! Leviv ich 23:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Levivich, I've given VwM.Mwv a warning about adding the NPOV template over and over, and about placing retaliatory warnings on others. His mentor, Icewhiz, is taking a lot of trouble with him, and he seems at least somewhat responsive (though I notice he hasn't created the desired User:VwM.Mwv/EditPlan page yet, but perhaps it's on its way). Bishonen | talk 17:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
He has confirmed he will be backing off - in the archive (he's still archiving at a fast clip - I'll get him off that eventually (it's a bad habit - but he started doing that after an admin suggested it, and it is archived) - he has however started indenting his talk page post). He hasn't edited since we last discussed the editing plan - so it's OK that he hasn't created the sub-page yet (it is still on his user page). VwM.Mwv is a challenge, and perhaps a bit young, but he does have some capacity to listen. I want to get him editing less contentious articles - e.g. Israeli political parties or ventures such as SpaceIL. I'm not sure he realized (and many outside of the US do not) just how much of a big deal gun control is in the US (and by extension on Wikipedia) - much of world is quite bewildered by the complexity and heat of this issue. Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Bishonen! I left a note on VwM's talk page. I'll move along now with thanks to you and Icewhiz for donating your time to VwM.
On an unrelated and happier note, I love the picture of a lion at the top of your talk page. Did you know that... Lev means "lion"? Leviv ich 22:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you immediately blanked my warning without reply, falsely claiming in the edit summary that I had told you you needn't respond. You're technically allowed to do that, but obviously it's not polite or collaborative, and as Icewhiz says, it's a bad habit. Bishonen | talk 17:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, that was just before I saw Icewhiz's comment on the issue. But you literally did tell me that I "needn't bother tell" you in this case. [9] M . M 17:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You think quoting three words out of context shows I "literally" told you you needn't reply? I did not. I was in fact hoping you'd explain why you first said repeatedly that you were done at the article, and then a few hours later edited it again. But I don't care any more, so feel free to stop lawyering. You're lucky Icewhiz has more patience with you than I can muster. Bishonen | talk 17:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Optimist's guide to Wikipedia

I added something to this essay. If you'd prefer me to write my own essay, feel free to revert. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(tps drop-by) -- have I just now seen that page for the first time? It's marvelous! :) Antandrus (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
13. This guide is entirely sincere? :) Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Completely. Just as sincere as I am. Simple as that. User:Bishonen/Optimist's guide to Wikipedia #11. --RexxS (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, and special thanks to Ritchie333 for contributing. Er, Ritchie, your added item 12 is very attractive in itself, but I'm frankly not sure it's optimistic enough. I mean, the theme of the page is quite narrow. But we may well need more guides. Maybe your #12 could be the start of a "Deletionist's guide to Wikipedia"? Abecedare's suggestion for a #13 is lovely, and very optimistic! But probably not strictly needed, do you think? I mean, of course it's sincere, as RexxS says. It comes from my heart, and is intended as a kind of polemic against MastCell's rather horrible Cynic's guide to Wikipedia — I'm trying to show Wikipedia in a better light. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Bishonen, I've copied the rewritten version off to my own space now. I deleted the links to Corbett's trials, the Jimbo blocks, and to Cirt howling about hounds and retitled it Guide to the WP-plexed & WP-plussed. If there need to be any modifs to the TP for crediting autoriteh / writership, don't hesitate to let me know! Thanks too for the inspiration. SashiRolls t · c 13:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea, Sashi. As you know, my own guide was inspired by MastCell's Cynic's guide — if you check it out, you'll see that quite a few of my points are in direct reply to, or tension with, some of his. (I'm still trying to come up with a sunny and optimistic response to his point 6, "Jimbo's talk page is the last refuge of a scoundrel". Difficult! But it'll come to me! I've only been waiting since 2012!) And now you're kind of responding to mine. Let's see who comes next. The guides go marching on! 🙌 Bishonen | talk 13:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Surely 'Shonen know? "Jimbo talk page first stop on Wikipedia comedy tour bus." --T-RexxS (rawr) 16:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup

Hey, I think I'm having a little difficulty. I will have this content in bold and I hope you agree with me that it's not needed when it comes to specific countries at the FIFA World Cup.

The FIFA World Cup, sometimes called the Football World Cup or the Soccer World Cup, but usually referred to simply as the World Cup, is an international association football competition contested by the men's national teams of the members of Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the sport's global governing body. The championship has been awarded every four years since the first tournament in 1930, except in 1942 and 1946, due to World War II.

The tournament consists of two parts, the qualification phase and the final phase (officially called the World Cup Finals). The qualification phase, which currently take place over the three years preceding the Finals, is used to determine which teams qualify for the Finals. The current format of the Finals involves 32 teams competing for the title, at venues within the host nation (or nations) over a period of about a month. The World Cup Finals is the most widely viewed sporting event in the world, with an estimated 715.1 million people watching the 2006 tournament final.

For a specific country (e.g. Germany) this content is unnecessary. I feel like I have been treated poorly. This even led to me losing rollback rights after I reverted someone's reversion of my edits. I was honestly not misusing rollback, I just wanted to revert to a correct version because they act like they don't give a four-letter word if the bolded irrelevant content is there. So Ivan incorrectly removed my rollback rights. I wonder when I can get them back. It even led me to a useless 31-hour block just for removing unnecessary content. I have been in general a good faith editor because I have taken down vandalism a lot.

See Spain for example. I don't know why users are reverting my removal if countries like Spain don't have the content. And I also wonder if I can get my rollback rights soon.

Any comments?

Thanks, Dolfinz1972 (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you've come to me, Dolfinz1972? You'd better apply to an admin who isn't sports illiterate. Bishonen | talk 02:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page watcher) They've posted this same message on a few other admins' pages, although I think this is the first version I've seen which calls my rollback removal inappropriate. I mean, I don't work in userrights much, but using rollback to perpetuate a pure content dispute across multiple pages is grounds for pulling the bit, right? Honestly, someone tell me if I've got it wrong. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) If they'd still had the rollback bit, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to use charming custom edit summaries for their reverts like this. ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bruh. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say there was a bigger issue here than just the "difference between Spain's and England's FIFA wikipage", tbh. ——SerialNumber54129 17:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #24163

Hi, if they change their username are you OK with an unblock? Just Chilling (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this, Just Chilling? I used to have access to UTRS, but found the interface so baffling that I gave it up in frustration. If the name is a secret, you'd better e-mail me. Bishonen | talk 21:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
PS, did you really post this some seven hours before I replied? Because I've been editing a good deal in the meantime, but I only got your "new messages" alert just now. Something wrong with the alerts, or with the timestamps? Because I have definitely not been deliberately ignoring you. Bishonen | talk 21:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page stalker) UTRS is easy now - just click the link, select the English Wikipedia, and then "Allow". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see it. Thanks, young Boing!. Bishonen | talk 09:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting selfblock

Hey, can you block me for three months? I tried using wikibreak, didn't work. Thanks. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 06:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)  Done-- 5 albert square (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a quiet word?

Hi Bish, could you add a word of wisdom here? An allegedly new editor, who's first edit, interestingly, was to report a vandal sockpuppet [10]. Has gone on from there to editwarring (five reverts) on Richard Wagner, an FA. Example of his "improvement" there. Continues to add his personal opinions [11] to other articles and stuff he found at Reddit, e.g. [12]. Talk page messages to him from three editors (including me) seem to be having no effect, e.g. [13]. Perhaps he might listen to you. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Another admin just had a very loud word with the miscreant. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. I have declined their unblock request. Bishonen | talk 17:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Qwirkle

I am writing to you since according to User talk:Qwirkle you have taken action against a personal attack of his. I have myself been the object of recent statements by him that are at best rude and unhelpful. See

The issue is his putting accuracy and then POV templates on an article I wrote (Lynching of Shedrick Thompson). I have posted this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson, where he has made another unhelpful comment. Perhaps you could be of some assistance. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, deisenbe. I think Qwirkle should be made aware of this discussion on my page, so I have now pinged them. I don't think their comments have been rude, with the exception of this unnecessary sarcasm ("Congratulations"). There was no need for that, surely, Qwirkle, when an editor has done their best. But I think your other comments have been perfectly reasonable. Deisenbe, it was a good idea on your part to take the disagreement to dispute resolution, and I suggest both of you now wait for a volunteer there to open a discussion. I can understand that you're disappointed, Deisenbe, but you also have some reason to be grateful to Qwirkle for responding at all (and to the point, too) at DRN. They're not obliged to, and if they hadn't, the DRN volunteers would simply have closed your request. As it is now, the discussion there will hopefully be helpful. Bishonen | talk 18:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Our Lady of America listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Our Lady of America. Since you had some involvement with the Our Lady of America redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Mangoe (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PROD - Sanctuary Lakes Resort

Hi Bishonen.

I refer to your PROD of Sanctuary Lakes Resort. I have added some raw references to the article. I think they counter most of your points in the PROD, but I am not convinced the subject is notable and have not DePRODed yet. However, you may wish to reword your PROD? Others may think the PROD is now unsafe though?

Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aoziwe. I very much appreciate your coming to me, instead of just removing the PROD, as many people would do. I'll comment on your links from 1 to 6:
  • 1 and 4 are both about the estate's push in 2014 to be recognized as a suburb in its own right. I'll assume the Herald Sun and News.com.au are reliable sources, but as far as I can see, these efforts didn't succeed, so they hardly establish notability, IMO.
  • 2, The Age, seems reasonably independent to me, but the text is about aspects of the community that aren't mentioned in the article (social concerns about this gated community), so hardly proper as a reference. And you have indeed not put any of your links in as inline reference (footnotes); they're not "references" unless they source something in the text. Possibly you could add a sentence or two to the article based on link 2?
  • 3, Medialaunch, is an outlet for press releases. Not a reliable source.
  • 5, Wyndham.vic.gov.au, oh no, seriously. A "gov" in the URL means nothing when the content is so obviously user-generated. It's a blatant advertisement.
  • 6, Trove, a library entry, also useless as a source.
To sum up, I think your number 2 could be a real reference, if you added some content based on it. I'm still quite uncertain about the notability, just like you, but if you'd like to expand the article with 2 as a reference, I think you would be justified in removing the PROD. I'd then probably take it to WP:AfD for a community discussion, which it might or might not survive. Regards, Bishonen | talk 15:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I am inclined to let it sit out the seven days. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted 3RR warning

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have only made 2 edits to that page in the last 24 hours, the most recent of which was over 3 hours ago. I'm not even on the brink of violating 3RR, and would never re-instate a challenged edit when it is disputed by more than one other editor. Even before you issued that warning I had opened discussions concerning the disputed edit, on both User:Johnuniq's talk page and on the talk page of the project page in question, in order to properly and peacefully resolve the matter. In future please think and properly investigate the problem before issuing completely unnecessary and overly-aggressive warnings. Thanks. Citizen Canine (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Citizen Canine: 'Shonen was very restrained in her warning to you. You need to learn what edit-warring is.
Did you miss the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." or did you just ignore it?
Why do you think that inserting exactly the same edit on three consecutive days isn't edit-warring (especially given the top-notice)?
You only opened a thread on the talk page after you'd shoved your preferred version in three times and had it reverted three times by two different editors. Which bit of "discuss first on the talk page" did you think doesn't apply?
There's the investigation done properly for you. And that's the most unusual use of the phrase "completely unnecessary warnings" that I've seen in years. --RexxS (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS:Adding a simple shortcut hardly counts as a "substantive edit". Funny thing is, I don't recall re-instating the edit after a third editor got involved. Until Johnuniq got involved it was just between me and JJMC89, who had made little effort to justify his repeated removal of the shortcut. So why are you even mentioning that it was reverted by "two different editors"? That's precisely why I didn't even consider re-instating the edit but took it straight to talk. When the warning says "Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war." when that's exactly what I'd been doing for several hours before the warning was issued, then yes, it is "completely unnecessary". Tell me, what precisely was the point of this warning? It should have been clear there was no danger of me making the edit again. When I'm already in the process of trying to resolve the issue diplomatically, issuing a warning like that is only going to anger and frustrate me and make my engagement in that process all the more difficult. Citizen Canine (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Citizen Canine: Of course adding yet another shortcut to a linkbox is a substantive edit. Fixing typos and spelling mistakes are the sort of edits that are meant to be exclusions from that notice. You didn't re-instate the edit three times; you made the edit three times after you were reverted. You need to learn that when you are reverted you take it to talk; we work on the principle of BRD, not BRBRBRD. You didn't take it "straight to talk". You took it to talk after you found that re-inserting it twice more wasn't going to work.
"When the warning says "Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war." when that's exactly what I'd been doing for several hours before the warning was issued But that's exactly what you hadn't been doing for the two previous days. So yes, the warning was absolutely necessary.
You clearly don't don't understand what edit-warring is, so you should be taking that warning as an attempt to help you avoid getting blocked, and saying "thank you, 'Shonen", instead of trying to defend your indefensible conduct. You made your engagement difficult yourself yesterday when you re-instated your change and took the edit-warring route instead of using the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: You're right, of course. Without that warning, I definitely would have reinstated the edit. There were no signs whatsoever of me taking a different route prior to the block warning being issued. Citizen Canine (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Citizen Canine: Gosh, I'm so impressed by your sarcasm. Not. Has it occurred to you that the purpose of a warning might also be to help you avoid making the same mistakes in the future? Or do you still think it's not a mistake to push your preferred version three times into a page with a top-notice telling you to seek consensus on the talk page first? --RexxS (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​So I accept I was warring, and I apologise. I only pushed the edit because the rationale that a new shortcut shouldn't be used as it was unused seemed so ridiculously circular. I'm not a habitual edit warrior or anything.

I didn't need a warning to stop me re-reverting as it wasn't even a thought in my head. But my actions probably didn't make that clear, so it was justified.

I'm sorry I act like a bratty teenager sometimes. It's sorta because that's what I am. Due to some past experiences I never let people walk all over me. But regrettably, that sometimes means I can be too assertive. This was one of them. Citizen Canine (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moonroot1

Did you mean to block this user indefinitely? Or did you actually mean to block this account for 31 hours? I just wanted to message you and let you know / ask... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Oshwah, mind the dragons. I actually meant 31 hours, but now you mention it, it is of course a vandalism-only account. Please change it if you like; I suspect it's an ephemeral account in any case, so it may not make much difference. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Haha... Nah, it's not an urgent matter... definitely not enough to warrant overriding the block you already placed. Worst case scenario: The user account continues their shenanigans after the block expires and we just indef it then... no big deal. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and what dragons?!! Where?!! Komodo dragons are definitely not amimals that you should mess with... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Komodobish if you want an example of a user you shouldn't mess with. --T-RexxS (rawr) 22:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking 185.7.216.130

Hi, in January you posted the only warning for BLP vandalism, would you mind blocking the IP user, now that he has done it again? Based on the type of edits, it seems it is the same user, not a shared IP. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WikiHannibal. Blocked for a month. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

As an uninvolved administrator

... would you be willing to look at my request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement #Infobox RfC on Fermat's Last Theorem. I've been trying my damnedest to keep discussion at Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem #Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement on the topic of whether to have an infobox on that article, but I'm now sick of having personal attacks thrown at me, as well as multiple attempts to derail the RfC by strawman and tangential arguments. And it's not just me: it's got the stage where one of the other participants has felt the need to file at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Repeated personal attacks by Purgy Purgatorio over personal attacks on him.

Even after filing the enforcement request, I've been called "dishonest" by an administrator on the RfC page. Sooner or later, I'm going to give in to the baiting and lose my temper with them. It needs to have somebody wiling to impose sanctions on those who have no regard for ArbCom's requirements of decorum, civility and not turning the discussion about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general. Hope you can help. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very reasonable request, Dino, but I don't think I'm the best admin to take care of it. I've answered more at length at AE, since I want to make a separate point about applying DS to the article itself, too. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, Chère, and I understand completely. Perhaps one of your talk page stalkers or somebody at AE will find a little time to try to get that RfC back on track. 'Zilla would, of course, have been more than capable of enforcing, but I know how partial she is to my own pet T-Rexx. --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bishzilla Lucia Looking Right.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bishzilla Lucia Looking Right.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. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 22:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whitaker

Dude, what I literally added facts to whitaker AND changed it to a MUCH more neutral version of the wording. "Policy issues" inherently implies that there are "issues" with his policies. That is the DEFINITION of bias And that soros stuff is real shit man, I don't know what to tell you. You have a section JUST FOR conspiracy theories... I joined WIKI because this place is biased AF and if you want it to be neutral, you need a huge overhaul of your languange. You've spent a lot of time here on this, if you want it to turn into a joke, then you should put that somewhere. If you want it to be a lobbying arm for liberals, you need to file with the FEC. If you want it to be a long-standing neutral website, then you need to let people have their little hissy fits while others work to improve the site towards what, in writing, is a common goal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthInDave (talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re LMacPad

I wanted to tell you that no apology is necessary, although I appreciate it. Your comments in the matter were not unreasonable, it was a confusing situation. I know it was all in good faith. No harm done. Thanks 331dot (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tut the Nut vandal is back.

The IP vandal at List of monarchs by nickname who keeps inserting King Tut The Nut is back after the protection was removed on April 1st. You put it in in 2016, so perhaps you could renew it again. Thanks Dabbler (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dabbler. I've renewed the pending changes and set to indef; semi seems a stretch for one idiot. Bishonen | talk 10:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Cryonics

I have posted in my User talk but as yet have not received a reply. Could you please have a look at what I wrote and give me some guidance?

This is what I wrote on 26th March 2019:

Hi Arbitration Committee

Thank you for pointing out where I have gone wrong. My apologies, I am new to this.

My reason for joining was to learn how to create an article for our non-profit arts foundation. A colleague of mine has had dealings with the Cryonics Institute in the US. I was talking to him about how I intend to create a Wikipedia article and that I was learning how to do it. I then had an email from one of the people at the Cryonics Institute asking me if I could assist them, purely voluntary.

I did not realize that the subject of complementary and alternative medicine fell into a special category and I underestimated the sensitivity of the subject and its controversial content.

There is no conflict of interest as I am not doing this for myself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. I do not have any external relationship with the institute or its members.

I was just asked if I can make the following changes: Replace corpse with body - I don't see the problem here as the definition of a corpse is a dead body "Corpse and cadaver are both medical/legal terms for a dead body. ... Although cadaver is the older word, it has come to refer in particular to a dead body used for medical or scientific purposes". Removing the sentence containing the word 'quackery' seems acceptable as by your own definition "A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess". From what I have read the Institute is neither fraudulent nor an ignorant pretender. The other changes follow the same reasoning as above.

If you believe that I am treading on thin ice then please tell me and I'll walk away from helping the Institute!

Mbark22 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&oldid=890851614"