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 Darwinbish (talk | contribs) at 20:38, 7 November 2019 (→Aye: that don't look good). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome, epic guest! Please post at the bottom of this page. For another compliment, please reload the page.
Platinum Goddess of Wikipedia. Cold and hard, but also beautiful and priceless.

I'm curious

You mentioned you had a little script that added a royal crown to a user name if they were an admin. Could you possibly divulge that code and how to implement it? It sounds like it could be not only useful, but kinda "groovy man - like far out" (although perhaps "totes cool" is today's lingo) — Ched :  ?  — 17:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M poor dear antiquated Ched, crowns are soooo outré. My young little Bish, I would like a tasteful tiara with a tasteful number of tasteful diamonds and tasteful pearls. Thanks ever so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I use a little drama emoji: 🎭 See User:Floquenbeam/common.css --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm - putting something like that in my common.css seems to take precedence over my monobook.js. — Ched :  ?  — 18:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just stole that from someone. I have no idea how common vs monobook or css vs js interact. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I forget most of what I learned in school (C++, Cobol, VB, etc) and never did study much about javascript and style sheets. Well - did a bit of self taught .js back when Excite had chat rooms and all. Anyway - going back to my highlighter - seems better than the little icons for my taste. ty guys and girls — Ched :  ?  — 18:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ched: I'm sorry, I added the crown script ages ago, I don't know where it is. But the effect is very pretty — (better than pearl-clutching, Bbb23!) — perhaps a talkpage stalker would like to dig it out of one of my monobook or common... uh... pages?... for you? (One of them takes precedence? That's over my head completely.) Though I must say the Floque's drama emoji for admins is also very fine, and you see, above, that he has told you where to find it. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
{{yo|Ched}}? .. hmmm neato. No problem Ms. Bishonen - I found it in your common.css. I tried both the beautiful crown and the drama emoji. For now I'm going to stick with the highlighter. I actually have very little in my common.css, just the edit section. (I commented out the crown and emoji for now) Since I liked the old monobook look - I use that skin and import .js files into that. Greatly appreciate your time though. — Ched :  ?  — 19:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Ched: I'm late to this party, but I use this, which allows me to do both icons and colors: that way I can separate all admin and advanced permission holders without remembering too much stuff. Amorymeltzer is quite good about keeping it running, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incandescently obvious sock redux

I'm about to ping you at Talk:Latino about a circumstantially obvious undeclared sock of Lauracerffer (talk · contribs). I'm trying to assemble diffs and stuff, but you may have more background on this particular case, not to mention more tools, and thus be able to deal with it more rapidly than I could. If your plate is full, no worries; feel free to ignore, and I'll carry on investigating on my side, and report back eventually. Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: looks kind of obvious, yes. Now that you've asked about previous accounts on their page, perhaps it's as well to leave it till they reply.
I notice that after I'd blocked Lauracerffer, Bbb23 changed the block to a CU-block for abusing multiple accounts, long before either Teresa samonetta or GiannaZarelli had been created, so I guess there must have been earlier socks. Maybe it's time for an SPI? Beeb, would you like to create one, since you're aware of more socks than me and Mathglot? Also pinging Doug Weller, who tried (with little success) to educate the previous incarnations about how to contribute to Wikipedia. Doug, you're also a CU, how about it? Bishonen | talk 08:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I tried to get guidance from WP:SOCK and WP:SPI about whether or not to simply ask the editor about alt accounts, and I couldn't find anything there about it (maybe something should be added?) So, I based my decision to ask her, based on analogy to the guidance I've seen at WP:COI about asking users politely about COI issues, or pasting one of the templates that effectively does the same thing. I hope by asking her, I didn't complicate things.
I sympathize with Doug for the pain he went through earlier. I was tsk-tsking my way through it. Some of that stuff could become a case study for future Rfa candidates on keeping their cool under stressful conditions. I got dissed by her a tiny bit at her User talk page, but that was nothing compared to what Doug went through. Meanwhile, I'm busy designing my WWDD (What Would Doug Do?) bumper stickers and T-shirt designs for Cafe Press; any help or suggestions would be most welcome. Mathglot (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there's no hurry, which there isn't here, simply asking is a good thing, IMO. Incidentally, for slightly different circumstances (disruption while logged out), one of my socks has a fine template you'd be welcome to use. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Ha! Btw, you might be interested in lurking or commenting at WT:SOCK#Guidance about whether to simply ask them, which I just started. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: Thanks for the embarrassing compliments. I hope I can live up to them. I see they deny having any other accounts. I've given an only warning for those attacks on here. I note that the editor posted this to someone else at es.wiki: "Why did you delete my addition "people, respective cultures" on the "Latino" article? If you're Spanish, and live in Spain, are you not proud of being a Latino and enjoying Latin culture? I hope you're not being misdirected by the USA's rash 1997 corruption of the word "latino" as a shortened form of "latinoamericano" for the USA's census. We Latin Europeans (in case you happen to be one), are proud of our Latino countries. I know I am (I'm an Italiana from Lazio, Rome, Italy). I won't be bossed about by naysaying Anglo-Americans, and you shouldn't either. Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Corsica, Malta, San Marino, Monaco are just some of the Old World's Latino countries. Yes, we use Cultura Latina which originated in Rome beginning 1200 BC. And it is, we are Latino people. The term "latinoamerica" ​​was only created in the late 1880s. The USA's silly misuse of the word "latino" for a person from Latin America who comes to live in the USA is both futile and foolish.
Especially since the USA is being latinoized more each year. So is Anglo-Canada. There isn't much of Anglo-America anymore. The French Canadians are Latin People. America is growing up; it's becoming a continent (as we Latins say it is) instead of country (as the Anglo USA community thinks it is). If you're really an Old Word Latino, you should embrace your Latin roots. I know I embrace mine. Being a Roman, it's impossible to give up the cradle of European culture so the USA can consider Native Americans "Latino". You'll notice people in the USA don't naysay their Celtic, Scots, and Anglo-Saxon ethnicities. Yet, they expect we Latin Europeans to forget our Latin cultures, ethinc designations, and roots. It's just NOT on! We Latin Europeans have the right to be called "Latin people" and our Latin cultures need to be embraced and noted here on Wikipedia. We don't disrespect and naysay other people's cultures. We don't like ours naysayed and disrepected. Don't you agree?- The previous unsigned comment is the work of GiannaZarelli ( disc. • contribs ). 19:16, June 13, 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted their latest edit. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You folk are funny. Why anyone would want to ask a sock/person who is known for their aggressive rants whether they've ever edited with another account is beyond me. Their response was predictable, as was my block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd happily buy a dozen of those stickers Mathglot speaks of. I thought that trash edit push was dead and buried a year ago, or would have helped out. Astonishing the insistence on 'I'm an Italiana from Lazio, Rome, Italy': This is certainly untrue, since the editor in question has a feeble knowledge of Italian, and has zero knowledge of Roman dialect (I'm an experienced translator of it). Best wishes, as always, Doug. Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only Italian I know is operatic.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing conversation

Went back through my Email archive "Toshiba CK6R4" and searched for said reply: couldn't find it. Any ideas please?

Sorry, I don't know what this is about, 185.3.100.28. (You can sign posts on talkpages by typing four tildes ~~~~, which will convert automatically to your username or IP.) Bishonen | talk 08:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Request for protecting Nath (surname) & Debnath from persistent vandalism / unsourced POV edits

Hi Bishonen, would request you to check and protect the articles on Nath (surname) & Debnath. The user User:Siddy0070, who is engaged in an edit war, seems to be a sock of User:Siddharthnath0070. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some obvious socking there, and quite charming comments on your page, about your jealousy of Brahmins. I've blocked both accounts. Since all the disruption has been coming from them, I think I'll leave the articles for now. Thanks for reporting, Ekdalian, and could you please let me know if more socks turn up? Then I'll semi. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Sure, I shall inform you in case more socks turn up. Thanks a lot, Bishonen. Ekdalian (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators exposed as poseurs have feet of clay just like other editors!

Just to be sure you don't miss this [1]. EEng 07:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rather enjoyed the (slightly Pythonesque) "pearl-clutching and hand-wringing" imagery.-- Dlohcierekim 12:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little like "He flung himself upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions." EEng 14:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Since it would be a shame to get blocked before being able to assist in bringing the Moors murders sourcing to at least GA level, I've modified the header of this section to something more neutral.[reply]

Help needed

Bish - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catahoula bulldog. I just went back over the cited sources in the article - removed the garbage citations, and added tags. I asked Tone to review the close again. Also take a look at the editing experiences of the iVotes - which is great that new editors are getting involved. A few WP:WikiProject Dog editors and I are trying to clean-up articles about breeds that are not breeds, rather they are dog-types, if that, and most are not cited to RS because there are none. I don't think WP considers self-published dog lover/puppymill/hobbyist books as RS, and the same would apply to websites. I want to avoid the back-and-forth with the newbies (so far, I've managed well and have tried to be encouraging) so if you will just take a look at what we're dealing with, and share your thoughts, I'll go from there. Atsme Talk 📧 18:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm a little short of time, and not much good with dogs. But I see Tone has relisted it. I hope some of my stalkers will check it out. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Ok, no problem. I'll just leave this diff which helps explain a little about why it's particularly important fo get these articles right. Atsme Talk 📧 22:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Purely coincidental that EEng is having similar issues regarding accuracy. Atsme Talk 📧 23:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

That block (71.31.30.66 ) should be for personal attacks, they did some small vandalism yesterday but today their edits weren't vandalism they were simply blanking TP warnings the main issue was the comments in edit summary. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? There was so much of it I had trouble getting an overview, and of course CLCStudent was wrong to revert their blanking of their own talkpage; I'm surprised CLC doesn't know that. But what stood out for me was their redirecting their own and another IP talkpage to User talk:Jimbo Wales. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
If we stretch good faith those were tests and they stopped today but that would be a stretch for sure! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anyway, thanks for coming to my page to discuss, HIB. It's nice to see you here. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Merle Haggard and Garner Ted Armstrong

Hey Bish, I pinged you earlier about this, but I think this is linked to the socking over at Garner Ted Armstrong. The IP addresses are all different, but the IP editor is restoring the same unverifiable quotation about Merle Haggard and Armstrong that they were warring over on that page, and their talk page comments make it pretty clear they are mostly concerned with linking Armstrong and Haggard. Can you take a look or should I just ask at ANI? Thanks! Nblund talk 15:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a notable difference that these IPs are not attacking Doug Weller, or saying you're Doug's sock, so maybe not the same. Anyway, I've semi'd Merle Haggard for three months. Check out the protection log — apparently it was exactly the same thing 3 years ago: "11:54, 21 April 2016 Nyttend changed protection level for Merle Haggard [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 11:54, 28 April 2016) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Persistent disruptive editing: Addition of copyright infringements by multiple IPs)." Persistent seems right! Incidentally, I do see your ping on Talk:Merle Haggard now, but I did not receive your notification. Unreliable, pings are! 😟 Bishonen | talk 16:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Haha, you're right that that did kind of seem like a defining feature of the previous account. Thanks for taking a look! Nblund talk 16:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I suspect they're right. I can Cinderella a source saying that Haggard was listening to Armstrong and got some inspiration from him. I can't afford the Merle Haggard autobiography it you'd expect that to mention Garner. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: Cinderella? Bishonen | talk 19:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I've no idea how "find" turned inti Cinderella. Doug Weller talk 19:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, 331dot caught it at the same time I posted here. ——SerialNumber54129 12:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Doug Weller, I misread that as "biography", rather than autobiog  :) if you're really keen on the thing, there's a copy here for less thn 8$ inc. shipping. ——SerialNumber54129 12:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Then the sockmeister can spend their own hard-earned then  :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

You've got some. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 14:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've got your message, Steve. Sorry not to have replied, but I'm still thinking about it. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
No rush, thanks. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 14:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight question...

I've noticed that gross incivility often gets people blocked and lead to their comments being oversighted within seconds. I notice that other times it doesn't. Here, for example. I suppose that the advantage to this double standard is that I can always link to it to show how en.wp is more toxic for some than others. I noticed that the person who reverted it reported a lot of people for vandalism in the moments following, but didn't report the guy for incivility. I wonder why vandalism is a greater crime than repeated personal attacks? (see also the antz talkpage) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Vandalism that targets an article is often defamatory in nature; which BLP doesn't permit, but which could also open Wikipedia up to legal trouble. Same with copyright violations. Personal attacks are disruptive, and unpleasant, but they're rarely as urgent a problem...I, and several others, will often take down personal attacks that are egregious, under RD2 or RD3; but not all admins will, and if it happens on your talk page, it's less likely to be noticed. Also, for the record; oversight and revision deletion are similar but different; all admins can delete revisions, and read deleted revisions; only oversighters can oversight (or suppress) revisions, and read those that have been suppressed. The bar for suppression is considerably higher, and run-of-the-mill vandalism will be suppressed only very rarely. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SashiRolls, your comment above is too involved and serpentine for me to be able to tell if you would like the comment revdel'd or not. I can do that if desired. (I don't think any oversighter would like to suppress it.) Meanwhile, I've blocked the user for 48 hours. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry, should have said, I removed it. Revision deletion only, does not qualify for suppression. Personally, I have a low bar when it comes to that sort of crap. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. You're a bit serpentine too. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
To be a bit more blunt than Vanamonde: we mainly suppress personal attacks if they are calling you a pedophile or other sex criminal. I’d be fine suppressing allegations of being an actual member of a neo-Nazi group as well, but not “he’s a Nazi/fascist for liking [thing]!” Obviously things are evaluated individually, but sex crimes would be the most common cause for suppressing personal attacks. Agree with his revdel, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reaction once I mentioned it. Sorry to trouble you all. I gather this was retribution for something I wrote. I guess it's safer not to edit wikipedia if you don't want the antz to come marching in. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this edit. I really do appreciate the culture of fr.wp where ArbCom cases are filed by the name of the prosecutor. Nevertheless, I do appreciate you blocking the single purpose account the instant I reported the attack. I'm not optimistic about the likelihood of Bulldog antz becoming a collaborative encyclopédiste, but you never know. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 09:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at ANI's TOC right now: "User:X", "User:Y", "User:Z and WP:CIR", etc. Lots of usernames, lots of alphabet soup. Nblund's original header is quite typical. Not typical of fr.wp, admittedly. Bishonen | talk 09:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Looks like time could have been saved with an indef. @Vanamonde93: thanks again for cleaning up the attack. Here is the SPI evidence that Sayerslle is running the account.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI: 16:48 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It isn't often that I chortle with glee, while reading WP. But the appearances of Bishzilla make me laugh aloud! Ohh, the raptures... her graceful snout, her fiery eyes, her learned and idiosyncratic discourse! She brings joy to the hearts of all who love her, and worship from afar. (Like *really* far away, those flames look dangerous!) With gratitude, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 21:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe. ['Zilla sticks the little user in her pocket. Commandingly (and learnedly):] Stay! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 08:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Kennedies (Kennedys?)

From history, and page history as well; I have learned not to unprotect these folks. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The protection had expired. Do you think it should be indefinite? We don't often do that. Did you check the IP's so-called contributions? Quite a bio spree — a democratic politician spree. It's probably one of those perennial proposals to semi all BLPs indefinitely. Though even that wouldn't have helped in this case, as two out of the three are dead. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete

Hi Could you delete this edit? --Panam2014 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, it doesn't seem to have worked right when SineBot was deleted. But I think it's invisible now. Bishonen | talk 08:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
You're like a magician.-- Deepfriedokra 08:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[Bishonen, pleased, saws the little Deepfried in half.] Bishonen | talk 08:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

William S Lerner

I'm sorry, I got distracted there and didn't notice your were already dealing with it. Do you want me to remove the username block? --kingboyk (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. No, he might as well identify himself properly now. Thanks for writing. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
On second thought, and after reading the thread on Alexf's talkpage, I wish you would unblock him, kingboyk. He's a new user (and a highly qualified one) doing his best, and all he's met with is don't do this and don't do that, and also you've been blocked. There isn't really any doubt that he is who he says he is, IMO. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
OK, will do. --kingboyk (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked. I propose to essentially retract the block by removing the block template and the request to unblock. Is that OK or should I leave the notification and change the unblock request to 'accepted'? --kingboyk (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno if there are any rules for that. If it was me, I'd just remove both and write him a nice welcoming little note. Bishonen | talk 16:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
That's what I planned to do, so if you'd do the same I think it can't be too unreasonable. Thank you! --kingboyk (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you already wrote the note. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

SvarturVölva

Bloodofox is a wiki-friend and I have formerly collaborated with them; I broke my promise to myself to make fewer than five edits to Wikipedia this month, for the second month, because of their ping and because there are few of us left fixing Norse/ancient Germanic messes. But was the copyright violation at Völva only the failure to attribute when restoring the pre-rewrite version of the page? If so, a new editor would be unlikely to realise that copying within Wikipedia without attribution counts as copyvio, and in light of the personal concerns they revealed on their talkpage, I'd like to plead for some mercy for this well intentioned editor, perhaps in the form of a message from you explaining the coying problem and suggesting they ask for unblock with a promise to cease the insults as well as the death curses. I have been trying to fix the mess of bad links, bad Norse, lack of bolding, on the page and talk them down on their talk page, but I type slowly. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Yngvadottir. I'll certainly think about it, since you ask, but they've been very aggressive you know. Look at their edit summaries altogether, not just the "death curse" but the others, and at their aggressive edit warring at Völva. The mythology wiki that I linked to at the noticeboard, here, is marked "copyright Wikia". Of course Wikia is not Wikipedia. Are you saying you think that's actually an unacknowledged copy from an older version of Wikipedia's Völva article? Bishonen | talk 17:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Yes. As are many Wikia articles. (It may even have an acknowledgement somewhere in the history.) See this version before Bloodofox started his rewrite, the second edit of which was the move from the Völva title - see the move template on the redirect page above the history-purge template someone has added; I've made a note there with that link.
Yes, they've been very aggressive, and to a friend of mine, I'm not pleading for any change to the block. But see their talk page response to me for where they're coming from. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slow typing sucks, doesn't it Yngvadottir? Many's the time I've tried to intervene in a dispute at ANI, only to have my response become obsolete before I can act. Then I revise my response, only to find it has *again* evolved beyond me. Same thing's happening here. I tried to agree with you about the copyright thing, but it's already been redacted by another admin, and arguing about it just seems like *so* much effort. I tried to respond to the unblock request, but it was already responded to before I was done. Then I tried to leave a comment for them with some advice, but before I could hit "save" they've escalated and doubled down and gone off the deep end. Now I feel forced into removing talk page access. Before I do, do you still think there is *any* hope here? Do you want to try talking to them anymore? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Walked dog after workmen finished and left, will now go look at their talk page. Thanks for trying, both. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I've much hope, but I've invited another unblock request, so please hold off a little with the tpa removal. I've withdrawn the copyvio charge. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I don't have much either, but I've done my best to put the case for seeking to return to editing minus imprecations, and repeating here my thanks there for the strike-out and statement about copyvio. Yes, they lie. Water is wet. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SvarturVölva's talkpage access has been revoked. There's a stunner! I'm sorry your patience and kindness didn't bear better fruit, Yngvadottir. Bishonen | talk 09:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, Bloodofox, I was reading the Litro article linked here <redacted>, thinking it could fit on Presscoverage/Presstemplate at Talk:Carl Raschke, but the article seems to violate WP:OUTING, and the link should perhaps be supressed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Could you ask an Oversighter, please, Gamla bergtroll? They're the only ones that can do it. You can use the e-mail link at the top of Wikipedia:Oversight. Please don't put the link anywhere else in public, and ask them to oversight it here on my page also; I've redacted it. Bishonen | talk 09:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
The Goddess requests, e-mail sent to oversight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd quietly asked Floquenbeam to perform a little selective rev-deletion on it but they must have gone to bed. Yes, Bishonen, I didn't have much hope, but we tried. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; I got that last night when I was on my phone and couldn't easily revdel, and then completely forgot about it overnight. My bad. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've revdel'd the link here, and on SV's talk page, so it's less visible until OS gets it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, folks! I'm only now catching up. I'm assuming someone posted the Litro article by Carl Raschke's son? None of the information about yours truly there is accurate. It's either wholesale invented and fictional—like much of the writer's account of how Wikipedia works—or means that he and his father harassed some poor uninvolved guy in the U.S. based on who-knows-what criteria thinking it was me because he didn't like what scholars had to say about Painted Black. I considered posting it on my user page for a while, but thought it wasn't worth my time, and figured it would be funny whenever it surfaced. Thanks for looking out, nonetheless! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, glad to hear the article didn't bother you too much. I'm fairly inclusionist about adding articles to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019 etc, but OUTING goes beyond that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one for the blocklist.

Playtime000000 - another sock of that HughD loser. Honestly I don't know why they don't just get a life. Simonm223 (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I had to dig out a template first. Does anybody know why Twinkle is being completely unhelpful with blocks atm? My little stalkers? Bishonen | talk 11:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Remember the old days-- when we had to carry our templates on our backs, through the snow, going uphill both ways?-- Deepfriedokra 14:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Templates? We used to dream of having templates. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
👏 @ young Deepfried and Boing. I just tried it again, and Twinkle seems to have recovered. There you go, I thought my best move would be to wait for some other admin to take it to VP or the Twinkle talkpage. Bishonen | talk 14:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

re Filet-o-fish king

They had the same "special" signature here, just FYI. They really look like they're WP:NOTHERE imo. They've already been in an edit war and personally attacked someone twice, along with this. - Frood (talk!) 04:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, it's been used in several places. Toddst1's page was just an example (a good one, since Toddst1 had reported them to AIV, apparently without noticing the sig). The user is now saying it was an embarrassing mistake. Well, maybe. I've replied on their page. Bishonen | talk 04:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I took a look at the contributions, spotted some nasty anti-Semitic trolling a few days ago in addition to all the other nonsense, and based on that have upped the block to indef. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a bad-hand and badder-hand account then. I blocked this [3] yesterday and there has been an IP-hopping anon sticking antisemitic remarks on (mainly but not exclusively) fast food articles for the past few weeks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: knows more about it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DENY/RBI is the only approach to take against the fast food nazi LTA. El_C 06:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have a "fast food Nazi LTA"? I thought I'd heard everything, but .... Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the McDonalds chicken McNugget vandal over the summer. Or was it McGriddles? He was obsessive about vandalizing fast food articles. I had hoped he had gone back to the third grade now that summer was over. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Brad, I wish I'd caught that. Once I'd seen the sig, I guess I focused on their posts on talkpages. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I thought I remembered someone (ie troll) using the name of various fast food items from a few months ago. El_C is there a LTA page for this one or should we just post on your talk page when they pop up again? MarnetteD|Talk 16:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does this have something to do with The Soup Nazi? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think there is, but I can't remember what the sock name is. The LTA usually edits my talk page and pings me on each spree, so no need. El_C 21:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They've also been reading this very conversation (admins only, sorry). It's a twice or thrice daily occurrence, at any rate. Same as per usual. El_C 01:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C:--pings me on each spree-- how thoughtful of them.-- Deepfriedokra 02:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This LTA hits a weird trifecta: fast food articles, incoherent nazi vandalism therein, pings admins. El_C 03:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“Bad” language in your userpage!

I think the subject has been sufficiently discussed. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Excuse me, but I saw bad language in one of your userboxes. 

The userbox I’m talking about is the one about...

...speaking?


Mind my language, but it said “S*ut u*” in the text of the userbox. Can I edit your userpage to change the text to something more appropriate? Rng0286 (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. El_C 08:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen has poset
Interesting message to someone who doesn't even have any userboxes. From the contribs, they're not a troll, so I have poset a civil (-ish) query on their page. Bishonen | talk 09:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Er, Bish, you do have userboxes: I assume This user loves the sound of her own voice. You probably think that if you ignore her she might eventually shut up, but you reckon without her inflated sense of her own importance. (my emphasis) is the offending phrase. I suspect the OP doesn't realize this is self-directed and thinks someone else has vandalized your userpage and they're doing you a favor in pointing it out. ‑ Iridescent 09:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the obscured term was "S*ut u*", I see. I misread it as something to do with fucking. Thanks Iri. I never thought of that as a userbox, let it be said. I do have one that I'd call a proper userbox, celebrating my block log. Thank you for your concern, Rng0286, but I like it as it is. Out of curiosity, what would you have liked to change the bad words to? Bishonen | talk 09:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Something more appropriate please, Bishonen. I am REALLY sensitive to bad words. Rng0286 (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing inappropriate there and those words are REALLY not bad. --bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think it's perfectly appropriate. Please don't look at my userpage if it offends you. Surely it's easily avoided. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Also, Rng0286, please decide on what you want to say, preview, and then save. It's quite disappointing to get a message that I have five messages on my page, and then it turns out that they're all you, changing your mind while crafting a short post. Bishonen | talk 09:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I came here to say something funny about Swedish, but now I see this is serious, Bishonen. The civility police have come for you. Any last words before you are banned?Jehochman Talk 10:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Men för höge farao, don't hold back, Jehochman. I've never heard anything funny about Swedish. Speaking of farao (a euphemism by way of having the same first letters as the dreaded Fan Himself), I just heard an actual euphemism for "shut up" on QI, from Alan Davies: "Shut the front door!", much emphasis on "shut", expressing amazement. ((Obviously the listener who hears "Shut the f" is supposed to supply a different ending than "ront door", with the same intonation.) It might be a little confusing to say "if you ignore her she might eventually shut the front door" on my userpage, though. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
When I was a kid, a teacher told me if I said "gee wiz", I would burn in hell for eternity as it's a euphemism for Jesus and violates the Ten Commandments. Thought those days were long gone. (Is it getting warm in here?) O3000 (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Um. . Bish . .er. . .Oh, fuckit, a link will have to do.box. Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Invoking George Carlin.-- Deepfriedokra 13:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t abide bad language of any description, it displays a very limited vocabulary. Giano’s wife swears a lot; whenever I stay with them, all I can hear is filth being muttered under her breath, but then she’s from Venice, and we all know what they say about people from Veneto - all that filthy water sloshing around. I’m afraid Mrs Bishonen any more of these complaints about you and I shall be forced to contact the WMF and have you sent to the same dark place as the unfortunately vocabularied Mr Corbett. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My dear lady, given your nobility, ignorance is to be expected, but not forgiven, esp since part of the baggage of soi-disant civilized life in your lofty parts is pointing out the fauxpas of the lower social orders, and every tit deserves a tat (or is that every pip deserves a pat? or something of both?). As a professional lout and linguist I am obliged to point out that asserting that 'bad language - - displays a very limited vocabulary' is characteristically ill-informed. The foulmouthed can avail themselves of a far wider variety of terms for a number of fundamental objects in the natural world than are available to the tony toffs and toffesses of the aristocracy. Witness Giuseppe Gioachino Belli's sonnet on the membrum virile, listing 51 terms current in Romanesco. Respecting the rights to parity between the sexes, the poet also wrote a sonnet on the corresponding female part which I can't link because it concerns advice as to how to lay a certain Catherine. Unfortunately, the sexism of history resulted in only 41 terms for country matters on the distaff side. Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, Nishidani, I've always felt that profanity is the last resort of an inarticulate motherfucker. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... as you have a link to the essay "Complete bollocks", I would have thought that would have been more of a problem! - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeek, don't rat me out, SchroCat..! And people, this is all very amusing, but I worry the not-very-experienced user will feel bitten by the sheer amount of commentary, and, well, the amount of cussing. Perhaps we'd better be done here. Bishonen | talk 16:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • You had better archive this section then, but before you do. Seriously, am I the only one here who hasn’t a clue what it’s about. My English is fluent and I like to think quite good, but something here is being very lost in translation for me. Giano (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deepcruze

Deepcruze (talk · contribs) has long been on a Dalit-promotion mission. I've just reverted them again but yesterday left a couple of notes on their talk page because I am utterly fed up of trying to clean up their mess over several years. They removed my remarks without comment, which is typical as they seem rarely (ever?) to engage with other contributors. I realise that removal constitutes acknowledgement of having read the stuff but is this the last straw? - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, but the community is as unreasonably fixated on removal of messages being perfectly all right under any and all circumstances, as they're unreasonably fixated on socking, under any and all circumstances, being a capital crime. (Compare the recent RFAR on Eric Corbett.) So, no, I don't think the removal of your comments and SpacemanSpiff's can be used against Deepcruze. But I'll take a look at the situation generally, as time permits. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. It's not the removals per se that are the problem. It's the unwillingness to communicate, which seems to have gone on forever. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Definitely not encouraging. Except for one short, meaningless, post after they were blocked, their contribution to User talk:Deepcruze is entirely one of removing the comments of others. Add the fact that a mere 1.5% of their contributions are to article talk pages and all their contributions to user talk pages are the removal of content from their own page, and we can safely say that they are not here to contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia.--regentspark (comment) 13:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark, the latest edit is still awfully shabby. Can't (s)he be indeffed on basis of WP:ENGAGE? ∯WBGconverse 18:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I spot-checked their last edit. It's more than shabby, it's verging on original research; they added three sources to the claim "ABVP and NSUI which field mostly Jat or Gujjar candidates for important posts in DUSU", each of which refer to a specific election only, and not to a generic trend; the only source previously supporting the content was a now-defunct right-wing web news outlet, which wasn't terribly reliable. this edit, since reverted by Sitush, added "the oppressed majority comprising 85% of India's population" as a qualifier to a group previously identified only as "untouchables"; the source supporting it, however, is only reporting a quote from a politician claiming to advocate for said demographic, and doesn't make the claim in its own voice. SpacemanSpiff has given them a warning about caste-related GS, which, as luck would have it, is still valid for three more days. My approach would be to apply a caste-related topic-ban, along with a warning that the continued failure to communicate and to use sources properly will result in an indefinite block. I'm INVOLVED with respect to Indian political parties, and don't want to place the actual sanction. That said, they essentially haven't edited the Article Talk namespace at all...so I'm not exactly opposed to an indefinite block. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I'm keeping a weather eye out for the expiration of Spiffy's alert. I need to write up something, though. Topic ban or indef? They're specially interested in caste pages (Dalits), but not exclusively. I also suspect them of copyvios whenever they write in good English, because their own English, in their rare more personal edits, is rather primitive.[4] But I find it hard to tell whether the texts out there are copied from Wikipedia or not (of course they often are). I've been had that way before. I know the mirror sites, that's all right, but everybody seems to steal from Wikipedia, with or without acknowledgement, these days. Bishonen | talk 20:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Re: "Everybody steals from Wikipedia"; have I told you I once found a supposedly scholarly journal article that had lifted several paragraphs from a Wikipedia page I was the main author of? Wrote to the editors, got no response. *shrugs* I would be thoroughly unsurprised if they are copying; I would also be unsurprised if they are some sort of shared account. But I'm not finding slam-dunk evidence of either. I ran a version of a page entirely written by them through earwig's detector, and found nothing [5], which to me suggests that their paraphrasing skills with respect to basic factual information is sufficient, but when they get into more complex stuff, it might indeed be a language problem rather than deliberate source misrepresentation. I'm a bit of a softy; I like to start with the lesser sanction. If they have some basic competence, they should be able to demonstrate it outside of caste-related topics; if they don't, it will turn into an indef soon enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmz - roaring Owl. Anyway, I've left Deepcruze a note on their talkpage. Perhaps they will engage with that.--RexxS (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I got a roaring manul, meow! Excellent note on their page, RexxS, and yours too, Sitush. The more I think about it, the less point there seems to be in topic banning that user. If they remove the currently latest posts on their page without response, I'll indef. Unless somebody feels like trying to persuade me otherwise while we wait? Bishonen | talk 15:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Nah, they aren't worth the trouble. If they ignore, as seems likely, good riddance. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tunde Bakare

Hello Bishonen, I removed your PROD from the article Tunde Bakare because I thought there was enough content online for the subject to pass WP:GNG. I have added several citations to the article. If you have time please visit the article to see if your concerns have been helped, or please tell me how I can fix those problems if those issues still are present in the article. Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Bishonen | talk 18:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to my RfA and for sharing your own experience. Being compared to you is flattery more than I deserve and to have you do it while addressing the concerns of some neutral and oppose editors is beyond what I could expect. Thank you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuvel Devendrar

Hi, we seem to have one of the periodic campaigns to substitute revisionist caste history/naming etc at Immanuvel Devendrar. A whole bunch of anons have been having a go these last few days. - Sitush (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure. Bishonen | talk 08:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey Bishonen, Many thanks for blocking them,
Obviously we're all volunteers here and aren't required to be here 24/7 but the report had sat there all day without any sort of comment .... so I just assumed everyone passing wasn't bothered and felt no admin intervention was required, ANI is pretty quick when it comes to reports so just assumed no one cared really,
Kinda wished I left it open longer but anyway thanks again for your swift actions :),
Many thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 19:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting, Davey2010. I do understand your frustration. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
No worries, Happy editing, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 19:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjari Caste & Banjara

Hi Dear, Vanjari Caste is redirected to Banjara. Kindly note the difference between two. And keep both pages separate. As I am not a regular user, so don't know how to make it. Goresm (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pages were merged in 2015, with the content of Vanjari (caste) merged into the "Society" section of Banjara. Please see the discussion at Talk:Banjara. But I'm no expert; I'm pinging Sitush. Bishonen | talk 08:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I think this is a dispute that goes back for many years, as with the Ezhava/Thiyya and Balmiki/Valmiki issues. I'll take a look at the talk page later. Just off the top of my head, I note that the letters B and V are often interchangeable in Romanisation of Indic names. - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Goresm, now that I've read Sitush's and Regentspark's replies to you at Talk:Banjara, I have to stand by my reverts of your changes and repeat that Vanjari (caste) should be a redirect to Banjara. I hope you, too, read their comments carefully. They are both very knowledgeable about Wikipedia's principles for caste editing, and about the kinds of sources needed. Please note that your personal experience is not enough of a source. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note

Thanks [6]. Anything in particular? Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the copyvio warnings and comments about poor sourcing on your talkpage. I haven't researched your contributions myself, but the comments on your page are enough for me to think it would be good for you to be aware of the discretionary sanctions for Indian subjects. A DS notice isn't an accusation or a warning, it's just information. Bishonen | talk 17:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. I understand, although I think it is a bit strange to base your action on the words of one or two editors on my Talk Page (although I'm perfectly OK with Diannaa's attribution request). You might want to check for yourself. Regarding sourcing, you might also have a look at this for example [7]. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malacrida's publications

http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no00037962/ - Hope that's not an egg-sucking lesson. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No indeed, very much not. Thank you very much, Andy. (For those playing along at home: this is about User:Bishonen/sandbox.) My source didn't say anything about a pseudonym; now that I've got that, I can also find the books in the British Library catalogue, http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?fn=search&ct=search&initialSearch=true&mode=Basic&tab=local_tab&indx=1&dum=true&srt=rank&vid=BLVU1&frbg=&tb=t&vl%28freeText0%29=P.+N+Piermarini+&scp.scps=scope%3A%28BLCONTENT%29&vl%282084770704UI0%29=any&vl%282084770704UI0%29=title&vl%282084770704UI0%29=any
The BL knows who the authors are IRL, as you can see, but would not divulge these books when I searched for "Malacrida" by itself. That was unfair of them. But the main problem is my search skills are rotten to the core, always have been. Why didn't I look for the titles? Admittedly, I had Life Begins To-day wrong from my source (Lucy London), as Life Begins Here, but I could have found the other one, and have got the pseudonym from it, if I'd had more sense. Good job this is a collaborative project, and thanks again. Bishonen | talk 21:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
My pleasure. Always happy to help, in similar cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've got it from my source that Nadja Malacrida, otherwise Louisa Nadia Green, was regularly heard on BBC radio in the nineteen twenties and early thirties. She used to recite well-known pieces of poetry. Also, apparently, even though she died in 1934, she appeared in some early BBC TV broadcasts. So I tried with my usual lack of success to search the BBC archives. Would anybody more cleverer like to try? Little talkpage stalkers? Andy? Bishonen | talk 15:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah no I can't help. I'm too ignorant and senile, and I have to go practice biting newbies, because not doing that is bad for the encyclopedia. I done been tole. KillerChihuahua 15:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, got nowhere with the BBC. Did find this though, not sure if it's helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde, I thought I had got my pdf. problems licked, see [8], but with your link there's a new twist: I immediately get a screen that says "Your session has timed out. Please go back to the article page and click the PDF link again." What new deviltry is this? Even if your session has timed out it shouldn't be telling me that, surely? It is a bit of a weird-looking link — is it a search result? Bishonen | talk 17:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Huh, strange, I get the same now. It was a search result which I then plugged into google scholar, which automatically links public pdfs and/or those my institution gives me access to. Maybe this was one of those. Anyhow, the source is this one, and if you don't have access I'm happy to send you the pdf via email. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds extremely interesting from the abstract, I'd love to have the .pdf, yes, please. But I also need to be able to link to it. I suppose if I give the link https://academic.oup.com/english/article-abstract/58/220/29/533516, then people who have access will be able to see the whole thing, and the rest of us get redirected to the abstract? That's what the URL I land at says, that it's redirected from full text, like this: https://academic.oup.com/english/article-abstract/58/220/29/533516?redirectedFrom=fulltext. Bishonen | talk 17:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Sent. Hope it's helpful. With respect to citing; I think the url I pasted should be fine, but you could even just add the doi and not use the url. There's a pesky bot going around dumping urls from journal citations that have dois (I use those a lot, so it's been in my watchlist a lot) so I suppose someone somewhere decided that that's what we're doing. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And received, thanks! You mean I could use the link https://doi.org/10.1093/english/efn039 ? Oh, hey, btw... I could have sworn I used it before, and was redirected to the abstract, but as I tried it again just now, I got the whole long form. These are mysteries. Anyway, in case the doi link blows hot and cold for me, I now have the .pdf you attached. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
My pleasure. You could use |url= with https://doi.org/10.1093/english/efn039, or you could skip the url altogether and use |doi= with 10.1093/english/efn039; that's usually verifiable enough (that was what you were asking, yes?) Vanamonde (Talk) 19:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What..? Never mind, it'll be fine, it works if I just link to the doi url, I'm good. There's no problem. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Start here: [9]; the site is BBC Genome Project, a digital archive of The Radio Times. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, great, Andy. Brilliant. And I got even better results with "Nadja Green". It looks like all her readings were in 1934. I had the impression that her taste in poetry was very conventional, but she actually read Hopkins' "Pied Beauty".[10] Not necessarily her choice, of course. And most of the readings are of tested Victorian favorites — Coventry Patmore, Swinburne, Walter de la Mare. There's some prose as well — Thomas Hardy and, believe it or not, D. H. Lawrence. I guess I can't make much of the text selection, though, as most likely it wasn't done by her. Bishonen | talk 17:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Vim

I have taken it upon myself to research the Face of Vim for You, however, in these rather gender conscious days I’m not sure Wikipedia will permit her Poor Nadja to be so portrayed. There is this poor female who obviously has a very stressful life; then there’s this unfortunate woman clearly suffering some form of digestive disorder. Indian women fare better, a little dab of Vim behind the ears puts a smile on the face. However, for those with more precious possessions, there is a solution to conserving the Meissen dinner service]. Neither will socialising with friends improve a woman’s worries, her friends have noticed her personal problems. All in all, women had a tough, grime trodden time of it. There is, though, hope on the horizon, her daughters will live in an emancipated society, and she herself, may even get lucky with him. What heady days those where for women. Sadly, I can find no trace of Nadja. Giano (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, thank you, darling. I nearly exploded as well.[11] It might be possible to ask the Vim people, I bet they have good archives, but I can't shake the feeling that I'd first need to know when the Nadja adverts appeared. I have asked Lucy with the Nadja blog if she knows the year, but no reply yet. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Are you quite sure it’s Vim she advertised. I am thinking of writing an article about the plight and horrors women encountered in the 1930. Who would have thought the washing up could produce such a reaction. However, back to Nadja, would she have even known what a saucepan was or risked exploding while trying to clean it. There is a Marchese-type lady using Vim! But she looks as though she may have some more pressing health issues than exploding, screaming and passing out. Nadja had none of those.Giano (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Mind you, some of these adverts are just mindless, needless and gratuitous sexual objectification. Giano (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, there's vim and vigour for you![12] Bishonen | talk 13:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Vim and vigour indeed. Not for the elderly, the sheer toil and misery continued to be only relieved by the thought of slowly strangling one’s daughter. Giano (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But if you are newlywed and inexperienced, Gnome Brand scouring powder is what is technically known as It. (Swedish film, but voiceover in English!) --bonadea contributions talk 19:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Tomteskur, with the famous infinitely reflected gnome on the tin. Unfortunately I can't find an image that does justice to it — they show at most one reflection — so to compensate, I tell you instead that cocaine cures both toothache and dandruff.[13] Google images is a richness to drown in. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
What, the Shoe Event Horizon? All this talk of ancient consumer goodies, those cardboard tubes of cleaning powders with tin lids seem to have been entirely displaced by plastic bottles of gels – but how long can we sustain plastic? Retreats to memories of pre-plastic times. . . dave souza, talk 16:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC) – ah, here we go aww! . . dave souza, talk 16:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vim is just Vi but with a graphical user interface. The truly blessed thing of Vi is that you can find it on any reasonable computer system (including Macs!) if you can get a shell (or terminal window). You never have to install it; it's always there and always has been (since 1976). Then you find the file you need to hack and use vi to open it, and without ever lifting your fingers from the keyboard (no stinkin' menus! no fussy mouse!) you enter the magical commands that modify the file to your liking. Jehochman Talk 21:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I noticed. When my son visits, he does stuff just like that to my computer, with the terminal window. I know better than to interfere or ask questions. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Have you seen [14]? It's not a RS, but has a specific date for the TV broadcast. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen it, Andy — didn't I put the date? I thought I did. Anyway, I've also had some contact with Lucy London — I just got a letter from her today. She sent me the 1922 photo I've uploaded on Commons (a bit of a bloody waste of time, that), and also, quite fascinatingly, a Vim advert with Nadja. I can't put it anywhere on Wikipedia to show, though, since it was published in 1929. Not unless I get permission from Henkel, who seem to be the current owners of Vim; I've written to them. Just for interest, shall I send you the advert? It's hilarious — so modern — a celeb endorsing a product! I can't attach stuff via wikimail, AFAIK, but if you care to drop me a line, I'll be able to reply, with an attachment. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
You mentioned the year, not the date - the latter may not be worth inclusion, but I thought it might help us to track down more details (though I tried subsequent to my last post here, and found nothing new). Mail sent, thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finale

Re this; do you have a copy of Finale? Does it credit the painter of the the dust jacket? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, I haven't. @Giano:? Bishonen | talk 11:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
At a £150 a copy? I should bloody cocoa - as my first, much loved, but long dead English landlady used to say. Giano (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, I've had success with looking at Amazon or some other book-seller's site for the book. Sometimes the jacket is pictured and you can make out detail on it. Sadly, I've had no luck in this case. However, while checking out a Google search on the book title, I came across this: https://www.rookebooks.com/product?prod_id=23641 which has a couple of pretty images. It also has Piero Malacrida's signature, which could be added to the infobox, which would please Andy (if nobody else). Anyway, do you think the hassle of figuring out the copyright of images in a book published in 1935 in London is worth it? --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worth it if we want to include the image. Nice find - it shows the same image as the frontispiece, with a tantalisingly unreadable caption. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • RexxS, as the leading woman of Wikipedia’s Ladies in Mauve movement I am both shocked and horrified that you should think a man’s signature could ever improve a woman's Infobox. Ms Malacrida was a woman in her own right. An avant gourd poet ahead of her time, kindly respect that. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mea Culpa, My Lady. I was thinking of the Marchese's article, but I now realise it has no infobox (and I expect it should stay that way to please His Excellency). Out of interest, does avant gourd refer to the time before Life of Brian? --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it should stay that way. Please keep your sacrilegious nonsense for yourself. Ms Malacrida was one of the leading avant gourds of her day, and as such falls under the parasol of my Ladies in Mauve movement - think aubergine. I shall shortly categorise her accordingly along with her beautiful bathroom fitments which were also avant for their time. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Fenland polytechnic has a copy - on open shelves, by the looks of it - which I could drop in and take a look at next time I'm there. But that won't be until early December, and I'm guessing the librarians will have removed the dust jacket. Wham2001 (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from RexxS's link (which about all I found as well), it's the frontispiece, so it should be findable in the book, even without the dust jacket. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very good! I've made a note in my diary; I'd appreciate being warned off if somebody beats me to it. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship of the artwork is resolved, though that opens up further questions of who commissioned it, and where it is now. Also, unrelated to that, there are more sources on both Malacridas, at [15]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find that user-time thing of yours

Hi, Bishonen, I recently came upon a brief quotation of yours in some board or Talk page, where you recapitulated what seemed to be a value of yours, which sounded like it might have been oft-repeated, where you spoke about your feeling about how preserving the time of constructive editors was an important goal, or resource, or something like that. The way you phrased it was much better, and I've forgotten the details of it. In any case, it could be a helpful quotation to reference in a situation I'm dealing with, but I can't find it, now. Do you know what I'm talking about? If you can give me a link to that excerpt, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, I'm like a grammophone record with that. I vary it a bit, because I can't remember any specific phrasing either, but here's a recent one. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Perfect, thanks! Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

The reason I removed the sentence "Opponents of Islam (such as Ibn Warraq, Sam Shamoun) have worked to find internal inconsistency and scientific errors in the holy book, and faults with its clarity, authenticity, and ethical message." is because the source doesn't mention or say anything about what is being claimed it says (you can see the source here [1]. Look up the source and see it for yourself. There is NO MENTION of anything about Ibn Warraq or Sam Shamoun at all. The sentence seems to be editorialization. Also Sam Shamoun is unreliable and non-notable source, he is a Christian missionary with no academic background on Islam whatsoever. 46.212.241.21 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to take this to the article talk page, where all the regular editors of the page can see your argument and weigh in. KillerChihuahua 20:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I struggle to take an interest. The IP can't take it to talk, as it's CheckUser-blocked for a week, presumably for use by one of our LTAs. It will be blocked again if it continues to be so used. It may well be right in this instance, though, and I won't revert. Bishonen | talk 09:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3266-bible-in-mohammedan-literature#3068

Email gremlins

Asking here as everything seems stuck in the outbox, have you now received 164 and 171? Giano (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no more messages from you after I mentioned those pages. The gremlins got 'em. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Mentioned at ANI

You probably got the ping, but someone is going to yell at me if I don't formally notify you. I referred to a warning you gave Sir Joseph, here. You don't have to bother with it if you'd rather not. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CIR ?

Ahmad Shameel is engaged in promotion, has hijacked Khokhar and moved their talk page to Draft talk:Ahmad Shameel. I can't undo that move. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed SCP

[16] - just wondering if you're trying to get a sleeper check done or just filing it for record purposes (I'm starting to wade back into SPI and this came across my screen, so thought I'd check). Hope you're well! Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 09:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[17] Thanks for clarifying. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 09:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, I didn't realise it was that complex. Well spotted, Bish. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to do too many things at once here (tears out clumps of hair). Now I go see if I can close the SPI I opened — I'm never sure how. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, Steve did. OK. Bishonen | talk 10:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I added the Ahmad spelling variant as well for future reference. No need for tonsorial adjustments, we're all here to help out when needed. --RexxS (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary undelete request

I am trying to show that an admin's past interactions with me constitutes a conflict of interest. There is some evidence to that effect on the talk page of Amy Sequenzia, which has been deleted. The article itself cannot be undeleted because it may contain libel, but I would still like to pull some diffs from the talk page if you can help me with that. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking about me. See User talk:Bbb23#Conflict of Interests.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dude THEYRE TALKING ABOUT YOU! How does it feel? Drmies (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, you know I don't like being called dude. Says so on my userpage. Next thing you'll start talking about football and beer and bacon and god knows what else.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiman2718: does this request mean that you would like to have the talkpage and all of its history e-mailed to you? That's a little overwhelming, and I'm frankly not sure how to do it. There are 97 edits in the history. Only two of them are by Bbb23, and those are quite short — they're certainly not block threats or anything like that. Are those the edits you want to be able to read? I don't see why not, since the talkpage wasn't deleted because of anything objectionable in it (as far as I can tell), but simply per G8, "talkpage of deleted page". I'd be prepared to send you those diffs, together with the immediately preceding diffs by other people, that Beeb was responding to, for context; but only after a sanity check : @Drmies and Bbb23: my dudes, would there be any objection to that? Bishonen | talk 01:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Well, that certainly is an unusual request. And if, indeed, my dude Bbb is supposed to be involved, yeah--there are two brief comments and there isn't even a slim chance that someone can get "COI" out of that. I note that Wikiman said, on Bbb's talk page, "If my memory serves me right there may have been more to that effect on the talk page of Amy Sequenzia"--memory did not serve them right. Bish, if you like you can send them the darn talk page, but I think it's a waste of time.

Now, that AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Rubin, that's interesting: Bbb claims he acted only as an administrator; Wikiman claims Bbb was pushing a fringe view. The AfD provides not a shred of evidence that Bbb even had an opinion on the matter; he only had an opinion on the matter of Wikiman's crusade--so when Wikiman says, in that AfD, "Please do not push fringe positions", their comment is misplaced: Bbb did not push any position, but only remarked that at AfD the question is whether notability is established.

Wikiman also says, in the AfD, "And I most certainly am on a campaign to eliminate this garbage from Wikipedia". That's fine: we should all be eliminating garbage. But if that becomes one's only goal, and if one thinks one can achieve that goal by making false accusation and mixing up administrative with content-related commentary, one quickly falls into WP:CIR territory, and that is where Wikiman is headed if they don't stop bothering Bbb. Consider this a warning, Wikiman: stop hounding. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Bish, as you no doubt know, Drmies is way better with words than I am. I have nothing to add.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those two diffs should be fine, thanks. I'd like to see what they say. And whether or not the accusation is false is yet to be determined. And @Bbb23: I would appreciate if you returned the last edit I made to your talk page and leave your edit summary as a responce. I know that it is your talk page and you get to determine what stays on it, but the way it is now makes me appear more rude than I was, and you less so. I want the page to reflect that I did everything in my power to reach resolution there before proceeding. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiman2718: You really can't ask someone to rejig their talk page so that it suits you. You're not exactly a newbie, so you ought to know by now that Wikipedia keeps every version of each page. You only have to click on a date in the page history to see the page as it was at that time and creating a permalink is then simple enough so that you can demonstrate to others how a page looked. However, I really don't recommend you pursuing a complaint if you're going to be relying on permalinks like this: Special:Permalink/916938298 #Conflict of Interests, because 99% of uninvolved editors are going to see your comments as abrasive and a personal attack, and it will end badly for you. Just because another editor points out that merely using unreliable sources isn't a valid reason for an AfD, it doesn't mean that they support the nonsense spouted in the sources. They are most likely to be trying to explain to you that you need to arguing about not meeting WP:GNG – which is quite possible if all the sources are crud, but you have to make the argument that no good sources are left, otherwise you waste other editors' time. So please, pretty please with sugar on top, drop the stick and head back to doing productive work on Wikipedia. Heaven knows there's enough of it to do. --RexxS (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: The reason I requested that bbb23 revert this diff (read the edit summary) is that the talk page as it stand makes it look as though I am escalating the situation without having fully attempted to resolve it through discussion with him. I certainly hope that was not the purpose of his revert. Additionally, I think that I made my argument very poorly on the talk page (I was less than civil, and the second and third diffs should be swapped), and that I can do it better if given another chance. And I believe that I can show that bbb23 was pushing a pro-FC view. For example, it this diff, he says "[Wikiman2718] is the one who put in the phrase "scientifically discredited" in the article." He implies about as strongly as he can without actually saying it that he believes facilitated communication is not scientifically discredited. The collection of all diffs together makes a stronger case for that.
I would very much like to return to productive editing, but I am having difficulty doing that due to the activity of two tag teaming editors across multiple pages. I tried to address the issue here, but was ignored, and here, but was met with premature closure by bbb23 and a personal attacks from the editor that I reported. If you look at the article now, you will see that the stonewalling is ongoing. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiman2718: Well, I thought I'd e-mail you the diffs, but it turns out you don't have wikipedia e-mail enabled. Very well, I'll simply put them on your page with some surrounding dialogue, as there's nothing in any of it to excite anybody. As Drmies says, I think you'll be kind of disappointed. Bishonen | talk 09:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. And sorry about the email thing. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) And while we're on the topic of unfounded accusations being thrown around I notice, Wikiman2718, your reference to "two tag teaming editors across multiple pages". Be aware that an accusation of WP:TAGTEAMing is serious and is not evidenced by the fact that more than one editor (including me) is reverting your bad edits. That is more evidence that you are editing against consensus - edit warring even given that you have tried to remove any "fraud" category from Cupping therapy a dozen times in the last few weeks.[18] Alexbrn (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I already pointed out multiple times, no consensus is needed to removed outsourced material. I have a hard time believing that you don't know that. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors evidently consider it sourced (as has been said on the Talk page). And it is pretty rich you invoke "stonewalling" when this pertinent question to you has remained unanswered while you continue mashing the revert key. Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That claim is false. No other editor besides yourself has argued that the claim is sourced. And I did not answer your question because I had already answered it here. So in summary, you are making repetitive and unreasonable demands for sourcing to counter the misrepresented source you have presented. This is WP:SEALIONING. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to say what this "the source" is (other than the FDA), please do so at the article Talk page as I - and presumably others - don't know what you mean. If you continue edit warring it will likely end up with your being sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, this is the source in question. Alexbrn maintains that the source says that fraud and quackery are synonymous, and then cites sources calling cupping therapy quackery as justification for the fraud cat. However, the source does not state that fraud and quackery are synonymous. So in summary, he continues to misrepresent the source, repeats his unreasonable sourcing demand, threatens me with sanctions, and claims not to know what I am upset about. Classic WP:SEALIONING. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're wanting to use a 10 year old essay by Stephen Barrett to undercut the position of a major medical body (the FDA)? While Quackwatch in many circumstances is a useful source, this just seems a bit pathetic. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this source is yours, pulled from the health fraud article.[1] As the diff shows, you used that article as justification for the claim that fraud and quackery are synonymous (when it only says they are sometimes synonymous) and this is the source that it cites as justification. The source states that the FDA uses an atypical definition of fraud, which can be confusing, because nobody else uses that definition. So exactly one who undercuts the FDA? To summarize what I said here, the answer is everybody. If you have anything else to say, lets move this to cupping therapy or to my talk page. I'm starting to think it's a bit rude to do this here. Sorry, Bishonen, and thanks for your good humor. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to our strongest RS (like the FDA, or MEDLINE[19] - which specializes in medical taxonomy) "quackery" and "health fraud" are synonymous. So, in the absence of "quackery" category we apply the "health fraud" category to topics which are well-sourced undoubted quackery. 16:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind my guests discussing amongst themselves, but this has moved quite a ways from the original thread. Moving it to Talk:Cupping therapy for other editors of the article to see sounds like a good idea. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC). [reply]

References

  1. ^ "Talk:Cupping therapy", Wikipedia, 2019-08-16, retrieved 2019-09-24

New editor causing issues (caste, obvs)

Anitakeshri (talk · contribs) has been editing, including while logged out, at Kesarwani and related articles but seems not to realise they have a user talk page. I think this is going to need an attention-grabbing short block. I've done a lot of reverting, some of which was for copyright violation but most is simply because they're pushing some POV based on a source from the 12th century. I'm not the only one who has reverted them. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it looks like a classic case for an attention-getting block. I've given them one, and tried to explain why. Thanks as always, Sitush. Bishonen | talk 16:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

WWE

I suspect that the "Viking War Raider Machine" (or whatever its current iteration is), will be moved hither and yon before all is said and done. The WWE folks are a .... umm ... passionate - yes that's it "passionate" lot. Given how often the WWE changes direction, story-lines, and wrestlers names - it's difficult to predict what next month's flavor of the month will be. Good move and all - I'm not complaining of course, just that I noticed it and thought "Bishonen is editing WWE articles? - hmmm - seems more a job of Bishzilla if anything") lol. (plus it was an excuse to drop by and say hi - :)) I hope the entire family is doing well. Cheers. — Ched (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little Bishonen very impulsive, move article back to original title like that![20] Head of family (=Bishzilla), by contrast, thinks before acts! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 21:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
[Little Darwinbish bites Bishzilla shrewdly on the leg. Unfortunately can't reach to bite ass!] "Head of family"? Bah humbug. Darwinbish CEO of bishonen conglomerate![21] darwin bish 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Little Tryptofish is, however, the CEO of the fishes. But the WWE context gives me a great idea! I think the Bish conglomerate would make a superb wrestling team for a pay-per-view. Pile-driver cannot beat incineration! (I'll handle the money.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Darwinfish very ready join the little Tryptofish team — fishes safer than bishes! Meanwhile, surely the great Bishzilla make fine WWE team unto herself. darwinfish 22:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I can recruit these two fishes too: 1 and 2. So we have our own fire-breathers, as well as the water to put the fire out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OFFS. EEng 22:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Little EEng jealous because this is funnier than his talk page. Little EEng also number one editor of WWE articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again

Hi Bishonen!

I have the same complaints from the same User:Cinadon36. I can't contribute in EN:WP. I am getting reverted in few minutes cause he constantly finds excuses to revert me at once. First due he reverted me cause he thinks it is due (a third user reverted him cause he is just saying just nonense just to revert me), now he finds that a book from famous historians is not a RS and now when i did the same, and i deleted a fringe and conspiracy theory from a militant amateur anarchist historian, now he is saying that this section was for too long in English WP!!!

I fear that this attitude is something that we can find it in Greek Wikipedia, where many users think that he is constantly chasing users.

I am banned from English Wikipedia from this user for many months. Please do something Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Αντικαθεστωτικός, I see from your recent editing and Cinadon's that you said you'd take him to WP:ANI if he reverted you, and he did revert you (encouraging you to take him to ANI). Please do. ANI is a better place for this than my page. Bishonen | talk 07:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I am sorry to bothering you. Thank you for your time. I will go to ANI.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No bother! But yes, please do. Bishonen | talk 07:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, I have answered to the ANI. I should have gone there first. Αντικαθεστωτικος does not respect BRD. What is the proper way to deal with this irritating behavior oh his? Cinadon36 19:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK?

I've written to various people and companies to try to get to use a photo of Nadja for Nadja Malacrida. For instance to Studio Lafayette,[22], which owns the US copyright of a fine portrait from 1929 (=only five years from being PD in the US). And to Vim to try to find their advertisements with Nadja in them. But no luck so far. Anything I find can always be added later. So I've moved my sandbox version to mainspace. If anybody feels like putting it up at DYK, feel free. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

PS, please hold your horses; I coincidentally just got a message from Lucy London (compare most of the footnotes in the article), with a couple of images attached which I can probably use. Watch this space. Bishonen | talk 14:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Well, never mind, I'll never understand how to upload to Commons. I thought I ticked all the boxes, but it has already been tagged for speedy because it seems "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status." See File:Nadia Malacrida at marriage, 1922.jpg and [23]. Now I know what Giano complains about. Would somebody who possesses the esoteric licensing info that they sent me on a wild goose chase for like to edit the image page? If it hasn't been speedied yet, that is. Bishonen | talk 16:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC). PS, now nominated for deletion.[24] That's fine, I no longer care. Bishonen | talk 16:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Disgraceful, it’s a miracle anyone uploads anything. I haven’t a clue how to sort it out. Dr K is the man to ask, he’s very clever at that sort of think. Rex is too. Sorry, I don’t know how to do DYK either, but User:Johnbod does. It would be nice to see Nadja there, especially as I denied her irritating hubby his moment of glory there. Lovely page, most informative and a deserving subject. Giano (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Giano: I was an idiot to try uploading to Commons — it won't happen again. I still don't understand what was wrong with the templates I put there ({{pd-US}} and {{tl|pd-old-70} as recommended by RexxS, unless I misunderstood him) in the course of uploading the image, only to find it immediately tagged for speedy. Were they in the wrong place? How can that be? I didn't put them in any "place" as such, I merely answered the so-called Upload Wizard's questions as best I could. The whole procedure is incoherent AFAIC. "Wizard", ha. It was nice of Lucy and Paul to send me the image, wasn't it — only a bit unfortunate that Commons doesn't want it. But I got another image from L and P as well, I'll e-mail it to you — Nadja with a celeb endorsement of Vim for cleaning modern bathrooms! It's amazing! Unfortunately from 1929, so I suppose Vim owns the copyright. I have to write to them again, now that I know more. In any case, it'll go on Wikipedia, not Commons. Bishonen | talk 18:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Happy to take it through DYK if you'd like me to. I'm reading through that RFA at the moment, but I'll get around to it once I'm done. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but please leave it for now, Vanamonde. It should have an image, really, and I don't like adding one that's got a big "nominated for deletion" notice on it. People at DYK would most likely complain about that, and I'm not in the mood for it. Bishonen | talk 18:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I mean I'd deal with the griping, too, but I won't insist. Happy to do it later. We have a week from the day you moved it. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you need a picture, I’m quite happy to give a picture of one of her husband’s luxuriant bathrooms; I’m sure you can work it into the story somehow. “DYK: Nadja Malacrida became the face of Vim, after seeing her face reflected in her husband’s well scoured bath.” Giano (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating Nadja Malacrida.

User:Winged Blades of Godric while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

I am not seeing the passage of WP:N, based on current sourcing.

The most-exploited source is a poem-collection from a publisher of no/little repute and the biography (over there) is written by someone, of no/little repute.

Going by Murdoch (who seems to be the sole source to have covered her), I guess we need to wait unless somebody manages to eventually rescue her :-)

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Winged Blades of Godric}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

∯WBGconverse 19:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winged Blades of Godric are you trolling or displaying a newly acquired sense of humour? Giano (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
May I have a third choice, Sir? ∯WBGconverse 19:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I’ve been more than charitable already. Giano (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Winged Blades of Godric, you could check out our articles on Cecil Roberts and Adrian Tinniswood, two notable authors who wrote about Nadja. Then have another think about what we need to meet GNG. --RexxS (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am perplexed as to your indentation as well as your expectation that the wiki-articles of the two authors, who have covered her, might change my evaluation.
I know Tinniswood, (from before this episode around Nadja), FWIW. ∯WBGconverse 09:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Winged Blades of Godric. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Nadja Malacrida, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

∯WBGconverse 19:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has this project now gone completely barking mad? Giano (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's better if you write to me in humanspeak, Winged Blades of Godric, because I don't understand what you mean by saying I "reviewed" or "curated" Nadja Malacrida. I'm lost with that terminology. I wrote the page in my sandbox and have just moved it to mainspace. How does any of that amount to me reviewing and/or curating it? A little embarrassingly, I'm not even sure what distinction your "unpatrolled" is invoking, though that is a word I've seen before. And does your first message mean somebody who published four books of poetry isn't notable? Really? (Oh, and, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~.) Bishonen | talk 19:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Apologies but I did not have a choice to deliver the messages outside of the NPP interface, (which's the sole way to unreview a page). The community has requested WMF to enable us to unreview pages w/o dropping a message.
You are an auto-patrolled editor (all sysops have it, by default) and when you are moving anything to mainspace, the stuff is getting reviewed automatically and accordingly, indexed for potential search-engine-crawling.
As you might be aware, new-page-patrollers are tasked with determining whether the pages which are introduced in the main-space are fit for indexing or not (to put in a nutshell). I chose to un-review i.e. un-index this part. page because, it did not seem to pass WP:N, in any conceivable manner.
On the broader locus, there exist many authors who have published dozens of books of poetry but ain't any notable. WP:NAUTHOR may be looked at, for guidance.
I also apologize for the part about signature. That NPP is mainly aimed at newbies, the template contains this tip always. Not in the hands of the (un)reviewer. ∯WBGconverse 19:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you also not have any control over your edit summaries? What does "late-edits to t/p block (from NPP)" mean? It's like fucking Klingon! Bishonen | talk 19:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Ought to have written something clear-er.
The message posted to your t/p (which also gets cross-posted to the article t/p) ought be same; I was attempting to maintain an uniformity due to a late-edit to the message on the article-t/p. ∯WBGconverse 19:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Godric, that was a bit unnecessary. A socialite as prominent as that is likely notable. In addition to Murdoch, there's a paragraph or so here, a seemingly substantive amount here, and what looks like an entry here, though I can't access it. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who's who entries are not remote indicator of notabilities and this has been consistently established at multiple AfDs.
There's a substantive amount of an advertisement of Hutchinson's (the publisher) publishing Malacrida's autobiography, (which is located at the end pages of Dunckley's work). You may have cited their catalog, as well :-)
I have the first book (as a digital copy) and from first glances, there's mere two lines about her and then, a paragraph about her death. ∯WBGconverse 20:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also though it was a bit unnecessary. And it seems I'm not the only one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=pagetriage-curation&page=Nadja+Malacrida. It was reviewed within an hour without further comment. There really is no doubt about the notability of Nadja Malacrida, as she meets WP:BASIC: Tinniswood, Murdoch and the memoir by Roberts are more than enough. --RexxS (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the article does not improve, we will meet at AfD :-)
@Bishonen:- You might try using BritishNewspaperArchives to retrieve more references; I will try late tomorrow! ∯WBGconverse 09:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric, I'll respond to "If the article does not improve, we will meet at AfD :-)", even though I think you were probably speaking to RexxS. It's my talkpage, though. (I have no idea what or who the smiley was for.) Anyway, I'm surprised you didn't put it at AfD right away, in preference to the gobbledygook about reviewing, un-reviewing, curating, un-patrolling, and so on, which you put on this page. I've read your explanations about how you can't help what "the template" says, but I beg to differ: I think you can. We need to take responsibility for anything that's signed with our signature. We probably all post unsuitable templates sometimes, because some fool bot does it automatically, but when I've done it, I hope I've always retraced my steps and altered the unsuitable text, making it suitable, or removing it. You might find me in some page history telling experienced users stuff like "don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~" for a few minutes, but I hope you won't find it still on the page — at least not if I was fully awake at the time. Is it your contention that the template which you say is 'not in your hands' is uniquely sticky, and you can neither remove it nor change a tittle of it, once it's been posted? (Nor add anything to it?) Is that it? Or will the WMF, which I see you invoke in this context, sanction you if you do? Really?
I don't understand what happened here, WBG. I've always had a good impression of you as an editor, and I'm pretty sure there's never been any bad blood between us. The conclusion is that you acted in good faith. But, well, why — what for? Didn't you even look at the way "the template" (actually two templates, surely) came out, and make some reflection like "she's unlikely to understand that", or "I'd better not leave it on a user's page in that form", or possibly even "I'd better add something explanatory in ordinary words" or "I'd better not leave that there at all?" Most especially, at the risk of repeating myself, why didn't you go straight to AfD? Isn't that the place for a non-notable biography? Bishonen | talk 17:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
WP:DTTR is a good essay, for a reason. I understand that two boilerplate messages can be easily perceived as patronising. And, I am sorry that I did not have very efficient means to abide by it.
I and others have been trying hard and long-enough to convince the WMF to let us have greater customization options, on the wiki side, as to PageTriage (the software running over Special:NewPagesFeed that allows us to curate pages). See this thread opened by me, days ago, after a botched effort by WMF had robbed of our ability to write any customized message after un-reviewing through the interface and then, they refused to fix it.
Luckily they listened to us, after Barkeep et al chimed in in that thread of mine and this bug(??), when fixed successfully, is expected to allow us to exercise control over the message content as well as about, whether to send any message, at all. (If this was already implemented, I would have not posted the second message on your t/p, at all.)
Now, you raise an interesting point about manually editing/removing the messages. That could have been done; though we are generally expected to let the messages about un-reviewing stay due to certain high-voltage conflicts, we have seen in past around this locus. I remember a case, when I entirely removed an unreview-message from some patrollers' t/p and days after, he went batshit crazy, as to why I did not inform him of un--indexing. Mileage may vary and all that. But, the stuff about signature could have been edited out, certainly.
As to a prospective AfD, I did intend to do my own search on BNA, prior to taking that way out. Also, per policy, there exists a vast number of intermediary steps that may be taken help of, including consulting the creator or slapping a notability tag, when the reviewer ain't sure of someones' notability. And, I am pretty sure that if I had taken it to AfD, some would have commented about how I had not provided you with any chance and all that ....
To end with, I absolutely don't think that there's any bad blood between us and I continue to respect you as one of the most efficient administrators on the project; especially in around the messy areas around ARBIPA.
But, at the same time, I do think that one of your talk-page-stalkers' behavior was highly confrontational and borderline abusive (for which you are obviously not responsible). Asking someone (who is not a flyby vandal) about whether he is trolling usually leads to nowhere productive. ∯WBGconverse 17:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Report of inquest is in The Times - "Motor-Car Over Embankment." 6 Oct. 1934, p. 9 (also report of accident, 4 Oct, p. 14.) Same paper has a brief note that her estate ws ca. £20k - "Death" 30 November, 1934, p.10. Also a fair few mentions in the Court Circular pages etc, marriage announcement - the usual socialite type of thing. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, what's your evaluation of her notability? Clear passage or borderline? ∯WBGconverse 11:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't really delved into it but I suspect the existing cites are sufficient. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is this debate even taking place over a woman who was a marchesa (notable), wrote several published books (notable) and was sufficiently well known in her lifetime for her activities to be reported in the national press (notable). Then there is the small matter of her being one of the few qualified women aeroplane pilots at this time. I am at a complete loss to understand the problem here. Her husband has a page, her uncle has a page, I hope this isn’t some sort of surreptitious anti-women campaign because it needs knocking on the head if it is. Giano (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally assess article quality based on who wrote it versus what the content is, but both Giano and Bishonen have overseen more FAs than I've had hot dinners, so the odds that either (in conjunction with Andy Mabbett) would deliberately put a non-notable biography in mainspace are about as likely as Boris Johnson being a trustworthy and credible politician. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old comment

You commented about me in this thread ages ago. For some reason, the article popped up on my watchlist today and I'm not impressed. I can't really stub the thing again but it might help to have some eyes on it because I've been pretty disparaging of what has been going on - copyvio, misrepresenting sources, all the rest of it. Tbh, it is far too vague a subject to ever form a decent article but articles about Brahmins generally tend to fly below my radar because they have a habit of using obscure, native language texts of dubious reliability. This one, thus far, hasn't really hit that point but doubtless it will if I keep complaining. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, since I am in the area, Anitakeshri (talk · contribs) appears to have just waited out their block then done the same type of rubbish edit again. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some admins drawing false conclusions from an irrelevant source in 'Banafar' page

The book cited as reference in the page 'Banafar' mentions some individual person as of mixed Rajput and ahir race but this doesn't mean whole Banafar community become mixed Rajput and Ahir .If some person marries other of different tribe ,this doesn't mean his whole community become 50% mixed .The admins are not opening and reading the source cited it seems. 1 of the policies of Wikipedia is that unsourced claims will be challenged and removed .Then why some admins are making conclusions from some irrelevant articles and instead of removing that unsourced claim ,you are blocking me? Fake information is being spread through your page .People will question Thakur Singh (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have just breached your topic ban, here and at the Banaphar article. It is also obvious that you have not correctly read the cited Hitlebeitel source, which does indeed say that the Banaphars are of mixed Ahir/Rajput origin, not merely that one person is such. You're going to find yourself blocked, I'm afraid. - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special award

For your steady hand during the Wikipedia constitutional crisis of 2019, I award you this polar exploration vessel. It made it to the ends of the world and back home. More or less in one piece. Haukur (talk)

Forget something?

Looks like you forgot to pull the trigger? Primefac (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I keep doing that! Bishonen | talk 18:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Hmmm

Should I WP:AE this one, do you think? 8675309 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It's not a POV-only warrior, but I do wonder if the account might have changed hands at some point. Block, or TBAN, or ignore? Guy (help!) 18:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed their edit summary comment "stop reverting" to you, who had at the time reverted exactly one time, whereas 8675309 themselves had reverted repeatedly. But I think I'd ignore for now. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
You folks are hilarious. "It's not a POV-only warrior, but I do wonder if the account might have changed hands at some point..." How do you come up with this stuff? It's always been me.8675309 (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You switched from buffing up an article on a sports team to edit-warring batshit craziness into an article under discretionary sanctions. That's not exactly normal behaviour. I note you did it again, and were reverted again. Guy (help!) 08:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has something changed?

One of your stalkers may know the answer to this: For the last few days whenever I check changes on my watchlist, instead of instantly seeing two columns of text instantly showing me the difference, I have to wait ages while some demented bar flashes across the screen, then I get a single text with highlights of differing colours. I loathe it! Have I inadvertently clicked something or is this the future? Giano (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Giano: Is there a little triangle below the "Revision as of..." headers and above the diff? Click on it and see if it goes away; you might have accidentally selected the "improved diff view". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, that seems to have sorted it. Giano (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi, could you please review/monitor edits by User talk:185.7.216.130, and/or block the IP you blocked in March for a longer period? Only vandalism. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously still used by the same person as in March, so I've blocked for six months. Thanks for your vigilance, WikiHannibal. Bishonen | talk 10:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Tanmayy Mahajan

Hi, we are looking for a person who can help us in removing the page on Wikipedia due to negative comments on the page. please feel free to contact on sunil@socialvive.co.in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmayymahajan (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid I can't help you. Firstly, we don't remove pages because they have negative content, assuming that this content is sourced; and secondly, I don't know what page you're referring to. Is it Immanuvel Devendrar, that you posted below, on the middle of my page? I don't see any negative content in that, though. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
we want a service for our Wikipedia page. Will you be helping us? also, provide me your contact details soc that I can tell you more about it
No, I won't be helping you. What you're asking for is inappropriate. In a pig's eye will you be getting my contact details. Bishonen | talk 11:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page watcher) This isn't the firm directly doing this. Based on the email address posted on-wiki, it's clearly a very amateurish digital marketing company, whose so-called 'SEO expert' has probably 'promised' his client he can get the reported series of serious financial irregularities removed. I don't think that's ever going to happen. Checking this editor's company website it's funny to see they've forgotten to renew their webhosting service. I think they need blocking per WP:NOTHERE. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I was wondering why they contacted me specifically, but now it makes sense. Contacting me + Godric + DoebLoggs. Check. Thank you, Winged Blades of Godric and Nick Moyes. They clearly need blocking, either per WP:NOTHERE or as a sock of User:Hridayahuja09. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Now, spamming from Mehaksharma096; check this post ..... ∯WBGconverse 08:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, quack quack. Already blocked by Ched. Bishonen | talk 10:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
It looked as though you were away from the keyboard for a bit, and it didn't seem that honorable Bishzilla was troubling you about it, as it wasn't an emergency - so I try to help where I can. :) — Ched (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The white-washing is gradually getting more charming; now Prof Pandaa. Typical SPA but working hard to avoid such impressions. ∯WBGconverse 12:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is that quacking I hear? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell for sure, and in a way it doesn't matter. Their edits to Raheja Developers are very disruptive, especially the lack of edit summaries, and they can be indeffed on the strength of that alone. Well, after a sharp warning, which I have just given them. Bishonen | talk 15:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

gaber77

You removed my edit of the entry for hypocrisy stating that it is not meant to attack individuals and not to post my opinion. My update was neither of those things. It was a factual example of what hypocrisy is. A person states one thing, then states the opposite. I am not going to argue for you to put the content back, but I do think your reasoning for removing the content was invalid.

gaber77

That's not how Wikipedia works, Gaber77. Personally I may think your example is good; but that's not the point. The article isn't about your opinion or my opinion. You didn't even offer a source for this being an example of hypocrisy, and moreover the latest example. (Really? Surely we get new examples every day.) You did provide a link to where Lindsay Graham said the things about Nixon/Bill Clinton that you quote, so in that sense your contribution is sourced, but you don't have a source — let alone a reliable, preferably academic, secondary source — for offering Graham's attitudes to Nixon vs his attitude to Trump as an example of hypocrisy. You're offering an argument from yourself — almost a little essay — that's not what WP articles are for. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. I'll just add that the heated field of American politics may not be ideal for a new user to dive into. I'd advise you to edit in less contested areas for a while first, to get a feeling for how it works. But that's just advice, of course — it's up to you. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Makes sense. Thank you for your feedback. I will take your advice. gaber77 | talk
🙂 Bishonen | talk 21:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

On keeping off talk pages

You say "Wikipedia:Keep off my talk page! is an essay, not a policy or guidelinme.", but there is not any policy in the reverse direction, either, is there? Wikipedia:User_pages#Ownership_and_editing_of_user_pages only says that it is "sensible" not to edit a talk page when asked, it does not mention blocks; then how could I be blocked for writing on MrOllie's Talk page? Further, you say that I would be blocked specifically for harassment, but how could it be so if I have not harassed anybody? Does Wikipedia really work that way? Notrium (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, talking to MrOllie is not my hobby, it is just that explicitly forbidding me from talking to him for no apparent reason seems like unnecessarily stifling freedom of speech. Notrium (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly be blocked for harassing people, and needling them on their page after you have been asked to stay away is a form of harassment. Arguing that you don't have to comply with a guideline just because it doesn't explicitly mention blocks is pure wikilawyering; please read the whole sentence you quote a fragment of (="sensible"). As for your freedom of speech on a website run by a public charity (=the Wikimedia Foundation), please see [25]. Bishonen | talk 05:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Or in other words, a) Wikipedia is a privately owned establishment, and failure to abide by Wikipedia's terms and guidelines runs the risk of being barred from editing Wikipedia, and b) freedom of speech is not an aegis to avoid the consequences of failing to abide by a privately owned establishment's terms of service, and, c) freedom of speech neither protects nor permits a person to harass another person.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: You are infuriatingly misrepresenting my previous comment when you say that I argue "that you don't have to comply with a guideline just because it doesn't explicitly mention blocks". I in fact claim that the guideline you keep trying to lean on simply does not exist.
On another note, Wikipedia:harassment does not mention "needling", and I am not sure what do you mean by it, but after perusing a dictionary I am quite sure it is not, in fact, harassment. And I am definitely sure I have not harassed anybody.
@Apokryltaros:, @Bishonen:, you should really (and I mean this sincerely) try to step out of your particular bubble: try to imagine how your comments look to an outsider (one who is not, for example, familiar with the "wikilawyering" slang word). Even a sensible Wikipedian could easily see that you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of, only worse - you accuse me of "wikilawyering" before appealing to irrelevant legal arguments, when I was simply appealing to your morals and common sense. Also, since you already touched the legal stuff, I should mention that it seems inappropriate for you to be appealing to the WMF corporation's legal rights when you are not in the role of WMF's representative, but in the role of a simple Wikipedia user, exactly like me.
All in all, it must be mentioned, you are both being grossly uncivil.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Notrium (talk • contribs)
Summary of the above. You don't get to do whatever you want here, there is no right to free speech, and you aren't entitled to annoy people. This is eing explained to you, politely, by experienced users. Please listen to them. We aren't required to extend unlimited patience. Acroterion (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That, and giving advice in order to educate is not uncivil behavior.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nadja Malacrida

On 12 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nadja Malacrida, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nadja Malacrida said in a Vim advertisement that it was "no use having new ideas of decoration if you have old ideas of dirt"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nadja Malacrida. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nadja Malacrida), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{r}

Since I seem to have got you partially interested, I thought I'd complete the seduction with an example of how to include page numbers. [26] EEng 05:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. I'm all yours! Bishonen | talk 10:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Thai Pongal

Hi Bishonen

I would like your impartial read of the recent edits in the Thai Pongal Page. There is an editor by the name of 'Pandian tamil' who removes large chunks of appears to be significant material that other editors included some years ago. I try restoring those paragraphs/sentences but he reverts it. Not sure how to proceed. You may perhaps look at it with a fresh objective perspective. I could be wrong but he comes across as very PoV.

Dipendra2007 (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dipendra2007, welcome to my page. I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable about the subject. I've done what I can, which is full-protecting the page for a week, in the expectation that the conflict will be worked out on the talkpage, instead of by edit warring (which never helps). Pinging @Sitush, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, and Utcursch: Help? Bishonen | talk 16:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I'm horribly busy today, Bish. I'll try to get back to this. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this note in the morning but couldn't figure it out either. Will try again tomorrow (unless Vanamonde can fix everything like he usually does!).--regentspark (comment) 21:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took a deeper look and here's what I think. Pandian tamil has been removing large chunks of unsourced text which, per WP:V is acceptable. They also appear to dislike the use of god along with sun, which, in and of itself, is also acceptable. Dipendra2007, it seems to me that you need to initiate a discussion to find a "god" compromise and to see what parts of the unsourced text is retainable. For example, instead of sun god, you could try "Surya (the Hindu god of the sun)", assuming the connection between Thai Pongal and the god (rather than the sun) is sourced. And both of you need to stop edit warring so Bishonen's protection is a step in the right direction. --regentspark (comment) 00:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bishonen.

And thank you RegentsPark. Useful feedback and suggestions.

I have not really contributed to this particular page. My sense, right or wrong, is that deletion of large chunks of material without discussion may not always be a good idea. I hear you guys though. I do not check Wiki regularly but intermittently do so and will keep in mind. Thank you to all once again. Best regardsDipendra2007 (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dipendra2007: The Thai Pongal article has been on my to-do list, along with other edit war-prone Tamil-related articles. It would be wonderful if you and others watching that page can save me some/all the effort, by reading and summarizing scholarly sources such as 1 2 3 4 5 etc. Bish: I came to your page to just say "hi!", nothing more. But then this section gave me reasons to write all this other stuff. Hope you (and others above) are enjoying the season!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ps) Dipendra2007: I just completed reviewing some of your edits and contributions over time, along with the sources you cited that allegedly support the content (e.g. in Puthandu). I am concerned with the OR-WP:Synthesis, and other issues, which I assume in good faith was inadvertent. Further, as RegentsPark mentions above, the real issue is finding relevant peer-reviewed sources on the subject, and summarizing these per our content guidelines such as without OR and CopyVio. After you have had a chance to review our content guidelines, let us discuss these on the relevant article pages and work collaboratively. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User page stuff

Hi B, I'm curious about this unblock, although I do respect your decision. At the time the user page was deleted, it was a mere sliver. Now it really feels like fake article/webhost territory to me. I would be interested in hearing a contrary opinion about this. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I found the deletion discussion, I realized different opinions were possible. I had been going by your edit summaries, and I was also influenced by the user's vandalism of your userpage. I wish now I hadn't touched it, because I don't mean to discourage any other admin from blocking, with my stupid block/unblock effort. It's just, I wasn't altogether comfortable. Their block log was previously clean, so they can't exactly be notorious. I'm in two minds about it, though. Whpq was certainly very right when they made the point about the user's other attempts to create an autobiography.[27] That is not a good look! Bishonen | talk 21:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts, friend! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

Thank you for your all-around roarring presence, on top of that crying is okay here. And thanks for a roarring pie and a roarring thunderstorm ;) - My talk page is more quiet, but today has roarring music (a conductor friend had her birthday), and musing about qualification for adminship, which means teh rulez. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ROARR!!

Assistance or advice needed

Hello.
Can you look at WP:Administrators' noticeboard‎‎ #More_Andy? The guy harasses me since December, 2013 (of course, I can present more diffs if it matters for anything). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I can defend myself, but what to do with shit like [28] or [29] directed at other users? Who of local sysops—but you—may take appropriate actions despite unwritten “licenses” (given to certain Wikipedians)? I mean licenses to post ad hominem stuff, defame and threaten opponents. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Incnis Mrsi, I'm dealing with a plateful of RL atm and don't have the time to research this conflict, especially since I'd have to start from scratch. Bishonen | talk 16:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
No in-depth investigation is necessary for my last question. There is boorishness and other disruption by “semi-protected” (from WP:NPA blocks) users of the English Wikipedia. Which sysops can override their “licensed to harass” status and deal with shit effectively? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aye

October
... with thanks from QAI

|Thank you for having supported the right candidacy for arbitration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about you, now that he can't? - Thank you! Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought about it for a moment, Gerda, considering how much Floquenbeam enjoyed his stint at ArbCom. The memory of it still makes him smile! [30] But no. I'm so much lazier than Floq. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Well, see also. And then we end up where? American politics? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen would likely hate it, but Bishzilla would probably love it, and be good at it. When was the last time Zilla ran, 2008? Now that the community seems to be edging closer to a willingness to have a non-admin on the committee, I think it's time for another run. Please speak to your lizard about this. (yes, yes, I know. Eyes and teeth gleam, "'shonen's lizard?", threat to eat me, etc.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam, something like 2008 or 09, yeah. I'm afraid she's still exhausted after that attempt. Ten years is nothing in her chronology, especially not when it comes to resting up. Why don't you all focus your efforts on the always dynamic first Lady of Wikipedia? Surely everybody wants an aristocrat on the committee — nay, ruling the committee! Bishonen | talk 17:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
It is so very true that my inbox is deluged with appeals for me to join the Arbitration Committee demanding that I lend my famed perception to that august body. However, I strongly believe that women must not be forced to divulge their most private details to the WMF. It's sexual harassment. Only the other day, I had a recorded delivery letter allegedly from Coutts insisting I repay my unauthorized overdraft immediately. Of course, I fed it straight to my beloved Crippen; gross impertinence! However, just imagine if I had been a little weak and defenseless woman like poor little Mrs Bishonen, I may well have sent them funds. It's giving details out over the internet that encourages fraudsters, sharks and other whatnots. My privacy is paramount, so I must decline. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curses, I was just planning on dropping requests (phrased somewhat differently) to run as an Arb to both you and Bish, you'd both have my full support. Perhaps Darwinbish is eager enough for power... Nosebagbear (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Regular Darwinbish
Darwinbish considering everything she can do as an arb

COI issue

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Meaza Ashenafi. MB 00:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @MB: No communication, SPA, no reply to questions, and re-insertion of challenged material without any comment. I've blocked indef until they start to communicate. You may consider it reasonable to restore this version of the article in the meantime. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intractable behavior in regard of the Me Too movement article handling

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Salamandra85 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC) You supported the rough violation of the most important not negotiable neutrality rule by CorbieVreccan and blocked me without a reason. More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=924913943#Intractable_behavior_of_users_CorbieVreccan,_Bishonen,_Yunshui[reply]

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&oldid=925095591"