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 Tex (talk | contribs) at 13:27, 24 November 2020 (→‎ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message: Guess I've been gone too long). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


Hi thanks ma'am

I am thankful that u took fast action but this may continue.I have faced 7 such attacks by new accounts and they may return with new one.Btw thank u for ur recent action for blocking the socks Heba Aisha (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Heba Aisha. That wasn't me blocking the socks, it was a checkuser, an admin with special access for making sure if someone is a sock or not. Would you like me to semiprotect your page for a while? Semiprotection means a user can only edit it if they have an age of at least four days and have made at least ten edits. That prevents socks quite well, usually. But it also has a downside; you may want to hear from some new accounts and IPs. So please consider that before you reply. Bishonen | tålk 09:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Yes of course tq in advance......as you can see i m hit by vandals 9 times as of now.And this may continue.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think i would like to consider the suggestions etc of autoconfirmed user only as new users and ip are here to disturb me only.Plz you may proceed.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. (I've fixed your indents in this conversation.) Bishonen | tålk 11:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Ban

Hello. I am messaging you to appeal a ban on American politics that was placed on me after I attempted to remove biased information from the Proud Boys Wikipedia page. I mistakenly left the biased news sources, but I will remove them. At the beginning of the article, the editor Jorm has listed the Proud Boys as a fascist and possibly racist organization when this directly conflicts with the group's core beliefs Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove them you will be blocked. You are topic banned from the subject area. Please read WP:TBAN to see what topic banned means. You ignored my warning and went on removing sourced content and adding stuff that wasn't covered in the sources that were there, and you have provided no sources of your own. It's just as if you didn't see my warning. Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources, not by what an organization says about itself. I am declining your appeal. Bishonen | tålk 20:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict) Can't speak for Bish, but. Sounds like you want to continue making the edits that earned you a ban to begin with. Wikipedia uses information from reliable sources unconnected with subjects. What subjects say about themselves is of little encyclopedic value. That you choose sources connected with the subject over independent sources makes your efforts incompatible with building an encyclopedia. And, as an uninvolved admin, I endorse your topic ban. If you wish to promote what they say about themselves, you may need to find a different venue than this encyclopedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisburke123: Lost ping in ec. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The news sources accuse the organization of possibly being a White Supremacist organization when the leader is a black man from Cuba Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have had this account since 2014 and I am sad to see what this website has become. Goodbye Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) PS, Chrisburke123, I take it back that you've added no sources, as I see you did add one source minutes before I published your topic ban on your page. However, that source was a link to the Proud Boys' own site. As we keep telling you, that's no good. Reliable secondary sources are the only sources that count. If we went by how wonderful all organizations themselves think they are, we could just as well replace half our articles with links to organizations' own websites. Bishonen | tålk 20:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

In that case, is there a way that I can have the topic ban removed after a time? Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(provided I do not make similar edits) Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, almost all of my edits have involved making grammar corrections, and political pages on Wikipedia are what I find the most interesting and occupy most of the time I spend on this site. If I am not able to take part in it, I do not see the point of having an account. This is the reason why I ask if I can make edits after a period of being topic bannee Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ban is indefinite, you are going to have to appeal it successfully before it can be lifted. You have appealed to me; I declined; you can go on to appeal at either WP:AN or WP:AE. At AN, the decision will be made by the community; at AE, by a consensus of uninvolved admins. Theoretically, you can appeal right now, but practically speaking, you'll have a much better chance if you appeal in a few months (preferably six months) and spend the interval editing in other areas, and/or other Wikimedia projects. The idea is that you'll then have constructive editing to point to, to show that you're able to also do it in American politics. A personal point about the best kind of editing to do in other areas: you really, really need to learn about our sourcing policies and show, in practice, through other editing, that you understand them. In other words, grammar corrections are nice and useful, but they're not what you most need to show understanding of now. Bishonen | tålk 21:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
  • A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
  • A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban

Konnichiwa Bishonen. You just topic banned me from articles related to India and Pakistan. Can I edit draft articles related to those countries? Can I edit articles of celebrities from those countries? Can I edit articles related to Bangladesh or Afghanistan? Can I appeal my topic ban after 3 months if I edit other articles satisfactorily? Domo arigato.—Dr2Rao (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr2Rao. No, you can't edit draft articles related to those countries, or articles of celebrities from those countries. You can't edit any page on Wikipedia related to those countries, or discuss anything related to those countries, including on talkpages and user talkpages. The sole exception to that is that you can discuss your topic ban with me on your own or my page. Yes, you can edit articles related to Bangladesh or Afghanistan, provided nothing India- or Pakistan-related comes into it. And yes, you can appeal the topic ban after 3 months if you can show you have edited other articles satisfactorily. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, can I edit articles related to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism?—Dr2Rao (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Provided nothing India-or Pakistan-related comes into it, yes, you can. Seriously, nothing India-or Pakistan-related. You can, but I should perhaps warn you that posting the way you did here about Muslims is likely to get you further sanctioned even if India/Pakistan are not involved, most likely indefinitely blocked. You'll need to up your game when you write about religion, not just in articles but on talkpages also. Bishonen | tålk 08:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Holy cow! I redacted and revdel'd that tidbit referenced above. From what I've seen, that's true of some adherents of many religions, including my own. And also not true of many adherents of many religions, including my own. If one does not understand how inappropriate such a statement is in a multicultural project, I lack the skills to explain it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so do I. The comment was mentioned by a user in the Dr2Rao AE, and I also linked to it in my ban rationale. Nm, now that it's revdel'd, and hopefully Dr2Rao can remember what they said. Thank you, young Fritter. Bishonen | tålk 10:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Welp, I certainly hope @Dr2Rao: does remember that, 'cause I will. And I must say, I would likely block indefinitely if I saw it repeated. There is a precedence for wp:zero tolerance blocking a user years after making such an edit. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, how do I get other editors to reply about something without being accused of canvassing? A friend told me that I can e-mail editors through Wikipedia but is there a way to do it overtly?—Dr2Rao (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dr2Rao, the system is based on other editors voluntarily, of their own accord, taking part in discussions. You're not supposed to "get" them to do it. You could have put a note about your RfC at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics (you can't do that now, since you're topic banned from India-related pages), so as to get a more neutral selection of eyes on the RfC. The problem with pinging people individually is that the group you ping is likely to be mostly people who agree with you. But I'm very glad to see that you understand it's even less appropriate to canvass people by e-mail. You are very right to want to be open about what you do. Hey, talkpage stalkers, I had a notion RfC's were also advertised at AN, but perhaps I dreamt it — they don't seem to be. Anybody? Bishonen | tålk 20:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Yashi, domo arigato. So can I e-mail other editors through Wikipedia now?—Dr2Rao (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, I will remember. How do I get to make my username show up in different colours like yours?—Dr2Rao (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dr2Rao, No, that's not what Bishonen said; you decidedly should not email other editors to draw their attention to a dispute in which you are seeking to build consensus. In fact email should ideally only be used for matters that involve private information; bringing things to admin attention when you're worried about the consequences of doing so on-wiki; and to discuss matters that would not be appropriate to discuss on-wiki, per NOTFORUM. RfCs will draw attention normally, and can be advertized through neutral notifications at project noticeboards. The Feedback Request Service (is that what you're thinking of, Bish?) will also draw some editors to them. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this-- --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, how do I use the "Feedback request service"?—Dr2Rao (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dr2Rao, you do not use it. It is automated. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, do you sign with 4 tildes, "~" and then replace it with what you posted above or can the signature be made to appear in colour automatically?—Dr2Rao (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do I cite references for medical articles on Wikipedia?—Dr2Rao (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Signatures are a setting in preferences (see link at top of any page while logged in). Ask at WP:HELPDESK for technical assistance with that kind of thing. Re references, they are tricky. A good place to start is to examine existing references in the wikitext of an article of interest (what you see while editing the page). Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks Bishonen, Johnuniq, Deepfriedokra and Vanamonde93.—Dr2Rao (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein has asked for reactions/opinions here, can I reply there now?—Dr2Rao (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dr2Rao - In your original post to this page you said - "You just topic banned me from articles related to India and Pakistan." Sandstein's request is about Pakistan. Are you being deliberatly obtuse? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, but since that is not an article and since Manasbose and I were its chief editors, I thought it was allowed.—Dr2Rao (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Re-read Bish's first response to you: You can't edit any page on Wikipedia related to those countries, or discuss anything related to those countries, including on talkpages and user talkpages. --bonadea contributions talk 17:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down? DFO

:::::::: (edit conflict) Yes, please re-read my first reply above, User:Dr2Rao. It might help to read WP:TBAN also, as I already asked you to do in the ban notice. It's quite short. Just read it, please. Your ban is not just about articles. Bishonen | tålk 17:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 -- Manasbose (talk | contribs) 14:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I didn't notice there were so many Indian weebs on wiki. Lol -- Manasbose (talk | contribs) 14:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea at all what this means? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Roxy the dog:42, obviously --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Roxy the dog: it means we're all degenerates. -- Manasbose (talk | contribs) 06:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, VR, but for such a topic ban, you'd have to go to WP:AN and request one to be placed by the community. Islam and Muslims do not come under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. But that doesn't mean disruptive editing about these subjects is allowed. I'll take a look at the edits you indicate when I get a little more time. Bishonen | tålk 08:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
If he's going to spam talk pages with hundreds of questions each time he wants to add a reference that he hasn't actually bothered reading, perhaps a WP:CIR block is the most appropriate. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, or a block for disruptive editing; copying over content when you haven't verified the sources for yourself is contrary to core policy, and deserving of a block. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier today they changed a neutral wording into a POV one.VR talk 20:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, VR. They claimed they had copied two edits from within the article, but I can't find it there. That's pretty disruptive, but I'm not going to revert it, since I want to remain uninvolved, i e not edit the article. It's not really relevant to the topic ban. I've given them a final warning for tendentious editing. Bishonen | tålk 20:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Raj-era sourcing question

Hey Bish, I know we have some rules about Raj-era sources about India, I know you have some familiarity with the topic area, and I'm not at all familiar with it, so I'm hoping you could give me a little advice. I'm working on expanding Nain Singh Rawat and have found an obituary of him from 1882 by a British officer) (if you have a Wikipedia library card, source is [1]). My question: what sorts of statements should I be skeptical of? I'm guessing anything involving caste or tribe (it describes him as a "Bhootiah," which I think either refers to Bhotiya or Bhutia), but is there anything else I should be wary of? Or should I just scrap the source entirely? GeneralNotability (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) A good place to start is User:Sitush/CasteSources and it's sometimes worth checking User:Sitush/Indic publications of dubious merit. Sitush has spent a lot of time collecting discussions on the reliability of India-related sources and I'd always trust his judgement on them. He's only editing sporadically at present, but if you're not in a hurry, I'm sure he'd eventually reply to a question on his talk page. --RexxS (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mon Général. Yes, Sitush is your man. Meanwhile, I'll just say that British Raj ethnographers are not reliable sources.[2] However, your source doesn't seem to be an ethnographer, or at least does not speak as one, but from personal knowledge of the subject. So I would have thought that you could use it, just nothing ethnographic from it (such as caste). Bishonen | tålk 10:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, RexxS, thank you both. I'll give Sitush a ring. Bish, my thinking aligns with yours, I just was concerned that there might be other problematic areas other than ethnography. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hlw mam

Mam Bishonen....you are looking after many issues everyday and i hope u still remember you helped me few days ago against a sock by protecting my talk page. I have a request ..... Sitush is not active on wikipedia for many days and talks on Rajput is not coming to conclusion.It is getting longer and longer. I don't want to blame anyone and i also don't want reliable sources to be removed and there are chances that it will happen sooner or later. Also being a student i have a lot of other troubles in my life and regular futile discussion is giving me headache.Many times me LukeEmily and NitinMlk tried to make an another editor with whom we are in dispute to understand but i think its not gonna work until an established editor whom we all respect interferes.

So can we all wait for Sitush to come again and decide what shud be the fate of that article. If you can help here to make all of us wait till arrival of Sitush it will be a great help .Also i promise u ....i and those on my side will accept what Sitush decides.Tq....Heba Aisha (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Heba Aisha, I'm not well enough informed about caste matters to take on what you ask. Pinging a few knowledgeable admins: RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, and Vanamonde93. Bishonen | tålk 17:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Heba Aisha:, messy discussions often take a long time to reach a consensus, particularly when due weight is concerned. Kautilya3 seems to have intervened in this discussion, and it doesn't seem likely that drastic changes are going to be made any time soon; why don't we let the discussion play out? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is because......a number of editors put many reliable sources and reiterated same thing again and again but Sajaypal007 who consider the edits made by LukeEmily derogatory is dragging it long......Also i tried to explain that derogatory words like untouchables etc etc are on various caste articles but things are not working as the main issue seems removal of all those terms which Rajput community can thing of being derogatory.Vanamonde93 this issue can be fully dealt with when an uninvolved admin who is aware of the matter intercept.As none of us have broken the rules yet and we don't want to do so.But we also don't want our changes to be undone as those are sourced from oxford and other top quality sources.Also...Let me explain in brief NitinMlk, LukeEmily and me had the same opinion about the article. ....kautilya is the moderator and others were not interested just made few comments.Sajaypal007 has opposite view.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caste edit war...

...at Banaphar. I wonder if you might care to cast an eye over the recent changes there and decide if anything needs doing? (For reference: Talk:Banaphar#Wrong information on the page) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that, I was just writing up a warning. Posted. Bishonen | tålk 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Hmm, "two minds with but a single thought". I guess that means I'm responsible for half a thought, which is good going for me on a Friday. Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review request.

Hello, I have recently started an article on a stockbroking company. Could you please review it? Thank you :) Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading212 NinjaWeeb (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, NinjaWeeb, I don't think so. It's not my kind of thing, and I'm a little busy. Bishonen | tålk 18:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Your Yangcheon District reversion

I had intended to eventually try my best to make sense of the edit that you ultimately deleted. Since it's still in the history, I just might get back to it, though it's not high on my to-do list. If the article's not on your watch list, please put it there just in case I get around to giving poor Vnaroddrux an assist since I THINK I know what he or she meant to say but I'm unsure that it can be properly sourced. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Kent Dominic. Vnaroddrux can certainly use assistance. Did you notice my discussion with them on their page? My own recent contributions tell the story. Bishonen | tålk 10:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I just read the discussion. You're reverting 500 edits? Ouch, that's harsh. It's bound to get someone's attention. But, to the merits of the Yangcheon thing, I live in Seoul and tried locally to find the root of what Vnaroddrux mentioned and it's beyond everyone's knowledge here. Indeed, I found some contradictory etymological items re. "Yangcheon" transliterations - namely "sheep cloth" - from Traditional Chinese to Korean and, ultimately, to English. My initial thought was that it'd be as easy as Yongsan. Shows how much Korean I (need to) know. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Please indent using colons.) Good luck with the Korean! Btw, I didn't exactly revert 500 edits — I know I pretty much said I did, but I meant I was reverting the revertable edits from the user's first 500 contributions, i. e. edits where nobody else has edited in the meantime. In practice that means I reverted some 100 edits. Bishonen | tålk 15:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Re. style: I've seen most editors revert to the same indentation as their immediately previous comment as I'm doing now and as Alice does in her third comment in indent Example #4.--Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to follow and it saves white space as compared with her second comment in that same example's thread, as I'm doing now. But, hey, I'm I guest on your talk page, so I'll follow the house rules here. Please don't kill me if I revert to habit.--Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think our system of sequential indents rots, and is outmoded by the reply templates and the ability to colorize text. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khant (caste)

Hi Bishonen I think the protection needs to be re-installed for Khant (caste) as content disputes/mass deletion has resumed again. Please have a look. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 19:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Amkgp, but I don't see what good a renewal of my semiprotection would do. The last time an IP edited the article was in March. And surely it's too soon for full protection for content dispute: the content dispute so far consists only in a user removing a section, and you restoring it. That's it. If they should revert in turn, please take it to the talkpage, with an edit summary urging the other user to come there too. Please let me know if an actual edit war should develop. Bishonen | tålk 19:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Any chance...

... of doing some archiving? Scrolling down this talk page to find what one is looking for is a nuisance when done on a computer, and a real pain when done on a phone. If you don't mind my saying so. (Or even if you do.) JBW (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is, perhaps, trying to catch EEng. (I see a comment that interests me, I click the sublink in my watchlist). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You think 120 sections is a lot, JBW? I saw a page with 476 yesterday, starting with a "Welcome to Wikipedia" from 2006, and it wasn't even EEng's. But if you seriously find it inconvenient... OK. Bishonen | tålk 20:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
FWIW:
EEng 278 851,086
DFO 103 206,855
Bish 120 ~350,000 (before) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


WP:OTHERSTUFF ??? JBW (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Question: When a user is blocked indefinitely in Wikipedia, is their account on Wikimedia also blocked? I am enquiring about Mariolovr's recent block. He had uploaded hundreds of images from a website into commons. [3] Normal Op (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Normal Op, no. Every project is independent, so a user blocked on en-wiki can still edit commons, for instance. IPs can be globally blocked and accounts can be globally locked, but that requires a steward and specific levels of disruption.
Incidentally, Bish, I have proposed a topic ban on Mariolovr's talk page. If he agrees to that, would you also agree? Do you think there are any topics I have forgotten to include? Salvio 16:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio giuliano: If you had read the numerous conversation I had had with Mariolovr in the last week, and his method of communicating with other editors, then you wouldn't be suggesting this. Normal Op (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Normal Op, it doesn't really matter, since he's opposed to the idea. As such, I am about to decline his unblock request. Salvio 16:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Mariolovr tried opposing the idea first; when that didn't work he changed his mind, and is now saying he'll accept your topic ban. Salvio giuliano, are you done with him and leaving him to make a new unblock request? In any case, I can't think of any more topics, you seem to have covered the problem area very well, and I'm happy to go with whatever you prefer. Normal Op, you may want to be more specific about your opposition to the idea of a topic ban, with links, or at least page names. Bishonen | tålk 18:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Sure, I'll get that for you shortly, Bishonen. Normal Op (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Bish, Mariolovr has apparently changed his mind. As far as I'm concerned, the topic ban is still on the table; however, I'll wait a litte, to give Normal Op the chance of showing why he thinks that sanction would be insufficient.
Normal Op, please, provide examples of problematic conduct that you think would not be prevented by the topic ban. Salvio 18:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 14 threads Mariolovr was involved in, contentiously. I'm not even counting the ANI or his many edit-wars which were conducted mainly with edit-summaries (they would be in the edit-history of the articles corresponding to these Talk pages). As you will see from these examples, I wasn't the only editor having similar problems with Mariolovr and his edit style. In my conversations (the ones I am most familiar with) I felt like I shouldn't answer some of the time in order to let the thread die, then M would come back and goad me into continuing the conversation ("you just refuse to communicate with me", "Are we ever going to get back to the original discussion at hand?", "not wanting to cooperate with me", "don't change the subject"). But the convo never got anywhere. Several times he insulted me and I felt like I was in a sparring match with someone and I wasn't trying to spar but kept getting sucker-punched. He was aggressively trying to push his POV at all times, regardless of WP policies/guidelines, and he was conducting his battles on so many fronts that it was exhausting to even read all of what he'd posted since the last time I'd logged in (let alone answer him). He also had a habit of editing his talk page comments after posting them and getting a response, thus changing the conversation for the next person to read. This list is just the ones I already knew about; I did NOT go back and see which other articles he had been doing this same stuff with in the last few days.

Threads I participated in:

Threads in which I was NOT a participant:

And some poor other editor got temp blocked for fighting with Mariolovr. Normal Op (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when I presented policy to him, he either couldn't or wouldn't see how it applied to his edits. Then he would come back and argue how WP policy favored his viewpoint against me/mine. I gave up. Normal Op (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also add that I've just identified that the images MarioLovr was trying to get included in the horse slaughter article are actually from an illegal halal slaughterhouse that was shut down by the french government for violation of slaughterhouse, animal welfare and food safety laws, a fact they completely failed to mention in the addition, captions, talk page discussion and RfC, where they have instead presented them as normal slaughterhouse operations. see my comments here. 192.76.8.79 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you for your research and disclosure about the facts behind those photos. I was unaware that halal requires animals conscious before slaughtering or that these photos were from a halal slaughterhouse AND one that was shut down for other reasons. I knew there was something wrong with these photos but had no idea of that backstory! This makes it even more interesting that Mariolovr presented himself as someone who had worked at a slaughterhouse and presented these photographs as ordinary and typical. Thank you for exposing that falsehood. Normal Op (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction, 3 of the images are from the illegal halal slaughterhouse, 2 of them are from this case in which illegal slaughterhouse operations resulted in 3 slaughterhouses having their licences revoked, and the final image is from this case where revelations that race horses were being slaughtered created a major social media storm. You could probably argue that the last image is standard practice, but 5 of these images show illegal operations and animal abuse. 192.76.8.79 (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These discussions show that Mariolovr's conduct has been problematic and that is why I upheld Bishonen's block. Mariolovr's editing style has definitely been tendentious and pugnacious, but he has only been disruptive in a specific topic area and that could be prevented by a topic ban rather than a full block. It's possible I am too lenient, but, in general, I think that we should try the least onerous sanction that gets the job done before telling someone to go away permanently. And I have also seen that sometimes an editor who is disruptive in a topic area can edit productively in another. Which is why I am still on the fence regarding him.
Now, I also see that he has been accused of sockpuppetry. That doesn't really surprise me, as he looked fishy to me as well, but, as much as I want, being fishy is not enough to support such an accusation. So, basically, I think I'll let the SPI run its course first. Salvio 11:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the SPI will likely be a dead end for Mariolovr. I strongly believe that he is Zalgo but I can't demonstrate it with diffs this time. But one thing is clear he is not a new user from his editing skills and I guess will be back editing the same articles in the future. On his talk-page he has filed his own SPI and is now saying Normal Op/192.76.8.79 are the same person. This might be an abuse of talk-page use. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Per WP:OPTIONS, "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of their user talk page". I was very amused by Mariolovr's accusation, however I don't need more false crapola posted about me. He has stirred up several other bits of crap, getting other editors involved (who I'd had problems with in the past like he's asking for them to dogpile on me), accused me of having had a topic ban just weeks ago [4] (when it was over a year ago and it has been overturned), etc. His sockpuppet accusation is over-the-top and shows his desire to continue to be contentious. "Getting back at me" for doing an ANI on him isn't going to get his block overturned, so I am viewing this latest attempt as pure vindictiveness. I agree that we'll likely see a return of him in another form, but in the meantime would you consider flipping the option and turning off his user talk page privileges? (He's continuing to edit there. I just saw 3 more edits he made.) Normal Op (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe Salvio guiliano may want to talk with the user on their page once the SPI is closed. RexxS offered some evidence (namely that provided by you yourself above, Normal Op), which the CU hasn't considered yet, and so the SPI remains open. On the other hand, of course Salvio can restore talkpage access when/if he wants to communicate with Mariolovr. I agree that there's too much trolling going on there. OK, I'll revoke tpa. Hope you don't mind, Salvio. Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, great, that worked fine, not. Re-pinging Salvio giuliano Bishonen | tålk 20:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Well, that'll teach me I guess. *facepalm* The next time I'm feeling charitable, feel free to remind me of this train wreck. Salvio 21:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trainssteam enginesteam engine

Look out! Oncoming train!

Thank you, everyone, for your contributions to the effort. Thanks, Bish, for hosting this tedious convo on your talk page and allowing us to continue the discussion until a (hopefully final this time) resolution. Normal Op (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your range block

Hi Bishonen. I was wondering if you could expand the range block special:Contributions/2600:1008:b101:5cc::/64 to disallow talk page access? Aasim (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. I've expanded the block to a month, with tpa revoked. Thank you, Aasim! Bishonen | tålk 08:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
No problem @Bishonen! Aasim (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User (Dinesh2069 (talk))

Hello Bishonen, the above user is not listening to neither your words nor my words. Take a look at this edit [5]. User is using words like 'beg' for characters like Indra- king of Gods without any sources. He claimed that we were hurting religious sentiments but the user himself is doing that. This violates wikipedia's 'neutral' policy. He also added words like 'great danveer' to elevate a character without proofs or sources. This shows that he is fan of character Karna. This can be called as fan boy vandalism. The most important thing is he is editing in a wrong way even after being warned. I request you to look into this carefully as you already gave him final warning. Also please look my latest edit over his talk page and please tell me whether I did correct or not. [6] Thank you. Fire star on heat (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review for Restoration Spectacular

I have nominated Restoration Spectacular for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article should be kept intact forever as it contains one the most significant events on Wikipedia: a welcome from Geogre to 'Shonen. --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and have taken your advice

Hi Bishonen, thanks for your message and I've taken your advice and removed the section. Sophoife (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking, Sophoife. Don't leave downers on your page, that's what I think. Bishonen | tålk 16:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

User (Dinesh2069 (talk))

Hello Bishonen, the above user is not listening to neither your words nor my words. Take a look at this edit [7]. User is using words like 'beg' for characters like Indra- king of Gods without any sources. He claimed that we were hurting religious sentiments but the user himself is doing that. This violates wikipedia's 'neutral' policy. He also added words like 'great danveer' to elevate a character without proofs or sources. This shows that he is fan of character Karna. This can be called as fan boy vandalism. The most important thing is he is editing in a wrong way even after being warned. I request you to look into this carefully as you already gave him final warning. Also please look my latest edit over his talk page and please tell me whether I did correct or not. [8]

Hello Bishonen, this user seems to be little rude as you can see his latest edit. [9]. I don't have any personal enimity with him. But he is not editing properly. You gave him final warning and asked me to report you if he persistently edit in a wrong way even after warning. I already informed you. Once again I'm reporting you so that you would take some action on him. He had record of disruptive editing and vandalism. Kindly look into this as you already told me that you would block him if he edits in a wrong way. Thank you and have a nice day. Fire star on heat (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's a little rude, yes, and can't seem to make it clear who he's talking to. I've posted a question about that. But religion really isn't my subject; I'm not comfortable being dragged into it. Any admin stalker out there who knows a little about Hindu gods and sacred texts? Even a little knowledge would definitely be more than I have. Bishonen | tålk 10:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Another rangeblock may be in order

Hey there, Bishonen. I've subtly kept an eye on TurokSwe's IP range editing of articles he has a history of tinkering with on the Swedish Wikipedia, though I haven't said anything about him violating his site ban, as his edits have been innocuous and harmless - plus he hasn't appealed his ban yet. However, I did see that he vandalized Deepfake, which I would consider problematic. Perhaps this would warrant a range block? I don't know; he doesn't edit much, so even a 2-month range block wouldn't accomplish much. If nothing else, it would be good to monitor the situation with that IP's activities. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 01:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Darth. Yeah, I suppose the usefulness is borderline. But it may be good to send a message that we're watching. Blocked for two months. Bishonen | tålk 08:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination of List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Blushes]. Is that still around? Bishonen | tålk 15:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hello! My name is Giano and I once used to edit Wikipedia. I hope you are all well. I seem to remember this was the best place too ask a question and can get a reliable answer. This is about copyright - In the USA there is no copyright on photographs of ancient objects such as Rembrandts and antique furniture, my question is, does this also to apply to the UK? Giano (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little UK stalkers, please? RexxS? Bishonen | tålk 18:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Not British, but... it's complicated. In the US simple reproductions of out-of-copyright two-dimensional works do not get a new copyright. Photographing a 3D work can result in a new copyright in the US because there is some degree of originality involved.
In the UK, the standard for 'originality' has traditionally been lower, to the extent that in some cases photographing ancient paintings could potentially warrant copyright protection, if there was some degree of skill and judgment involved. However, it has also been the case that Commons/WMF consider reproductions of 2D works to be in the public domain regardless of country.
So the short answer is, (1) for our purposes there is no copyright on photographs of ancient 2D works regardless of where they are, but (2) in most cases there will be copyright on photographs of 3D works even if the thing pictured is ancient. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nikkimaria, that’s helpful, but I am thinking specifically of private publishing in the UK, for ones own use and not for profit, rather than Wikipedia. I have had a professional opinion, but I don’t agree with it, or indeed like it, so wondered what the feeling was here. British museums and galleries seem to be rather protective of their exhibits and professional opinion keen to support them. Giano (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well in that case I'd expect the most conservative legal opinion would be that they are covered by copyright. But recent legal cases suggest things aren't so clear-cut. (Not a lawyer though). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Giano: there's a good summary of the UK copyright laws at c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list T-Z #United Kingdom. If you are thinking about photographs that you take yourself, Excellency, then skip down to the De minimis and  Freedom of panorama which gives a good idea of what you can take photographs of without infringing the copyright of the creator of the object you photograph. I suspect that Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 will be of interest to you. You might also find some relevance in the 2014/5 advice note from the Intellectual Property Office:

According to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.

Under section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this decision remains generally binding on UK courts. Hope this helps, but I'm happy to do more research for you if you have a particular case in mind. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rex, you seem to be coinciding with my own interpretation. Which is, if one wanted to use a 10-year-old sale catalogue image of an antique item (say a valuable 200-year-old table which has now disappeared from public view) to illustrate a book on the maker of said table, that would not be an infringement Of copyright as the said table has existed in that form for 200 years. Similarly if a museum has illustrated a chair, on its website, by the same furniture maker, that illustration too cannot be copyright. However, I fear the Victoria and Albert Museum may not agree. Giano (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Giano: I'm no lawyer, so I may be very wrong, but my impression is as follows. The Victoria and Albert Museum certainly does not agree, and nor do most if not all other UK museums and art galleries; many of them have messages claiming copyright on reproductions in postcards and the like. However, their claim to own copyright has never been tested in court, and a pretty solid proportion of lawyers are very doubtful that any court would uphold such claims. (It may even be that the reason the claims have never been tested in court is that the museums' legal advisers know that they are on shaky ground, and therefore don't ever take cases to court for fear of a judgement which would stop the museums from being able to plausibly claim copyright.) JBW (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Giano: The precedent is well-documented at National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. The NPG proved unwilling to pursue their claims of copyright, but it was an unpleasant experience for all involved. The IPO declaration some six years later seems to completely undermine the NPG's stance, but that was all about two-dimensional objects. A photograph of an antique table or chair is much less clear, because the photographer might argue that they made a creative arrangement of angle and lighting when taking the photograph. My inclination would be to contact the museum and the owner of the sales catalogue and ask for permission to use the images to illustrate the book (offering complete attribution, of course). It may well be that they would find the publicity of using their images would be of far more benefit to them than any possible commercial reuse could generate. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, RexxS. Several interesting things come out of that case, including an example of progress being made by collaborative discussion between the parties, which is of course in line with what you are suggesting. I agree with you the IPO declaration "seems to completely undermine the NPG's stance", but the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation seems itself not to have any clear bearing on the copyright position within the United Kingdom, as a central point in that case was the dubious nature of the claim of applicability of UK law to a person residing and acting in the USA. However, my own impression is of a firm of lawyers posting a long and intimidiating letter in the hope of creating a chilling effect but having no will to follow through with legal action when their bluff was called. JBW (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting interpretation which rather follows my own thoughts. Most British museums seem to adopt the scare tactic with little substantiation and no back-up. Perhaps a test case is overdue. Thanks both for your thoughts. Giano (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I hadn’t, thank you for bringing it to my attention. What a nuisance for him, bloody virus is everywhere so it seems. I have quite strong views on the subject, but here and now is not the time to air them. However, I will say that people like that Trump man are criminally stupid! Giano (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can possibly manage to forgive me, Bishonen, for moving in on a personal message addressed not to me but to Giano, I hadn't seen that either, and I'm very grateful to you for pointing it out. I have a high regard RexxS as an editor and now as an administrator, and the news is most unwelcome.
Giano it's interesting to see you say that you "once used to edit Wikipedia". Back in the days when I first became significantly involved in Wikipedia I used to very frequently see you around, but times move on. I see you haven't lost your sense of humour over the years, as evidenced by your explaining to Bishonen who you are. JBW (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome here on any errand, JBW. Actually I wrote that note to Giano here, rather than mailing him, precisely because I wanted other friends to see it too. Yes, we're all concerned for RexxS. Bishonen | tålk 11:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Dealing with Proud Boys

Hey! I saw your really helpful and reassuring revert on Talk:Proud Boys, and thought I'd drop you a message. I'm thinking that the only way that we can actually head towards a more irrefutable and formalised consensus than the hodge-podge (though still a strong one) consensus across multiple conversations is to have a structured discussion with a bit more oversight - the discussion on NPOV/N and even on the talk keeps spiralling into personal attacks, personal opinions, original research, and blatently biased assertions. I don't really know how this could be done, but if you're interested, I'd really appreciate a bit of guidance on trying to resolve the issues with respecting, or even recognising, the consensus. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ItsPugle. Well, there are already two pink boxes at the top of the page which explain that you need reliable sources before making an edit request, which obviously the indignant members/sympathizers of PB that come to the page don't read (which I can sort of sympathize with — the amount of stuff at the top of the page is off-putting), or else they read them and don't like them. I thought of suggesting an RfC or a FAQ page, but I guess that would only lead to more stuff that they don't read. And I don't really want to semi the talkpage either. That's only done in extreme cases, and then only briefly. Actually, my best advice is for experienced editors to not be afraid of simply removing posts that violate WP:FORUM, with a clear, explanatory edit summary. I hate seeing constructive editors waste precious volunteer time replying to those kinds of posts for the nth time, so I'd simply remove them before that happens. And if the posts are then restored, warn the restorers on their page and/or ask somebody like me to act (for instance with a brief semi). Any talkpage stalkers got a better idea? Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: Yeah, great point. I'm not sure if I've just missed the general tone of the discussion when I was reading it or something, but it looks like a consensus has kind of just popped out of the discussion on the talk page (this diff removed the POV tag and hasn't been reverted in ~18h). Now that I know that it's okay to just simply remove posts that violate WP:FORUM, I think that'll probably be what will happen for most of these repetitive stuff. Thank you so much! 🙂 ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have a worse idea: tell them to stand back and stand by. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bahahaha! I can only imagine the sort of crap we'd get for that 😂 ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This genuinely made me chuckle. Very clever. And apropos given all the disruptive “boys” coming out of the woodwork. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Hey again! I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the RfC that's seemingly coming to an end on the talk page, and maybe if you have the time, close it? It's been going on for 25 days, and hasn't had anymore !votes for about two and a half weeks, so I feel it may be time to derive a closing consensus. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ItsPugle, no, I don't have the time. Bishonen | tålk 11:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: Of course, no worries! :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Jeffery D. Long

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Jeffery D. Long, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Please sign your posts, Walwal20. I'm surprised you think a mere large number of absolutely terrible citations make a subject notable — I thought I explained, in my prod, what was wrong with them. Bishonen | tålk 08:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffery D. Long. Bishonen | tålk 14:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Bishonen. Sorry, I thought the {{subst:deprod}} template signed it for me. I don't think it makes anything notable. WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletions only, and it does not seem uncontroversial to me. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 16:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor back after a few months

I'm assuming good faith here, but Special:Contributions/98.184.68.246/(talk) is back with the history lesson of the 49-star United States flag. This time it's much more along the lines of WP:CIR than outright vandalism, which is why I'm not asking for the person to be blocked. However, you might want to watchlist Flag of the United States for a week or so in case this editor makes edits that demonstrate "CIR". By the way, the 2 edits this editor has made today have already been reverted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David. It's hard to know what to do. The case seems rather sad, and the person certainly seems to be a long, long way away from being able to edit usefully. I'll watchlist Flag of the United States and perhaps more importantly, the redirect 49 star flag. Bishonen | tålk 14:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hello

It's been a while. Hope you are doing well. Tex (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The young Tex! [Bishzilla, much moved, sticks the little Tex in her pocket.] Stay there! Bishonen just fine! Darwinbish no better than she should be![10][11] Hope little Tex is fine! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 19:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

Strawberry cake, yumyum, thank you for offering. We just had Kirschstreusel on a special day some years ago, sax music on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

diskret dregel

For Bonadea per ADMINACCT

Gnn, now I want a Daim bar. Shouldn't ADMINACCT require that you deliver one? (Or is that covered by the cake for the visitors? More drooling!) --bonadea contributions talk 17:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm.. I knew it, only Swedes understand the finer points of chocolate. I've been considering trying the new cookie dough Marabou, what do you think? Bishonen | tålk 19:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I think you ought to. For Science! --bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No action needed

In light of WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by IP on Beer in Denmark and Ferrero SpA, as an FYI - the IP pest had also targetted Giovanni Ferrero and Pietro Ferrero Jr.; but as of now, has been appropriately reverted. Narky Blert (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Narky, protected. I fear the IP is more interested in the kind of disruption than in the particular articles; I may end up blocking at least the two major ones, I guess. Sigh. Bishonen | tålk 19:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"

Hey, this is a very interesting page actually. I find the topic intriguing and would love to contribute, not entirely sure what the issue with that page is but any suggestions on how I may improve it and make it worthy of 'staying'? :) Berehinia (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Berehinia. Well, the reasons given for deletion are mainly the lack of sources discussing the works as a group, and the lack of sources altogether for the introduction, so I suppose providing such sources would be the thing. I kind of doubt they exist, though. So it's probably a lost cause. But I'm glad you like it! Bishonen | tålk 07:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I think I understand what you're saying. Well, either way this gives me a whole new area to research and contribute to. I'm very much into exploring the subject of virtue and what that meant throughout history. Berehinia (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that’s all I can say: Well! Words escape me. Well! But I will say it’s come to a pretty pass and rum kettle of fish when informative and useful pages are now being deleted because some cis gendered, woke upstart in some God forsaken state, of God knows where, has got out of bed and left their sense of humour between the sheets along with their sex drive, I wouldn’t be surprised; so they try to compensate in other ways. Why can’t they just buy one of those little blue pills on EBay? All this wokeness and stupidity, where is it all going to end? I’ll tell you where: in tears and depravity! It can only be a matter of time before we are all so completely depraved that we and don’t even have a hook for our toilet tissue! The same thing happened in Russia or Munich or maybe Florence or some such outlandish place; guillotining worthy editors’s work - it’s akin to burning books, no different at all and we all know where that led! I demand the nominating editor is banned before things get out of hand and even more worthy pages are deleted by some half-witted admin with acne. I won’t comment as to do so is to give such behaviour credence. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My word! An appearance by Lady Rollbacker-de Burgh herself! GeneralNotability (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A hook for our toilet tissue? Dear Lady Catherine, I hope you recollect the hook for toilet tissue of yore — the elegant page, the most elegant parts of which were contributed by your honoured nephew. O tempora, etc. Bishonen | tålk 20:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Of all the userspace subpages, that's one I didn't know about before. Thanks for linking to it, as I particularly enjoyed reading the talk page. And here I thought that DYK had all the good hooks. Obviously, poor young Tryptofish started editing here after much of the real fun was already over. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for proxy editing by an IP

Hey I can see you and make some thing on Daim bar Wikipedia website and that is not made in 1953 that is made in 1952 in Sweden by Marabou can you make that to 1952 instead of 1953 because they was the original owners of Marabou in Sweden made by Marabou in 1952 in Sweden, I hope you can do that for me my friend and PS you can find the right information on the other website somewhere else on the Internet, and you must have a very nice and very good day my friend ;) :) And if you also add this for Daim bar Wikipedia website because everybody can see what kind of things they are making and so every person on this planet can have to change so see what they do and what kind of chocolates they made as well too my friend ;) :)

Overly long lists hatted.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Daim bars :

  • Daim Original (Sweden original) and (Denmark, Norway and Finland)
  • Daim Wite With White Chocolate (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Drak With Dark Chocolate (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Licorice, Daim Liquorice (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Orange (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Mint (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Lemon (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Forest Fruits (Limited edition Sweden and Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Blueberry (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Lemon-Orange (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Cappuccino (Sweden original), (Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Cool Breeze With Orange and Lemon (Limited edition Sweden and Limited edition Denmark)
  • Daim Summer Dream With a Pear-Mint flavor (Limited edition Sweden and Limited edition Denmark)[1]
  • Daim single (Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland)
  • Daim mini, Daim mini's (Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland)
  • Daim Dobbel (Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland)
  • Daim Family bag (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Germany)
  • Daim XXL bag (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Germany and United Kingdom)


Daim Chocolates:

  • Marabou Daim (Sweden original and Norway original), (Denmark and Finland)
  • Marabou Daim Bites (Sweden original and Norway original), (Denmark and Finland)
  • Marabou Daim Milk Chocolate Bar King Size (Sweden original and Norway original), (Denmark and Finland)
  • Marabou Milk Chocolate Roll with Daim (Sweden original and Norway original), (Denmark and Finland)
  • Milka Daim (Switzerland original), (Switzerland) ,(Germany)
  • Milka Daim Snax, (Milka Snax Daim) (Switzerland original), (Switzerland), (Germany)
  • Mikado Daim (Limited edition Germany), (Germany)
  • Cadbury Dairy Milk with Daim (UK original), (UK)
  • Freia Daim Small Pieces (Norway original), (Norway)
  • Freia Milk Chocolate Daim

(Norway original), (Norway)

  • Daim Chocolate Pieces Milk With Caramel Snax (Sweden original and Norway original), (Denmark and Finland)


Daim Cakes:

  • Daim Milk Chocolate Mousse Cake With Crunchy Caramel Almondy (Sweden), (Denmark), (Norway), (Finland)
  • Daim Cake Strawberry Almondy (Limited edition), (Sweden), (Denmark), (Norway), (Finland)
  • Daim Almondy Cake (Sweden), (Denmark), (Norway), (Finland)
  • Daim Orange Cake Almondy (Limited edition) (Sweden), (Denmark), (Norway), (Finland)


Daim cookies:

  • Daim cookies
  • Daim cookies XL
  • Marabou Daim cookies
  • Marabou Daim cookies XL


Daim Ice Creams:

  • Daim Vanilla Flavored Ice Cream With Crunchy Pieces of Daim
  • Daim Waffle Ice Cream
  • Daim Waffle Ice Cream (Mini)
  • Daim Waffle Ice Cream Balltop
  • Daim Waffle Ice Cream Balltop (Mini)
  • Daim popsicle Ice Cream
  • Daim popsicle Ice Cream (Mini)
  • Daim Ice popsicle Ice Cream
  • Daim Ice popsicle Ice Cream (Mini).
  • Daim Ice popsicle Ice Cream Stick
  • Daim Ice popsicle Ice Cream Stick (Mini)
  • Daim Mini Chocolate Ice Cream
  • Daim Mini Chocolate Ice Cream Bars
  • Daim Ice Cream Cones
  • Daim Ice Cream Cones mini
  • Daim Caramel Ice Cream with Milk Chocolate
  • Daim Caramel Ice Cream with Milk Chocolate mini
  • Daim Bucket Ice Cream
  • Daim Bucket Ice Cream mini
  • Ice Cream Rolls - Daim - Ice Cream Rolls
  • Ice Cream Rolls - Daim - Ice Cream Rolls mini
  • Daim Bar Ice Cream
  • Daim Bar Ice Cream Sandwich
  • Daim Ice Cream Sandwich
  • Daim Mcflurry or Mcflurry Daim (Sweden), (Denmark), (Germany)
  • Marabou Daim Mcflurry
  • Marabou Daim Mcflurry De Luxe
  • Marabou Daim salt licorice Mcflurry
  • Daim Bar Mcflurry (UK)
  • McFlurry Daim Chili Chocolate
  • Daim salt licorice Mcflurry

Daim bars imported from Sweden (manufactured in Upplands Väsby) have been sold in many countries. {{citation needed|date=October 2020

Hey my friend, I can see you made something here on Beer in Denmark Wikipedia website, and here in Denmark they over 200-300, breweries here in Denmark, and if you will add this for me here on this Wikipedia website, and that is actually all of the breweries here in Denmark in The Kingdom of Denmark, if you can do that for me and add this on Beer in Denmark Wikipedia website, my friend ;) :)

Væggerløse

  1. ^ http://www.chocozone.net/index.php?action=8&id=3592&mode=2
  2. ^ https://christianiabryghus.dk/
  3. ^ https://christianiabryghus.com/
  4. ^ https://christianiabryghus.dk/ol-med-hamp/
  5. ^ http://www.christiania-bryg.beer/?page_id=2
  6. ^ http://xn--hjtskum-q1a.blogspot.com/2012/04/christiania-pilsnere-fristadens-etiketl.html?m=1
  7. ^ https://Boneyardbeer.dk.
  8. ^ https://flyingcouch.dk/
  9. ^ https://m.facebook.com/fredenskaelder/?locale2=da_DK
  10. ^ https://m.facebook.com/fredenskaelder/
  11. ^ https://skagenbryghus.dk/
  12. ^ https://sn.dk/Koege/Kaelderen-er-oellets-hjoernesten/artikel/719658
  13. ^ http://www.jo-hansen.dk/beer/Historie/Nedlagte_bryggerier.html
  14. ^ https://www.visitdenmark.com/denmark/things-do/danish-food/denmarks-local-beer-breweries
I'm sure that 5.186.116.173 and other IPs from the Copenhagen area is Spidy30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (if you haven't already figured that out). Sjö (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that user, Mr Lake. Checking out their contribs and the SPI, of course I see what you mean. Could you list the IPs for me? If they form a not overly large range, I'll block. You get cake! Bishonen | tålk 20:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Oooh, cake! It looks really good! Well, apart from 5.186.116.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), there's 80.62.116.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 80.62.116.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 80.62.117.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 87.49.147.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that have been active during October. Sjö (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmm.. well. I thought of blocking 80.62.116.0/23, but there's quite a bit of helpful gnoming in there. I'll block 5.186.116.173, because it's so obviously Spidy30, and supposedly static, but I dunno about the others. Johnuniq, what do you think? Bishonen | tålk 21:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
All this talk of cake makes me want to expand the Britt G. Hallqvist article a bit. (I suspect that reference may have been a bit obscure...?) --bonadea contributions talk 20:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seed cake
Uh... I know her mostly for the translations. Check out this remarkable list! [Bishonen tries to remember some cake in The Hobbit or King Lear. It's not going well.] Guess what, I sort of worked with her once, though without any contact to speak of. I translated a novel, and she translated the poems in it, which was utterly beyond my skill. The article could certainly do with expansion. Bishonen | tålk 21:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
You worked with her!! Oh, wow... we are not worthy! (Seriously, that impresses the hell out of me.) The cake connection is from the lovely rhymed story Festen i Hulabo, where the three chickens keep asking for cake! But there is cake in The Hobbit as well: seed cake, I think, consumed by the unexpected dwarves coming to tea. --bonadea contributions talk 21:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm impressed too. It's just as well we only had minimal contact, because I would have been too starstruck to do anything but gawp and giggle. Oh, the seed cake for tea... right. That has a really grandmotherly vibe. Bishonen | tålk 22:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Two beautiful round seed-cakes which he had baked that afternoon for his after-supper morsel, I believe. —valereee (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This place is full of Tolkien nerds! Bishonen | tålk 11:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Say what you will about MediaWiki, but it's pretty clever. When someone says "Tolkien nerds", I get a ping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it was the "full of"? Did you get a ping now? Sorry I can't actually ping you in this reply, but obviously that would ruin the experiment. Bishonen | tålk 15:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Uh oh. I just got a notification that my "Tolkien nerd" card has been revoked, because I can't spell "Tolkien". You'll have to ping me the old-fashioned way from now on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@B: As you mentioned, the IPs are 5.186.116.173 (blocked) and 80.62.116.0/23 and 87.49.147.27. If there is a small list of problematic articles, the /23 could be partially blocked from those pages. I can't tell if the edits are useful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. No, I don't believe it's a small list of articles; they'll go anywhere where it's possible to add huge WP:UNDUE lists of details, like the lists of chocolate bars (which excited Bonadea so much) and Danish beer that I hatted above in this thread. Partial blocks wouldn't bother them any. Bishonen | tålk 11:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Editors misbehaviour matter

Hi Bhumi2tandon here Thanks for your opinion on the post regarding the vindictive editor. Have already reported the matter to Submission help desk they will resolve it so you need not worry. Has put up that post on the edit page because the other reviewers were not accepting the resubmission so to give them so background.

Bhumi2tandon, please log in to edit. Don't edit from your IP. Also, please sign your posts. You can type four tildes, ~~~~, which will be turned automatically into a signature with timestamp when you save. And you're still not assuming good faith. Just stop talking about a "vindictive editor", please. It's nonsense, and offensive nonsense. Also, you are mistaken when you say I "need not worry". The help desk doesn't resolve disagreements; it's run by experienced editors who answer questions and explain things. (I hope you have read their replies and explanations to you.) I, on the other hand, am an administrator, and I can resolve this by blocking you. Perhaps my post on your page wasn't clear enough. It wasn't just my "opinion", but a warning; if you don't stop attacking people, I will block you. I hope that's quite clear now. Bishonen | tålk 13:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Exquisite

Hi, your comment prompted me to carry out a very quick search because I was wonder why the hell my mind came up with such adjective. It turns out I used "exquisite" in the literary sense, as in "A good comedian needs to have an exquisite sense of timing." That is, something "admirable and beautifully apt". My source here is the Cambridge Dictionary. The reason I made a literary use of the word is surely rooted in my native roman language so I can bet I sounded awkward and old-fashioned! MarcelloPapirio (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible user names

I know it it's redundant but I find the best way to get rid of that sort of thing is to block locally as well, that should stop it being reported again, and blocks are cheap,especially for stuff like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Of course. I must have thought the very in-your-face-colored notice "This account is globally locked" meant "Leave it alone, local admin!" Or when I say I "thought", I'm giving myself too much credit. "I stupided" would fit the case better. Thanks, Beeb. Bishonen | tålk 22:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
It'sstill not optimal, because it creates a local log of the username, but for sure is better than is popping up on a noticeboard again and again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User's request to be unblocked

User thewolfchild has after around 18 months requested to be unblocked.

But see how rude he was to me when I supported him for an unblock, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewolfchild&diff=prev&oldid=892978225 his response was "didnt ask".

So take note of this.

Thank you and regards,

BlueD954 (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

? I was surprised to read your message, since it says he was rude when you supported him for an unblock. That would be strange, and would indeed indicate a hopelessly rude person. But it turns out you posted on his page to say you didn't support removing the block. Well, then. He's allowed to remove comments on his page, and his edit summary was nothing out of the ordinary. Mind you, I think, personally, that it's obfuscating to remove negative comments and leave the positive, since it gives the casual reader a wrong impression of the amount of support. But that's me; it's allowed. Bishonen | tålk 07:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I found him rude and I didn't want him indefinitely blocked. Now on his own talk page [12] his is talking nonsense; he never helped me on Wiki but stalked me at each edit I made, only the military-related edits. Many people I add on their talk page they do not remove and debating nicely unlike him. He has never, repeat never helped me! If you want to unblock him, stop his stalking especially on me please. BlueD954 (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I only just realized you were complaining about an edit summary in April, BlueD954. That's not really of interest, it's more historical. (And also, as I said, it wasn't particularly egregious.) But I'm not specifically supporting an unblock; I'm just, as the blocking admin, leaving it to the reviewer, Nosebagbear. Bishonen | tålk 18:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
That is half disappointing that you say it is not of interest. But I'll end it here and hope that user won't bug me once unblocked. BlueD954 (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

take a look?

User_talk:Jack_Morales_Garcia could probably use a couple more watchers, if you'd be willing. —valereee (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. Bishonen | tålk 15:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hi

Hi, isn't this user topic banned from India, Pakistan related articles? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've blocked again. Thanks, Berserk. Bishonen | tålk 19:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
You are welcome. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October harvest

thank you for cakes, some apples left --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a big adventure

We're so going to be on YouTube. —valereee (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's always been my ambition. Bishonen | tålk 23:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Right?! —valereee (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTHERE block

Hi Bishonen, hope you are well. I saw you left a message on the talk page Dr FASHOLA ADEGBOLA AKEEM (talk · contribs) regarding using their userspace as a web hosting service. They continued with their spamming so I blocked them per WP:NOTHERE. I just wanted to let you know. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Slightly disappointed:] Well, you're faster than me, LuK3! [Cheers up:] But I have revoked tpa! That's where the disruption was taking place, after all. So maybe we're even on this guy. :-) Bishonen | tålk 17:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Haha, we are definitely even, completely forgot to revoke TPA in the first place! Thanks for your help. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caste warrior

Hi bishonen, This account User:Universalrahu has made the article Vanniyar to look like a caste website. If you go through their edits, they have made edits mostly adding citation needed templates to articles to gain extended confirmed status and then edited the vanniyar article to glorify the caste. The account has promoted vanniyar caste associations and is trying to give the caste a mythical kshatriya (warrior) status. I've seen you in indian caste related articles. Now they are citing misleading policies and edit warring with another editor. Please look into it.42.106.177.24 (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 42.106.177.24. I have taken a look at the user's edits of Vanniyar. I'm no expert, but they don't look particularly glorifying to me. What do you say, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff? Bishonen | tålk 20:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I'm tempted to revert to the last Sitush version. But, perhaps @Mr.Sarcastic: has better ideas?--RegentsPark (comment) 02:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I too did the same earlier, there are two editors, the one Universalsahu is attempting to glorifying the article and other editor keeps degrading the same. I intervened and kept in neutral point of view by reverting to the last best version of sitush. So in my opinion its better to protect the article for further edits like this one and give both of them a topic ban on caste related articles. Mr.Sarcastic (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. @Mr.Sarcastic: The article is already extended-confirmed protected (read about it here), that's as much as it's possible to protect it. I have reverted to your version. Topic bans can't be issued at present, as the users have not received a discretionary sanctions notice. (I have done it now. You can do this yourself another time, Mr.Sarcastic, by pasting the template {{subst:alert|ipa}} on their talkpage.) @RegentsPark:: what do you say to a week's block for both? Or wait and see what happens after my long revert? I put in a threatening edit summary. Bishonen | tålk 10:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I think we can wait. Neither of them seem to be married to the page so, if they stay away, we should be good. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Everyone first to note is that I am not mostly involved in editing caste pages. My area of interest is related to films. I saw other caste pages but this Vanniyar Page seems to be different from others omitting all useful information and focusing on some Varna issues only. So I edited with some useful other information with aim to building better Wikipedia. There is no issues with sections like Demography, Various titles, Associations and adding some more notable peoples. If someone thinks the lead section is problematic they are welcome to restore it to previous best version. But omitting other useful information doesn't seems look good. Thank you.--Universalrahu (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Universalrahu. Reverting me without first discussing on talk was a pretty poor idea. (Have you ever used an article talkpage — any article talkpage?) You may be on the road to a topic ban from caste articles. If they're not your main interest, all the better. @RegentsPark:? Bishonen | tålk 09:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, I've dropped a caste sanctions notification on their talk page. @Universalrahu: I'm reverting your reversion without comment on the content of the reverted material. Please discuss your additions/concerns on the article talk page and get consensus before re-inserting the material. Any further disruption will result in blocks and/or a topic ban. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Merged from below. Please don't start new sections when the subject is the same.. Bishonen | tålk 17:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC).][reply]

Hi.! Recently you have reverted Vanniyar page as a whole. Vast and better information was added to the page with complying all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I feel whole removal of vast reliably sourced content doesn't seems building Wikipedia better. There was no edit warring or disruptive editing with the other user Byasa banarjee. There were no objection from any user regarding Demography,Various titles,Vanniyar associations and notable peoples sections. The only problematic issue is with the lead section. I have quoted Wikipedia policies for removal of those content in lead section. One more thing is the user Byasa banarjee is likely sock puppet of user Sangitha rani111 and this have been discussed before with user Ponyo who have already blocked the user Sangitha rani111 in the past for actively editing in Vanniyar page. He have recommended to WP:SPI to investigate on Byasa banarjee for sock. So please wait for some time to prove these two users are sock puppet. And also you have mentioned in edit summary as glorification! Each and every word is from reliable sources and if that is the fact then passing such comment doesn't seems commenting neutrally.--Universalrahu (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Sockpuppet investigations/Sangitha rani111 is going on so please slow down until problem is resolved. Thanking you.--Universalrahu (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) An example of a dubious edit you have made is to use this source (which reeks of a vanity journal) to add "Kshatriya" label in Wikipedia voice. This article even claims that there is something called a "Smriti law" which dictates the surnames people are "required" to add! You need to junk this source and all content sourced to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, note that journals that are truly "international" rarely call themselves "International Journal of...". Most journals that do so are pretenders, often started by corner place University or College departments to put themselves on the map. These journals are then put into their annual reports to buttress their claim that they are research-active and seek funding. You need to check who the publisher is and see their track record in actual research, not in starting up journals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!Kautilya3 (talk)Thanks for your reply. I don't see this source is a junk. The author have cleverly mentioned each and every point to the core in detail. And I don't see i-scholar(the source) have been abused here in past. Even if you thought "Various titles" section to be dubious there are other reliable sources to that point cited clearly with them. And Its a big joke here is that even demography section seems to be dubious! which is clearly cited with reliable source. The Vanniyar Association section also seems to be neutrally written just as a piece of information on when and where was it started and its role in Vanniyar caste... rather than exaggerating them. What about notable people section? each and every one is well cited to show there notability. So please mention what is your problem clearly by section wise. Which section you like to detest? I think Talk page must be used when the content is disputable. Except lead section I didn't get any contest from any user. So I request to restore all sections with whatever consensus we get on lead section alone which is disputable.--Universalrahu (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged this section with the one above, as I don't understand why you started a new section about the same thing, User:Universalrahu. I'm interested to see that you think "Talk page must be used when the content is disputable". Your content is disputable, but you yourself never use article talk pages. Who do you expect to use them? Feel free to start a discussion on Talk:Vanniyar. Bishonen | tålk 17:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

User:Universalrahu is a caste warrior with a single aim of caste of Vanniyar glorification and his edits are similar to vanniyar caste promotion. Other editors are complaining against him as well, Universalrahu please stop the caste glorification and also stop false accusations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

  • This is not the first time, I had blocked and given a final warning in 2016. It's across all pages connected to the caste, not just the caste article itself. If this continues any further then I will block (and if I'm not around, anyone else should feel free to block). —SpacemanSpiff 05:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deleted Article Sastha Aravind

sir/mam,

i had left a message in the talk page for the person who nominated the article,citing the reasons and further edits i made ,checking the notability guidelines.i have also added two media files from other sources to prove that.

i would be very glad,if the particle article is restored and left for few more days to add few more media files and citations.with respect to the reasons,i have already given enough citations.if there can be more clarity with regard to what exactly is needed.i can try arranging for it. thank you so much .

It was (almost) twenty years ago today ...

I saw this edit, just now, and was reminded that it was in November of 2004, during Restoration Comedy's FA candidacy, that I met you (and Geogre and Filiocht) ;-) Anyway, while wondering about that edit, and how to rewrite that confusing sentence, I thought I'd ask your opinion as to whether it might be better simply to remove it? Paul August ☎ 16:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul, long time indeed. Hope you're holding up in these extraordinary times. As for the IP's edits, the change of "the plays of Aphra Behn" to "the plays of Restoration comedy"[13] is definitely not an improvement IMO. Montague Summers specifically rescued the plays of Behn from oblivion — not RC in general. And this is just poor prose. The rest is fine by me. Obviously it was a good idea to remove "important". I hope my edit notice gave you nice cake — the quality can vary a bit. Hit preview a few times to get a wider selection! Bishonen | tålk 16:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I'm holding up very well thanks (and my outlook is much improved as of a couple of days ago). And you? (Just got a nice Charlotte, yum!) Paul August ☎ 17:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity

Swear to God, WMF should hire clinical psychologists to wrangle ANI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They do. Last I heard the clinical psychologists were seeking psychiatric help. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to see my primary care physician, but couldn't, because he has COVID. Sigh. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No lie. The medical director for my employer's ICU was in ICU with COVID-19. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N.Ravikiran

I admit that I am an Idiot of the first order and you are the wise one here.Please can you help me make further edits if required so that it does read like an "Advertisement".Please do help if possible.You know best Rajeshbm (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've found it necessary to block you from the article. Bishonen | tålk 13:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Allegations are not facts.If they were,they would have been handled by law enforcement authorities.Anybody can allege anything.Dones not prove a thing Rajeshbm (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not able to judge what are facts and what are not. We simply report what has been published in good-quality reliable sources. You may challenge or remove content that is not supported by reliable sources; but for content that is supported by reliable sources, you only have the options of finding equally reliable sources that contradict the present content, or of making the argument on the article talk page that the content is being given undue weight in the article. If you try to remove properly sourced content, you run the risk of having your editing privileges here curtailed. --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just saw this continuing after your warning about gravedancing. Not sure if you had that page watchlisted too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes, Darwinbish got to it already!
No, I didn't know it existed, Kingofaces43. I've watchlisted it now, so thanks for alerting me. Not much else to be done about that post, I reckon, especially as it's not a high-profile page. Oh, man, I got the rare and delicious-looking almond cheesecake in my edit notice this time, yum. (People who edit this page get different kinds of cake at random. Almond cheesecake... [Bishonen falls into a reverie.]) Have some cake! Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Did you know the Prinsesstårta is called "Schwedentorte" where I live? In any event I love it too (but it's hard to find a cake I don't like, and thus, I keep returning to this page). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rare pleasure to see you here, Sluzzelin, no matter if it's because of your cake voraciousness! Oh my, of course I need a prinsesstårta in the edit notice carousel. Added now, in place of the Homer Simpson glazed doughnut that nobody liked anyway. I hope it turns up soon for you. ...OMG, Darwinbish's been at it already! Bishonen | tålk 21:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
(I got the Lenja pita, looks better than it sounds!) Anyway, I agree that it is best not to do anything more about that post. Does the post-er seriously think anyone is going to remember to inform him? Eye roll. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeshbm

Hi. Since you dealt with them today: Rajeshbm seems intent on wasting more time at Special:Permalink/988443869#Help improving articles. Hard to believe they are the person they claimed, and now claim not, to be (Vappala Balachandran). The picture they uploaded to Commons (c:File:Vappala_Balachandran.png) and claim is that person is from a (presumably copyrighted) paywalled online magazine article about a trip to Scotland. They claim to be new, but the account was created in 2009 and has edited occasionally over the years. I don't know what's going on. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AlanM1. Compare Judge Judy: "If you tell the truth, you don't need to have a good memory." I wouldn't indef just for that, but together with their persistent promotion... I will. Bishonen | tålk 11:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
A few years ago they claimed to be someone else (except that maybe they didn't). I think they are simply a SEO type person (also probably representing N. Ravikiran), and I'm convinced that they are the same person who edited as Suntug11 / Chriswilkins / Rama2015 (blocked five years ago as socks of the same user at Commons, though not here). There were some weird tag-team shenanigans around the (deleted) Arvind Iyer article back when, too. I should report this at ANI but I have a seminar starting in 15 minutes so I'll need to put my teaching hat on – they have been here for years and years, so another few hours or days won't matter. Many thanks for the lovely frog cakes, Bish! --bonadea contributions talk 08:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. As for "new", I was impressed by their ping coding here. I'm sure they're a sock of some blocked user, but it's frankly more trouble to take these people to SPI than it is for them to create new socks. Don't bother with ANI, bonadea. The shenanigans detailed by AlanM above are the last straw AFAIC. I'll indef. Bishonen | tålk 11:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks! ANI is never a pleasant place to go. --bonadea contributions talk 13:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm seeing the same bad habit on the socks Bonadea mentioned above, as well as Vendromeblah (already blocked). Should I open an SPI case, since they will almost surely be back? Also I've CSD'd the VB image on Commons and removed it from the article since we obviously can't trust the uploader's statements, relying on the obvious copyright status instead. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you have the energy for it, AlanM1. Bishonen | tålk 21:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

November

November

Thank you for taking the pic I saw and took for you greeting above, - feels soooo good! ... and the cakes had matching colours ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

look for bright memories, and we had cake --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BN and WP:ELEM and some thoughts on ArbCom

Hi Bishonen,

We've chatted here from time to time and I hope you know how much I respect you. I noticed post at WP:BN, and I do understand why the walls of text at the ANIs have been offputting... but I think the state of the A/R/C and recent comments from the participants at WP:ELEM are actually illustrating a way in which ArbCom can serve a useful function in DR without taking a case. We have a group of editors of good-will dedicated to the encyclopaedia who have slowly drifted into a conflict that is disproportionate to the content issue. I would not have started a case request nor recommended any of the participants initiating the request – I wanted to try a within-project resolution one final time – but the request was made and the potential for a full case seems to have helped the participants to reflect and move to avoid a process that would be awful for all.

In fact, I wonder if Arbitrators can help to resolve cases by making it clear that the process is brutal and is something to avoid if at all possible. ArbCom is inevitable for the cases needing a desysop but in cases where that or other advanced permissions are not in issue, maybe the inability of involved parties to work towards avoiding a case when one appears likely is a useful proof that intervention, and likely action like imposing DS or sanctioning individuals, is actually necessary. And if they can move to avoid the complexity and unpleasantness of an ArbCom case, they will be better for it as will the community, and the Arbitrators will have done us all another service without holding a case.

I'm not posting at BN because I see this as an unhelpful tangent from its consideration of gender biases and under-representatoin of minorities... but I also think that the ELEM situation is illustrating a possible means of conflict resolution that potential Arbitrators can facilitate – and only necessitating reading all the ANI walls if the editors involved demonstrate again at the request stage that they cannot step back from the brink. ArbCom has a difficult job and has had members over the years from the excellent to the... how should I put this... not. We need good people willing to take on a likely unpleasant job with plenty of scrutiny and criticism, both fair and unfair. The ELEM request shows both one of the unpleasant parts of the job but also a way to help the community and our task, by helping disputing parties to see that what they have in common in goals and values unites them more than whatever disagreements that they are having. If you can think of editors with the time and strength for the job, and who can do it for the sake of the community, ArbCom can benefit from their contributions and so can the entire community.

Regards,

EdChem (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ed. (And no, Bishzilla will not run for ArbCom, she's too lazy.) I haven't read the RFAR with great thoroughness, but I did notice everybody praising your own input. Why don't you run for the committee yourself? Bishonen | tålk 05:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I would love to see you on ArbCom. That panna cotta is spectacular. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KrakatoaKatie summarized it very well when she explained that ArbCom is like a beltsander, not a nail file.[14] This wisdom should probably be recorded in an essay somewhere. Jehochman Talk 15:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think wood chipper or car crusher might be a better analogy. Also, I've never understood why a belt might need sanding. EEng 17:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why might it need sanding? That's a cinch. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng might sometimes be editing while wearing an unsanded belt? :O *passes out in astonishment* EdChem (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After groggily sitting up* Bishonen, a 'zilla on ArbCom could be fun, given her willingness to crunch through the trivia to the meaty heart of a matter. I couldn't get elected (not an admin, for one thing), nor would I have the patience. And, if I was elected, the mental health professionals who supervise some of my treatments might call for one of the nice jackets with the extra long arms and my recollection to a nice padded pocket somewhere... As for the analogy that suits ArbCom, I wonder about the instant relocator from the movie Galaxy Quest – the one that transports up the creature which materialises inside out and then explodes? EdChem (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you attack me?

Bishonen, I'd like an explanation for this comment you made to me on Drmies's talk page:

(talk page stalker) I'll belittle User:Geographyinitiative's efforts to pursue his concerns too: they amounted to picking a fight with Diannaa. I will also belittle your own efforts to frame Drmies's calling the DRN "specious" as implying "you know it's going to be closed because you're an admin and he has no recourse". That's a very far-fetched "implication", and so much assumption of bad faith is disappointing behavior for a DRN volunteer. Bishonen 12:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC) [signature as per original]

Specifically, I'd you to explain:

1) Why did you respond to a note I had left for Drmies about an incident between him and another editor?

2) Why didn't you allow him to reply to the issue I had raised before offering your opinion?

3) Why did you "belittle" my attempt to raise concerns about Drmies's behavior?

4) Why did you accuse me of "framing" Drmies?

5) Why did you accuse me of having "bad faith"?

Thank you.

Coastside (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Coastside. I watch Drmies's page. Sometimes, if I believe I have anything to add, I post there. This is normal practice. I did not belittle your attempt in general; I belittled your use of the word "specious". I did not accuse you of "framing Drmies"; I spoke of your efforts to frame Drmies's calling the DRN "specious" in a particular way. See sense 7 (not 8) of "frame" in Wiktionary. Do you see the genitive form, Drmies's, in there? You implied that he knew the report was going to be closed because he's an admin and [the other user] has no recourse. That's not framing Drmies. It's framing an issue in a particular way. I think I may have expressed myself in a rather convoluted way about the "framing", sorry about that, but I didn't think it was unclear. I wouldn't dream of accusing anybody of framing somebody. Nor did I accuse you of having bad faith; I accused you of assuming bad faith (on the part of Drmies). Compare WP:AGF. Bishonen | tålk 11:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, Bshonen. Thanks for your response, for being respectful, and for taking me seriously. I do see how I misread your comment about "framing" Drmies. Communicating on talk pages isn't easy, and like anyone else, I don't always read others' comments as they were intended. I'd like to point out that I didn't respond directly to you at the time, because I was trying hard to focus on the issue at hand, and I didn't want to sound defensive (and yes, I'm being sincere and trying not to sound defensive in saying that!). I only commented about it here, because I honestly couldn't understand why so many admins felt it was appropriate to gang up and hurl insults at me for trying to defend someone. I especially appreciate that you were courteous in responding to me directly without bringing other admins to "help" resolve the situation. That kind of calling in the cavalry can really make someone feel ganged up on, especially when the cavalry are other admins. For me, it made a huge difference for you to acknowledges my concerns, focus on the issue, respond without hurling insults or threatening to ban me, and generally take me seriously. I wish the other admins in all of this were as respectful and helpful as you were in your response. If every editor on Wikipedia followed your example, it would be a much more welcoming and healthy place to be. Thanks again. Coastside (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID stress

raise your hand if COVID stress is making you tetchy. (quickly raises and lowers hand. sits on hand. trembles) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+ + + Raises all four paws. Lands painfully on belly. + + + -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see: case numbers exploding, hospitals nearly full, peak of the current wave nowhere in sight, health-care workers burning out (or worse) at a breakneck clip, right-wing lunatics trying to kidnap the governor and overturn the election results... nah, I'm fine. MastCell Talk 19:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've dealt with the biggest source of my COVID stress. Now I'm gonna fashion masks over woolen caps. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

#TrumpVirus is now trending on Twitter, and for good reason. I'm retired and basically self-isolate 99% of the time and am very careful when I go out. My wife is a nurse, and 100% of her special needs patients would likely die if they get COVID-19, so we're super careful. Now this shit is blowing up and out of control thanks to T@%^&*!! My hopes of never getting this are about gone because the herd immunity approach is now the practical reality for all but the very few who will be able to get the vaccine very soon. I don't know if I'll survive it when I get it; I'm not young anymore. So yes, I'm starting to realize that that idiot in the WH is squandering my best efforts to stay well. This is so fucked. Yes, #TrumpVirus is a real thing now. He owns it. -- Valjean (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll raise my fin, too, although my real stress is coming from the political situation itself, rather than the epidemic (more fear of the end of democracy than fear of medical harm), although I say that with profound concern for all the many victims of the disease. May we all live in UN-interesting times. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, indeed. Our "political" stress level has dropped some, but this COVID crap is just increasing, and the spectre of Trump's inspiring a real, armed, civil war as a private citizen is still a very real danger. Putin knew what he was doing; he studied all the kompromat gathered on Trump over several decades and said "This is a guy I can work with, so I'll back him and let him do the destruction for me." This has been the most successful intelligence attack on the USA, aided and abetted by Trump, with no end in sight.[15] The Steele dossier describes why Russia supports Trump in amazingly accurate and prophetic(*) detail. So while there is hope with Biden, we must still be alert for Trump's ever-present danger as an active national security threat. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. (*) It's hardly "prophetic", because the CIA had an agent literally in Putin's office[16] who had to be extracted because of Trump's sharing of classified intelligence with the Russians.) -- Valjean (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the good doctor – your slightest wish ...
We've been in quarantine for almost a week, after one of our children tested positive. Some kind soul dropped a box of cookies on our porch today, but they forgot the bourbon. We are running low on bourbon. Need bourbon. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want an IV bag with that? -- Valjean (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A friend of mine is spending a week quarantined in a hotel room, she did a half marathon, it took her six hours. Her brother brought ice cream and two bottles of wine. (I'm really here just for the cake). Paul August ☎ 22:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to give you a piece of apple cake, but none of the photos on Commons are the right kind of apple cake. Instead, just imagine a square piece of cake that's got so much cinnamon in it that it looks like a chocolate cake, only with a better chance that you can pretend that it's healthy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remembered this morning that it is my Unbirthday, but Commons has no Unbirthday cake pictures either! (A plethora can be found by asking Uncle Google for images of "unbirthday cake", though.) A very merry Unbirthday to all whose Unbirthday it is! --bonadea contributions talk 13:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, ETOH can be infused IV, and I would be more than happy to set that up, pending acquisition of supplies. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^Medical disclaimer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're completely locked back down with our alcohol, which fortunately in Ohio we can purchase with our regular grocery orders. We're thinking we're going to need to start alternating orders to two different grocery stores because the people who run the orders out to your car are starting to look funny at us. —valereee (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost mentioned

Hi Bishonen. This AN complaint is about a page that you G10-deleted earlier this year: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#This was not an attack page. I see some kind of mirage of a cake above… EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ed. I hope you got a nice cake. My edit notice is basically a carousel of Bishzilla's cake fridge, so I have no control over who gets what. But I try to keep it well stocked with the best and most delicious. As for the AN complaint, I think I'll just leave its fortunes to others. Bishonen | tålk 16:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Did you know the image doesn't show up for me when I edit on my phone? Not using mobile view, but desktop view, just on a phone. The "this is a talk page" thing shows up, but no cake. :( --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What?? Stand by, young Floquenbeam! Bishonen | tålk 16:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Yup, the notice doesn't show up when editing on my mobile phone using desktop view. Until I rotate the phone 90° to landscape view when the cake magically appears. It's because the software hides page notices if their images that are wider than the screen. You get the same effect if you simply make the window narrower while editing this page on a desktop computer (or laptop): eventually the page notice and cake disappear. --RexxS (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might it be different in different browsers on a desktop computer, RexxS? Because the cake never disappears for me, no matter how narrow I make the window. I get half the cake, then just a sliver, then two crumbs, but it never disappears altogether until my entire page is gone too. That's Firefox and Mac. Bishonen | tålk 20:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
You're quite right. It only happens on Chrome for me (desktop or phone). Firefox, Opera, Safari, Edge and Internet Explorer all just cut the cake. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: it's not the browser, it's the skin. I didn't bother to log in on my other test browsers, so they used vector skin and cut the cake. On my Chrome browser where I'm logged-in, I use monobook and the cake disappears on narrow screens. --RexxS (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But.. that doesn't fit my experience, RexxS. I use monobook and I get cake. The mystery deepens. Cake for everybody! | tålk 12:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
That is odd. I just tested on Firefox using monobook, and the cake disappears for me! When I switch to vector skin on Firefox, a slice of cake remains. The same thing happens when I try on the Opera browser. This is on my Windows PC. I'll try on a Linux box later. --RexxS (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the latest Firefox, but something... uh... Extended Support Release. (I just do what Darwinfish tells me.) Maybe it just shows that Mac is better than Windows? Bishonen | tålk 13:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Almost anything is better than Windows, but I still have to support it (and I build my own PCs, so Mac isn't part of the equation for me). We probably need to get some more info from young Floquenbeam to get any further. --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vector in Chrome on Android
I can't replicate the problem in Vector on Chrome on a mobile phone (see right); I think the issue is going to be the skin. Given that something like 99+% of editors are now using Vector, I wouldn't be too concerned if it's affecting other skins provided it does what it's supposed to in Vector. ‑ Iridescent 14:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Monobook is the one true skin. Vector is for newbies like Iri. And I never got around to installing a different browser than Safari on my phone, because I don't usually try to do anything except read on my phone. While I have Rexx'S attention: any easy way to prevent my stupid phone from randomly defaulting back to mobile view? I never want to use mobile view. Other than that, Bish and I have found a work-around for not seeing the picture on my talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the trick to editing via phone is to switch off mobile view. Must try that some time. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: as you are using Safari by default, I'm going to assume you're using an iPhone. That's a pain because I don't know any easy tricks for iOS as I don't use it. However, I checked StackExchange and found a piece of JavaScript at the thread "How can I permanently disable the mobile version of Wikipedia on mobile devices?". I had to hack it a bit but you can paste the following into Special:MyPage/common.js: 

$(document).ready( function() {
	var desktopLink = document.getElementById("mw-mf-display-toggle");
	if (desktopLink === null) {
		return;
	}
	var href = desktopLink.getAttribute('href');
	if (href.indexOf('.m.') > -1) {
		return;
	}
	// You can use .assign() instead, if you want to
	// keep the URL of the mobile site in your history.
	window.location.replace(href);
} );

I had some issues with warnings over importScript, so you might try putting the above code at the top of your common.js. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, RexxS, I'll give that a try when I have time to breathe IRL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AE case

Hi; I'm guessing that you may not have noticed that, right above where you complimented Jehochman on his talk page for his closure of the AE case against me, I'd asked a clarifying question of him about it. As an admin who apparently took a look at the case, and someone whom I have seen make a bunch of good calls (and, after having read several essays you wrote linked to from your user page, I respect your judgment even more now)—I have to ask if you really found that to be an exemplary close?

Jehochman told me that, although in his closing comment he'd appeared to be addressing me directly, he was actually simply giving general advice which is good advice for all parties and observers to not use the word “racist” without clear evidence, and apparently simply did not think it important to give similar general advice about the claims made by the editor who brought the case against me, such as the statement that my vision is to bring Wikipedia under a totalitarian rule of fear. (Though Jehochman did not actually address the latter point in his response.)

What seems even more important to me is that Jehochman had mentioned several exculpatory reasons one editor might speak sharply to another: grouchiness, content disagreements, and being hauled to AE. But what stood out glaringly as something not listed as an acceptable reason to speak sharply to another editor is responding to racism, or even perceived racism. I would think that, for anyone who deals with casual racism throughout their lives on a daily basis, this is a clear-as-a-bell message that you are not allowed to express any emotion about casual racism here, much less criticism.

As I pointed out at AE after the editor who brought the case linked to it, the NONAZIS essay says, Editors making reports for extremist racism or edits with more subtle expressions of racism that can be substantiated with diffs should bring them forward to administrators without fear of sanctions or blocks. If this was not a “more subtle [expression] of racism that can be substantiated with diffs” I can't really imagine an example of that which would be dealt with, or would even actually be discussed. I've got more arguments for why the repeated comments I describe are a clear-cut expression of racism than I made at AE, but I'd kind of expected what I said to be enough to garner something other than silence.

So I am extremely disappointed, and honestly a bit heartbroken—just-world fallacy I guess—that this is the official response, apparently in unison from multiple admins, to discussion of racism on Wikipedia in 2020. It seems to be pretty much the response from officialdom the world over during the past half-century-plus: silence on specific questions of racism accompanied by plausibly-deniable pressure to just not talk about racism at all. Sorry for the five paragraphs but everyone's unresponsiveness is getting to me and I'm wordy anyways. Thanks, ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 20:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.. Thank you for the compliments, Struthious, and I hope the list on my userpage didn't give the impression that I created all those essays. If you thought that, I'd better edit it a bit. Most of them are essays by other people that I want to remember and be able to refer to, that's all. I'm sorry, but I can't live up to the detailedness of your post, or do anything too ample on Wikipedia altogether right now. I'm having some family stuff and some health issues (nothing dire) using up my energy. I simply thought Jehochman's close was well-balanced and reasonable. Bishonen | tålk 23:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I'm still quite disheartened that you think this was a well-balanced and reasonable response, with apparent implied admonishment only directed at me, non-explicitly, to what plainly seemed like a SLAPP-like proceeding attempting to suppress my voicing of criticism in a content discussion in the first place, even before the racism aspects.
And I have to say that my repeated experience in trying to push back against non-insult, non-vandalism expressions of racism on Wikipedia is that the editors making these expressions are extremely confident that they can get away with it, and that they can dependably and impunitively attempt to provoke a hyper-enforcement of etiquette rules from admins to divert from criticism of their behavior and attempts to counteract their edits to the same effect, even when I make such criticism without employing any version of the word “race”.
But thank you for taking note of my comment, anyways; I did check the edit histories of your linked essays to see which ones you'd written yourself, and I found both sorts enjoyable to read and insightful. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I hope you don't see this as "ganging-up", Struthious Bandersnatch, but I'm going to agree with 'Shonen's comments above, and I'll try to explain why.
Wikipedia isn't real life, and the way we react to issues in the outside world isn't always optimal on Wikipedia.
I also spent time evaluating the AE request, but Jehochman closed it before I had chance to comment. I also didn't see any good reason for the AE request; and I also was concerned about your responses at the page. For one thing, AE isn't ANI, and the regular AE admins tend to concentrate on arguments that address the behaviour laid out in the original request and ignore arguments that attempt to explore the behaviour of others. You have to do that, otherwise AE would degenerate into the walls of claim and counter-claim that plague ANI and make it near impossible to get good outcomes there. In other words, a defence at AE of "I wasn't at fault because the other guy was" is worth less than a defence of "I wasn't at fault because I didn't breach the DS".
I sympathise with your position of zero tolerance of racism online. Nevertheless, you will find (or have already found) that attempting to enforce that by confrontation doesn't produce the desired effect on Wikipedia. My experience in trying to create change with Wikipedia editors (most often on issues concerning accessibility) is that slow but consistent advice will educate far more effectively than challenge, which sometimes produces entrenchment.
For those reasons I also think that you overstepped what was needed in your AE commentary. Had I closed the AE request, I would also have posted a note on your talk asking you to tone it down. Not because I disagree with your position and aims, but that I don't think your comments at AE did either of those any favours. I'm sorry if you find this disheartening as well, but I hope you can at least accept that I'm making my criticism in the spirit of trying to help you, not to admonish you. --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for replying comprehensively, RexxS, it's a complete breath of fresh air.
The thing is, I explicitly said at AE that I'm not proposing a zero tolerance response to casual racism: I don't personally think it should be a zero tolerance kind of thing most cases, like insults and vandalism should be. Jehochman exhibited the same apparent tendency to exaggerate my behavior while downplaying that of the other user to the point of unremarkability, on his talk page, by talking (albeit in the third person) about run[ing] around calling people "racists" or other epithets or cast other aspersions when I called that user's behavior and attitudes racist, exclusively at AE. (Note that this phrasing on Jehochman's part would also seem to imply that pretty much any discussion at all of non-insult, non-vandalism racism is going to fall into the category of “epithets” and “aspersions”.)
The behavior I have described as casual racism is not some sort of edge case or stretch. And it was repeated at AE—obviously not the same situation as the talk page of an article about a wave of black civil rights protests in a country where political parties had “White Supremacy” on their logos well within living memory (in case you weren't aware of that context)—but still repeated at AE itself. Yet while my behavior at AE—not the behavior laid out in the original request—can apparently be characterized in just any old way, from a vision for a totalitarian rule of fear at Wikipedia on down, this other user's behavior is evidently beyond reproach—precisely because criticizing them would involve talking about racism, I believe, if I'm being honest. And this is the response Bishonen has described as “well-balanced”
I take issue with your claim that “Wikipedia isn't real life”—Wikipedia is an integral part of the internet and the intellectual sphere of the entire world, along with the other WMF projects. You'll go to the Library of Congress or the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek and see an indicator that information came from Wikidata. AIs get trained with Wikipedia as a corpus. The government of the People's Republic of China is blocking the WMF's accession to a United Nations agency, ferchrissake. Our continuing failure to deal with the well-documented racial bias on Wikipedia has very real-world, very global effects.
I should think slow but consistent advice to educate is exactly the approach I took—I mean, nearly from the beginning I was explaining how Wiktionary policy would relate and linking to books about black liberation. But at the point when someone has hauled you into an administrative process in an attempt to pressure you into not criticizing them, isn't the time for meek advice past? More to the point—can you name an organization or group that successfully dealt with a casual racism problem by gently giving advice and educating about it, much less the people in charge sticking to a comfortable approach like that? I can't think of one. Someone has to do the dirty work of actually using the words “racist” and “racism” and asking people to not say and write things like that, and usually the dirtier work of sharper confrontation, and in offline cases people usually have to get injured and killed the way protesters in the U.S. are doing. (And that has happened all over the world as well, of course, it's just the U.S. which is at issue in this specific incident.)
So I again thank you profusely for listening and responding, but the basic question is—if the totality of what I said at the article talk page and at AE didn't do my position and aims any favors, and a “more subtle [expression] of racism that can be substantiated with diffs” is something which can in fact be dealt with in Wikipedia administrative processes, what exactly should I have done to obtain an official response to casual racism, a response other than silence and indifference and not even asking the editor in question, without mentioning racism, to not call “black liberation” meaningless on the talk page of an article essentially about a black civil rights movement? What was needed? Or to maybe start smaller—if the state of affairs at the moment simply is that someone introducing racism into a discussion at AE, and expressing emotion about racism, just must to be told to “tone it down”, what needs to change so that an interlocutor of the same person, accused of expressing racism at AE, and who is declaring that person to have a vision of totalitarian rule of fear for Wikipedia, would also at least be requested to “tone it down”? And can you point to anything like a noticeboard case, or another in-the-open admin action, where a subtle expression of racism was dealt with? To perhaps reassure me this isn't all just about pressuring editors to not talk about racism.
p.s. Accessibilty is very important too. Seeing members of ADAPT dragged from their wheelchairs by police while protesting in Washington D.C. in 2017 (on television) is one of the experiences which has galvanized me during the last few years to try to not stand by and watch while everyday injustices occur. Thanks again, ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 23:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Template:8px[reply]
I more or less agree with RexxS. I think your (Struthious's) underlying points are valid, but Wikipedia is a place where tone matters much more than substance, for better or worse. It's also a place where the understanding of things like implicit bias, racism, etc. is extraordinarily primitive. In some ways this community is an outgrowth of early-2000's tech culture, with its extreme lack of diversity and empathy, and its techno-libertarian utopianism (the "why-don't-homeless-people-just-learn-to-code" school of thought). Of course not every Wikipedian is like that, but it is the dominant cultural mode here.

You have to understand that Wikipedian culture is still at the point where a significant portion of the community would actively welcome an open neo-Nazi or KKK member as long as they made "useful edits" and were superficially polite. There is zero understanding of or empathy for the the fact that by welcoming such people, we are explicitly un-welcoming to others—that just doesn't compute. Nor is there any curiosity about the wider world, and about the reasons why open bigots are excluded from other reputable volunteer projects. You can see that in the recent discussion about WP:NONAZIS, or even going back years to when we did have an active KKK member as an editor (he helpfully uploaded his own personal pictures of cross-burnings), whose presence was actively defended and who was ultimately banned over the usual protests that we were simply stifling unpopular opinions.

That's where we are, so expecting people here to pick up on more subtle expressions of implicit bias is a lost cause. RexxS is right—the solution is probably a gradual, consistent coaxing and cajoling rather than active confrontation—but personally I don't have the time or wherewithal for an adopt-a-Wikipedian approach. Maybe you don't either. MastCell Talk 20:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict after what was probably way too much writing) Thank you for replying too, MastCell—this is finally the sort of viewpoint I was hoping to encounter somewhere. My real question is, where to start at the administrator level, without even getting into subtle expressions of implicit bias? I hope I can just plainly say at this point that if someone bringing up racism at AE and expressing disgust about it is going to get told to “tone it down”, their counterpart in the conversation talking about a totalitarian rule of fear (in response to, incidentally, me saying that we cannot set the expectation that editors have to be demur and non-confrontational in the face of racism for the sake of etiquette—cantcha just hear the jackboots marching?) needs to also be told to “tone it down”. (Edit: Because that seems like a prerequisite to other progress.) So how do we at least get to that point?
I was going to ask how to chart a way to a point where words like “racism” could be used in noticeboard discussion without reprisal too but I'm realizing that's probably “here there be dragons” ne plus ultra territory for the forseeable future. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 23:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem lies with Wikipedia's narrow and juvenile definition of "civility", which looks something like this:
  • Editor A: <says something dishonest>
  • Editor B: "Hey, that was dishonest."
  • Wikipedians: "Editor B, please remember to be WP:CIVIL and avoid personal attacks!"
Obviously, an adult definition of civility would encompass the fact that being dishonest with your colleagues, or saying or doing racist things, is an act of incivility. But in Wikipedian culture, it is the identification of those words or actions that constitutes incivility. WP:CIVIL means that editor B will always be told to "tone it down".

A second part of the problem is what an academic would probably call essentialism. It's the view that people are fundamentally either Racists or Not-Racists. Racists are bad—but I know so-and-so isn't a bad person, so therefore they cannot be a Racist. If someone raises a concern about a statement or action, then the response is a swift and reflexive how-dare-you-I-am-no-racist! There's no room for thoughtful discussion, because any acknowledgement would condemn the person as essentially and irredeemably bad.

My view, and maybe yours as well, is that people are products of their culture and that everyone has implicit biases and prejudices. I certainly do. Having those doesn't make you a Racist, or a Bad Person, and it is possible to recognize one's implicit biases and to moderate them. There's an extensive literature about implicit bias in medicine. I know a lot of physicians, nurses, and health-care workers, and few or none of them are Racists(TM) or inherently bad people... yet the medical system exhibits demonstrable systemic biases. So that framework makes sense to me, and it provides a pathway to address racist statements or actions as modifiable products of implicit biases, rather than as evidence of a fixed, essential character flaw. But I don't think you'll find much support for that view here.

In terms of what to do, your guess is as good as mine. I am burnt out, probably for good, on this place, and I have way too much to do in the Real World. Covid-19 cases are skyrocketing, hospitals are full, the refrigerated morgue trucks are rolling out again, health-care workers are burning out or worse, the governmental response is somewhere between ignorant and actively malicious, right-wing lunatics are plotting to kidnap the governor and looking for excuses to throw out Black votes ("we can certify the areas other than Detroit"), and it's going to get worse before it gets better. Open to suggestions though. MastCell Talk 01:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: Yeah, I often point people to Jay Smooth's classic video on YouTube which makes some of these distinctions, a dozen years old now, which is mentioned in our article about him.
One thing that has been bugging me (which is probably pretty obvious, because I keep bringing it up) is that the way Bishonen used the term “well-balanced” above almost seems like a term of art, like it's some abstract administrative-viewpoint gauge of merit on the AE case. Because nobody on the receiving end of having their own comments faulted exclusively, while their interlocutor throws darts about totalitarianism, would possibly believe that the real admin concern is tone or civility, or that the process was somehow fair or balanced. But none of the admins I've interacted with about this have even commented on what seems a glaring disparity, even though it's one that would also appear to invalidate most of the other explanations I've been offered.
It makes me wonder if there's a deeper issue beneath the level of conceptualization of racism that produces this sort of alienation from the viewpoint of the non-admin participant in a noticeboard discussion. Maybe an alienation produced somehow through doing the work of an admin, or another administration-related process? In any case I'd think the “shear force”, as it were, from admins being able to describe things so differently than a rank-and-file editor might drive more, more diverse people away, the ones who even make it through the door, create an account, and get past all of the red tape for simply editing articles. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Well-balanced" is not a term of art as far as I know, Struthious Bandersnatch. I made it up out of whole cloth for my own use. You know what, it's a little disagreeable to be repeatedly discussed in the third person on my own page. If you want to analyze my alienation further, maybe take it to your own page, or MastCell's. Bishonen | tålk 13:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I apologize; I will stop. As I say below, I'd meant the “alienation” stuff as an AGF-type rationale why this wouldn't simply be official suppression of discussion of racism, but a difference in perspective; sorry I didn't find a way to phrase it less negatively than I'd intended. I hope that things with your family and health issues go well. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've now produced an incredible amount of concerned text through multiple venues over the purported "racism" of User:Crossroads because he thought the phrase "black liberation" was unclear. You seem to consider it totally impossible that anyone could disagree with you this on the merits and instead you've resorted to this psychologizing analysis of Crossroads, of admins, of Wikipedia, of society and of anything and everything except yourself. But, could you like, for one minute entertain the notion that there might be non-racist reasons to prefer another phrasing than "black liberation" in the articles in question? It sounds like a term that refers to more than the sum of its parts - some particular thing that one could read up on, like gay liberation or women's liberation. But when I search for "black liberation" online I get sent to information on black liberation theology which wasn't what the phrase was referring to in the original discussion. It's a description that could potentially cause confusion and there was nothing unreasonable about searching for other ways of putting it. But there was nothing unreasonable about your preference for it either! You made reasonable points too! This was a perfectly mundane content dispute that has now mutated into some sort of crusade. Please let it go. If you want to have some more general discussion about how best to handle racism on Wikipedia, then you would be so much better off with some other example than this. Haukur (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haukurth, thank you so much for this. I am so tired of this editor WP:ADMINSHOPping and WP:GASLIGHTING about this phrase and still trying to get me in trouble. And this latest round was after SlimVirgin warned them not to continue with these attacks [17] and said to not dissect other peoples' work but to return to their own editing. [18] Crossroads -talk- 15:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haukurth: See, these would be material arguments if anyone actually engaged with me in discussion of racism. But instead, all that has happened is blanket denial that these claims, in this context, could ever be racist under any circumstances, full stop; and official pressure to not talk about racism at all. Everyone just seems to take it as given that a fulsome, appropriate, reasonable discussion happened at some point and I just irrationally persisted over cogent objections or something. That did not happen.
I did not have a preference for “black liberation” as a term in the article; I introduced it once, sourced from another Wikipedia article, was reverted with a description from an in-article RS I hadn't noticed, and acceded to that change immediately (so, to be clear, I for one minute entertain[ed] the notion that there might be non-racist reasons to prefer another phrasing than "black liberation" in the articles in question well before I was ever hauled to AE). But Crossroads nevertheless persisted in a variety of contradictory dismissive claims about the term in that article's talk page and marked it as {{vague}} in the article I'd taken it from, which was reverted by another editor. I responded with links to relevant Wikipedia articles and four books at the Internet Archive with “black liberation” in the title—a comment I linked to in my reply to you at AE, Haukurth.
Admins directly involved with the AE case just keep making material misrepresentation of basic facts. But, like response on questions of racism or AE behavior other than my own, the official response here when I point out these repeated misrepresentations is silence. Call it a “crusade” if you want, but if you were in my shoes, and since we all deeply care about Wikipedia, would you really just let all of this drop, so that other editors—maybe editors without the privileges and 14-year history and I've-written-parts-of-behavioral-guidelines perspective I have—might need to go through the same thing in the future?
People keep saying there's a better way. But this is a really old pattern: organizations and communities the world over have reacted this way to any discussion of racism, again and again and again, for a century or more. Wikipedia is showing no sign of being more enlightened or special. I'd meant the “alienation” stuff as an AGF-type rationale why this wouldn't simply be official suppression of discussion of racism, but I guess there's no point now; sorry I didn't find a way to phrase it less negatively than I'd intended. Again, I invite anyone to link to a case where a more subtle expressions of racism that can be substantiated with diffs was actually dealt with, if the things I'm saying are so unnecessary at this point in Wikipedia's history or aren't worth writing at length about.
Bishonen has expressed displeasure at this discussion, so I'm going to stop responding here, but of course am available at my talk page.
Crossroads: If everything I've said here and the various responses have not made it clear that at this point in history, you cannot actually get in trouble for expressing racism on Wikipedia, but in fact it's the attempt to discuss it which is likely to get someone in trouble, I don't know what possibly could.
I renew my suggestion that you appeal the AE decision to ArbCom, or whatever the appropriate appeal process is, because I am not going to simply shut up about racism. Let ArbCom be my ADMINSHOP; you could have saved me the trouble of trying to get answers about the meaning of what happened at AE. (...by coming to the talk page of Bishonen, who called the closure making virtually no remark on your behavior at AE or elsewhere a good close.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsidering the ban - Appeal

Hi, Bishonen. I was recently banned from editing and received an all out-ban.

In the appeal, you said I was propagating Islamophobic "love jihad" conspiracy theory into Wikipedia. I promise you that it was not my intention, the earlier edit in which the news source called it a "conspiracy theory" was edited into the article by me only. So, when I was adding another source to expand the incident, I accidently replaced it with a different source. It was completely unintentional. Which was later reverted by another mod Newslinger, I discussed it him and apologized and promised it wont happen again. Please see our conversation here.

I am not here to showcase a Pro-Hindutva POV or anything like that. I am here to build a neutral encyclopedia. I assure you that, the entire incident of ban was just an technical issue and nothing more. I would kindly request you to please consider the ban. Humble Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenos450 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Jenos450. I didn't topic ban you on my sole admin discretion, but per this discussion. There were a lot of complaints and evidence offered against you from uninvolved admins and also from other users, above and beyond the Love Jihad edit you made. See for instance the diffs provided by the filer (Tayi Arajakate) and by Vanamonde and Newslinger. I was merely one of the admins giving an opinion, plus I summarized and logged the discussion. This means that it's not for me to lift the ban, even if I wanted to. You need to go to back to WP:AE (or if you prefer, to WP:AN) and file an appeal. The timing of an appeal is up to you, but I'll give you my best advice: the ban is in practice unlikely to be lifted if you appeal it before six months have passed. The community is going to want you to show that you can edit constructively in other areas, or for that matter in other Wikimedia projects, where you are not banned. That would show that you are interested in improving the project/s, and not merely in putting a certain tendency into articles. (I notice you simply stopped editing when you were topic banned. Not the best tactic.) Good luck. Bishonen | tålk 18:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Jenos450: If you do decide to appeal your topic ban, you will need to explain honestly your behaviour at Love Jihad, specifically with regard to these three consecutive edits:
  1. You added content using a source that specifically mentioned "Islamophobic conspiracy theory", but failed to mention that in your text
  2. User:Newslinger added the phrase "conspiracy theory" to your text
  3. You re-wrote the text, removing the phrase "conspiracy theory" and replacing the source with a different one that didn't use the phrase
I don't believe your protestations about adding another source to expand the incident – you removed more than you added; and I accidently replaced it with a different source – "accidental" replacement is not credible. Your actions clearly show you carefully avoided the phrase "conspiracy theory", despite it being used in the source, and when it was added, you removed the phrase and the source that supported it. That's the clearest piece of whitewashing I've seen in a long time, and if you appeal without coming clean, I'll offer my strong opinion on your behaviour, and I'll call for you to be banned from Wikipedia entirely. --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of them were talking about Topic ban, yet, you still gave me an all out ban and now you're saying that it was not your decision. You should be able to explain that. You first gave me a topic ban and then you decided on your own to ban me all out. This is conflicting. I still don't understand why did you ban me over Love Jihad, according to Wiki, there must be 4 warnings to the user before being banned. I only received a single warning from Newslinger. I respected that and did not vandalize it.
RexxS, The three points that you mentioned happened over a single edit. Banning me from Wikipedia entirely just because one single edit was reverted and I received a warning. Damn, who hurt you bro? Jenos450 (talk)
@Jenos450: I'm not your bro, and never will be, so don't ever insult me like that again. You clearly tried to whitewash an article and have never apologised for that; you have merely attempted to deflect the complaint. I'm prepared to see you banned entirely for your deceptive behaviour, not just for your whitewashing. Grow up and start taking responsibility for your actions, and you might avoid further sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I have no idea how best to indent at this point.) I'm sorry if your sanction is unclear, Jenos450. I thought I told you clearly here that you are indeed topic banned from subjects related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I don't know what an "outright ban" is. There has never been any question of banning you "from Wikipedia entirely"; if that were in question, you would be indefinitely blocked, not merely topic banned. Are you aware of the difference between bans and blocks? See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. I first gave you a topic ban from Indian subjects only, then, after I had been contacted by another admin, I realized that probably the other admins at WP:AE, whose opinions I summarized, had meant a topic ban from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both are topic bans: both my first, narrower, ban, and my second, wider, ban. The other uninvolved admins did not specify how large a field the topic ban should be from.[19] I realized only belatedly that I ought to have assumed they meant the whole topic under discretionary sanctions — India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I'm sorry I said first one thing and then another. But indeed it was first one topic ban, then another somewhat wider topic ban. I say "somewhat" because "India, Pakistan and Afghanistan" isn't that much wider than the vast subject of "India" by itself. If you think you were ever banned from Love jihad only, you are mistaken. There is no rule about "four warnings". Bishonen | tålk 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page watcher) Sorry but India, Pakistan and Afghanistan is a much wider subject than India by itself. Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bus stop: no it isn't. --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling at Talk:Barack Obama

Hmm. You removed my alleged trolling (it doesn't troll) on the Talk:Barack Obama page but you also removed by *vote.* I am entitled to a *vote.* And again, it wasn't trolling because it was not directed at any editor. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have only two entitlements on Wikipedia: the right to leave and the right to fork. All the rest are privileges and you're running the risk of losing those privileges if you continue your trolling (which of course is defined as "posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, either for the troll's amusement or a specific gain" and is not related to a specific editor). --RexxS (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Rex. (Whomever you are.) I observed that photos of Democratic politicians with American flags are scarce, and they are. I also mentioned very WP:NOTABLE left-wing commentators (not WP editors) who criticized Obama for being insufficiently "woke." Please forgive me, but I don't understand how anyone could seriously consider that "trolling." Perhaps you can explain if Bishonen isn't home. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM applies at Wikipedia. It's fun to chat, especially with strangers on the internet, but that is not done at Wikipedia. If you have an actionable proposal to improve an article, explain the proposal with reliable sources at the article talk page. Otherwise, find another website. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're talking out of your.. hat, IP. You did not mention very notable left-wing commentators who criticized Obama for being insufficiently "woke." You mentioned nobody — just trolled, that's all. If you aren't aware of that, this website may not be for you. As for your "vote", it was obviously posted purely in the service of trolling, there was no removing one without the other. Note that Wikipedia doesn't go by "votes" anyway. Also notice that I left, and will continue to leave, your (marginally) reasonable comments on that page. Now please go away. Bishonen | tålk 09:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    That's odd, Chère, I thought they were talking out of their arse (must be a SWE-UK thing). It's quite difficult to find a picture of Joe Biden without an American flag. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As is only fitting for a true American patriot and the forty-sixth president of the United States of America. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: Well, at least you didn't say anything about elderberries. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a recurring theme and a sign of the times: editor who normally marinates in a bubble of right-wing misinformation (e.g. "DEmOcrAt PoLiTiCiANs dON't wEAr FLaG PiNS!") looks at Wikipedia and is outraged to find misinformation being treated as such. MastCell Talk 22:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whole host of disruptive IPs

Hey there! I wanted to touch base with you, as there's a minorly inconvenient situation arising across the Alien (franchise), Predator (franchise) and Alien vs. Predator pages. IP addresses that include 96.3.113.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2001:bb6:5241:c900:9135:e2f3:c24a:379e (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2001:bb6:5241:c900:94ef:9149:1113:b87d (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2001:bb6:5241:c900:fc1b:7b1e:f2cf:5de (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2001:48f8:3006:734:d597:d8ab:19f9:96a1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2001:48F8:3006:734:5563:3B6B:520A:A721 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2001:48f8:3006:734:7c84:2501:1e0a:d267 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been making identical edits, which have included unnecessarily clarifying what years the properties have been owned and incorrectly claiming that the upcoming Predator film is called "Skulls". These issues are more of a nuisance, though it's trending to enough of an extent that I'm entertaining the notion of identifying them as a disruptive user. As this editor doesn't have a Wikipedia account, (that we know of), is it in the cards to open a SPI page and if so, what could we call it? DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 20:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DarthBotto. That's not a host, it's three people at the most: 2001:bb6:5241:c900::/64 (person 1), 2001:48F8:3006:734::/64 (person 2) and 96.3.113.164 (person 3). No, all IPs is not a good fit for SPI. I can't face checking all their contributions, I'm afraid, but since you say their edits are identical, I suspect persons 1, 2 and 3 are all one individual, or at least 1 and 2 are, with access to these ranges and IPs. It's been a while since 96.3.113.164 edited, I see. But if you can explain more in detail to me how persons 1 and 2 are editing disruptively, I would certainly be up for blocking them for a few weeks at least. There is no risk of catching anybody else in those types of rangeblocks. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Appeal for reconsideration of current topic ban sanction

Hi Bishonen—I'm asking you to reconsider your decision in relation to the current topic ban sanction. As you know I have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning post-1932 American politics. I accept that I was too vociferous (WP:BLUDGEON) in my arguing on Talk:Parler. I can commit to not argue in such a way in similar situations in the future. I would like to provide constructive and measured input into this topic area. Opinions all over the political spectrum are held by the multitude of editors participating here, consequently I think that my input matters. I understand my input may have been too adversarial, provocative, or repetitive. I welcome your input and/or questions. Thank you for your consideration. Bus stop (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Bus stop: I think it is far too soon to think of such a thing. The time to amend your behavior was before the imposition of a TBAN. I think it would be best if you find areas of Wikipedia to edit that would be less likely to trigger behavior you have not yet had time to unlearn. You would just risk setting yourself up for failure and risk a worse sanction. Just my unbiased, unsolicited opinion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra—I'm not a social justice warrior. Yet I believe in social justice. No one would describe me as hailing from the woke left. Yet I am as awoke and aware of the need for social justice and racial justice as I think anyone can be. (Just my opinion of myself.) You refer to that which would be likely to trigger my behavior. Nothing "triggers" my behavior. I responded in a way called bludgeoning. All I can do is commit to not doing it again—that is all anyone can do. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bus stop. It seems to me you rode right over a lot of both thoughtful and potentially helpful advice and warnings from many experienced editors on the specific subjects of bludgeoning, repetitiousness, and wearing everybody out. That's both on your own page and on article talkpages, where such advice/protests at your approach were posted. It just didn't seem to make any impression on you. The patience and energy of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource IMO, and you showed too little respect for its value. I'm sorry that it took an actual sanction to make you take the matter on board and consider it; as Deepfriedokra implies, it's a bit late. You say "Nothing 'triggers' my behavior." That's for you to say; I don't have any pretensions to knowing your psychological processes; but what I and many others observed, as recorded in the complete ANI thread, was conduct from you which was, from the outside, indistinguishable from someone being triggered. I too think it's too soon to ask for the sanction to be lifted. My advice to you would be to edit diligently in other areas for six months before appealing, by which time you should have amassed evidence that you no longer bludgeon, and that you would be a net positive at Am Pol. I did ban you on my own cognizance per arbcom discretionary sanctions for the Am Pol area, but still, in view of the wide input from the community, I think it would be better to appeal it to them (at WP:AN), or alternatively at WP:AE, rather than to me alone. Bishonen | tålk 01:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
FWIW, long ago I embarked on a journey of self exploration and increasing self awareness. I'm embarking on another such journey. Anyone who has not made such a journey might consider doing so if they experience disharmony in any aspect of their lives. Especially at a time when life stress has been increased by extraneous events out of our control. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of self-reflection, this cartoon came to mind when reading Bish’s response. I don’t in any way mean this as insulting to Bus Stop. It’s something that applies to many of us. [20] O3000 (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) "Every so often, that someone is me." -- words every Internet user should keep in the back of their mind, especially this guy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Objective3000: Thanks. Too true. During my RfA, a user introduced me to this Wikiphilosophy. I think about it often. Ain't nothing on Wikipedia worth giving up my serenity/health/time with my dog for. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh yes, if you find yourself too involved in an argument, take a look at the image at the top of this page, and take Gerda’s longer, Frostian path as it is allows more time for introspection. O3000 (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, Bishonen. I think I am supposed to be notifying you of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Bus stop. Bus stop (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this look like a dragon to you?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&oldid=990434990"