User talk:Bishonen

		Quote of the week, back by popular demand
		GregJackP:The purpose of admins should be to keep the riff-raff away from the content creators.[1]"

Stopped being lazy...

...and redid the mass rollback script the right way; it should no longer open up new tabs or completely thrash your computer. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

My poor, exhausted, ancient MacBook thanks you in a trembling voice. As for me, Writty, I wonder if you can perhaps also do something about the way it mucks up my contribs list? I mean, suddenly there are 400 contributions (all made simultaneously), making themselves broad and pushing actual contributions, if any, to the corner. Mind you, whether or not, I'm very glad to have the script. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

That I'm afraid I can't do; there will always be an entry for each rollback, since each will be to a different page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, it buffs up my thanks log; I was surprised to get thanked for several of these, after all, mundane rollbacks. Not for a great percentage, but still. :-) Bishonen | talk 23:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

Soham and close paraphrasing

I've just taken a look at one of Soham's edits since the topic ban. We already knew that they had problems with close paraphrasing. I looked at this, which for example includes:

When the Russian Empress Catherine the Great heard that Diderot was in need of money she arranged for the purchase of Diderot's library and for the appointment of Diderot as the caretaker of this library--at an annual retainer of one thousand livres. Moreover, she paid him twenty five years of his salary in advance. Overnight, Diderot became wealthy. He could not thus refuse her invitation to visit her.

The source says

When Catherine heard that he was planning to sell his library in order to raise a dowry for his daughter, she instructed her Paris agent to buy it at whatever price Diderot should ask; he asked and received sixteen thousand livres. Then she requested Diderot to keep the books till his death, and to be their custodian for her at a salary of a thousand livres per year; moreover, she paid his salary twenty-five years in advance. Diderot overnight became a rich man and a defender of Catherine. When she invited him to visit her he could hardly refuse.

This isn't as close as some stuff I vaguely recall having seen in recent weeks but it is concerning. Pinging Moonriddengirl because I'm not sure whether this might be a WP:CCI situation. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are definitely copyright problems. This edit includes blatant copy-pasting (as, evidently, did this). This one is uncomfortably close:

Source text	Article text
According to a source close to Honey Singh, when the rapper received a call from Bhardwaj, he thought it was a prank, more so when he was told it was for song written by Gulzar.... After verifying the truth of the offer, Honey Singh is said to have set aside all his other commitments and rushed to Mumbai to meet Bhardwaj.	At first when Honey Singh was contacted by Vishal Bhardwaj over telephone he considered it to be a prank call.[1] His belief consolidate when he was asked to rap on verses written by Gulzar.[1] After verifying the entire incident he set aside all his prior commitments and travelled to Mumbai to meet Bhardwaj at the earliest

I'm not sure if a full-blown CCI is called for, though. I generally look for 5 examples of outstanding copyright issues to make sure it's worth asking for community resources. It can take hours for me to review fully - especially where close paraphrasing is the issue instead of copy-pasting. (Copy-pasting - so much easier!) I jumped heavily through his history and didn't find a lot of problematic content that seems to cross the line into copyright issues. What I did find seems to be gone. Mind you, this is a judgment call and I'm not 100% sure I'm suggesting the right one. Without actually DOING the CCI, I can't be sure I'm not missing something major. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are quite old examples. My major concern (aside from any remaining outright copyvios) is that lessons may not have been learned. They've been told as recently as this month that they need to get a grip on the idea of paraphrasing but there still seem to be some near-to-the-bone things going on. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, i would like to clarify that none of the diffs you have given were to any edits of mine. This is because you are giving the edits of an editor named Soham; i am not Soham, i am Soham321. I would also have appreciated it if Sitush would have have had the courtesy to have pinged me when discussing something as serious as possible copyright violations in my edits. Soham321 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That is my fault: I called you Soham (a shorthand that Bish would recognise) and MRG picked up on that. I'd already spoken to you about these issues before and you seemed rather unconcerned. - Sitush (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Then in that case, it is back to the drawing board for me. Update soon, I hope! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see one lingering WP:NFC issue. The original of this massive quote is public domain, but there's no information on the copyright of the translation, which is what is used in our article. The book which is cited is almost certainly within copyright, with a first edition dating back to the 1970s. There certainly have been issues with extensive quotations. This rewrite of an extensive quotation was still an extensive quotation, taking more content than is necessary or appropriate under WP:NFC (content like "There was some discussion after this" is by no means required for our article and could be easily omitted), but it's no longer present. But I've done a pretty thorough spot-check and, while unable to view many of the books cited, didn't really find significant paraphrasing issues in the passages I view. Just as with the other fellow, I can't be sure I haven't missed something, but if I encountered a copyright issue at WP:CP and had a spot-check that looked like this, I would pursue no further beyond perhaps leaving a note explaining why paraphrase is important rather than stringing together quotations.

Not knowing what conversations have been had here before, Soham321, I'll just note that the bulk of our articles must be written in our own words and structures. Quotations can and should be used, but must be used "transformatively" - that is, to oversimplify, we can't use a quotation because we want to communicate the same information as our source, but must have a better reason, such as attributing a specific point of view. Where material from your source does not need to be in your source's language, it shouldn't be. And even if we want to use material transformatively - say, to attribute a point of view - we are limited in how much we can take. Wikipedia generally prefers to keep excerpts of copyrighted sources down to a few sentences.

Even if content is written entirely in your own words, it can be a copyright issue if you are simply appropriating the creativity of your source. So an article that summarized and briefly excerpted a single source or largely from a single source might still be a copyright issue. We have to be careful to avoid inadvertently creating derivative works, including unauthorized condensations of our sources (or "key" material from them). The best way to do this is to draw widely from multiple sources and, again, to ensure that the bulk of our articles are written in original language and structure.

Oh, as an aside, I see you often use (or at least have used) {{quote}}. This is for use with lengthier quotations. The bulk of quotes should be inline with your sentence. See WP:MOSQUOTE for more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the feedback. Soham321 (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A favour

I don't usually ask for favours, but you have particular expertise that could help me.

I've been involved in a nasty dispute at Talk:Zourafa where Gts-tg, the author of the corresponding article on Greek Wikipedia, has been edit-warring to keep a tag there claiming that the English article, written by Alakzi, contained content copied from his article. This has escalated to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard #Talk:Zourafa and User talk:Gts-tg #Talk:Zourafa, where Gts-tg won't discuss his behaviour. I've been subject to several personal attacks from Gts-tg, who is unwilling to accept that Alakzi could have independently created the article here.

If you had a little time, would you do me the favour of reviewing the talk page and those sections, and telling me if it would be reasonable for me to seek a topic ban from Talk:Zourafa for Gts-tg? And if so, what the best venue would be? (AN? ANI?) Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Expertise? I hope you're not suggesting I've become the go-to admin for topic bans? Dreadful fate. Either AN or ANI would work. Theoretically, community topic ban proposals are supposed to go on AN, because they're not about one incident, and because AN isn't archived as quickly. But the preference for AN is becoming more and more a dead letter. In practice proposals for topic bans are often put on ANI, perhaps because it gets more traffic, or perhaps sometimes because it's the only admin noticeboard the OP knows about.

However. The user seems to have resigned themselves to consensus[2] and is apparently on board with the DR being closed. In such a situation, you're never going to get a topic ban just because they're rude. It's rather strange the way they've been attacking you, I agree, but I think the best thing you can do is walk away. I've put a note on their page to urge them to disengage too. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

Tunisian Arabic

Dear User,

Tunisian Arabic is nominated for GA Status. Please review this work and adjust it if he involves several deficiencies.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Csisc. I see you have asked Dbachmann, too; that's a good idea, as he understands these matters. I, on the other hand, am extremely ignorant of them. Perhaps you might want to also try Kwamikagami or Peter Isotalo, both linguists. There, I've pinged them for you. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC).

Your opinion

[3]? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

+[4] Oversight?!? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Alerted an oversighter, hmm... I guess the user meant to say something else. I don't suppose she thinks Monty Python references are "defamatory". Checkuser, probably. Alison is both. She's not around that much, though. Hasn't edited since July 27. I've written a comment beneath Atsme's on Alison's page, to point out that and related matters. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC).

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The intended meaning, I think, was checkuser. I alerted the IP to this ongoing madness, incidentally. jps (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This clearly merits a response

[5] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Andy, but I don't think so. I'd rather let Atsme's heated accusations speak for themselves, and let the reader decide who they reflect badly on, if anybody. As your own words in the header imply, replying would in a way imply it has "merit". The ANI thread is bloated already, and especially has a lot of back-and-forth already. By my count, Atsme alone has posted 18 times in it. (Caution: I may have missed something, or au contraire counted something that was just adding a sig.) Sadly, I don't think the discussion has much chance of attracting uninvolved users at this point, because reading it is like climbing barbed wire. Please note, Atsme, that my pinging you here isn't aimed at bringing you to my page; it's just for courtesy, to let you know you have been spoken of. Bishonen | talk 08:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

Well if it isn't going to attract uninvolved users, it should probably - regrettably - be closed down. I'm sure that Atsme's behaviour will come up again soon enough, and at some point the community is going to have to act. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it might as well be closed down, I can't see it going anywhere, unfortunately. You or I shouldn't do it, but you might post a request for someone uninvolved to do it, if you like. With a subheader so it shows up, or they'll never see it. Or I will when I get home, I'm on the run. IMO it might be a good idea to open a dedicated thread proposing sanctions for Atsme, perhaps on AN. Bishonen | talk 08:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for the ping. I think it's only fair that if you're going to count my posts, you should've also counted the 27 posts by AndyTheGrump. But above all, you need to know the kind of editor you're defending and the position you've taken. He posted the following last night - [6] and ended his misinformation rant with, "You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better.” I can't remember in my short history as an editor on WP that I've ever come across anyone so mean and hateful and hope I never do again. I'm concerned that if I don't get resolution for the behavior of the named editors at ANI, particularly AndyTheGrump, I will be forced to take it higher. Atsme^📞📧 13:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You must have forgotten crossing my path, as I'm at least as mean and hateful as ATG. It's interesting that you would feel "forced to take it higher" - have you had a read of WP:BATTLE lately? --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Higher" presumably means ArbCom, as opposed to for instance my page. Go ahead and take it there, if you think it'll benefit you. (I don't.) Re your "short history as an editor on WP", not sure what kind of scale you're using. You've been editing Wikipedia for three and a half years. You're an experienced editor now. Bishonen | talk 15:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

RexxS - sorry but I don't remember crossing your path. I do remember crossing paths with editors where kindnesses are shown and your user name doesn't ring a bell. I don't like to waste valuable time that could be spent editing to look up diffs to defend myself or provide evidence against PAs. I also don't hold grudges like what I've seen others do on WP. I admit when I'm wrong and try to avoid making the same mistake twice. No one is perfect. I do know that some members of project teams don't always act responsibly and have been getting away with things they shouldn't be getting away because of their sheer numbers. In most cases, admins are too busy to investigate the root of the problem - many see only the surface and trust in the comments of their buddies to guide them which often results in treating only the symptoms and leads to an unfair result.

As for my experience - my editing in 2011 was very limited - 20 edits or so if that many - and I made typical newbie mistakes. My edits caused no harm to anyone, and my work since my retirement has helped enhance the encyclopedia with rare u/w footage, photographs, and information about endangered species which is actually what we're supposed to be doing here, not attacking each other in these childish troll-like games. I didn't start editing and creating articles until 2014, but as a seasoned professional now retired, I think my experience is of the level that I know when I'm being railroaded, can tell when page stalkers are not demonstrating GF, what tag-teams look like, and when admins are protecting their buddies and each other. Fortunately the latter doesn't happen often. I've also seen a couple of ARBCOM cases where GF editors were railroaded but fortunately, that doesn't happen too often. It's all about apprehension and the time it takes to fully understand a controversial issue. Most editors actually do depend on administrators to be neutral but we also know there are a few admins who simply refuse to leave their biases at log-in. Atsme^📞📧 13:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that broad hint, Atsme. Have you noticed that I in my turn have given you two broad hints above that I'd rather you not post here? Please don't unless you have a factual question or comment about some of my admin actions — I'm always up for that. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC).

No I didn't notice the hints, I made the mistake of AGF, and don't know what hints you think I made but will continue to AGF. I will also honor your request and ask in return that you stop stalking my posts on TPs. Atsme^📞📧 15:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Soham

Hi Bishonen, I hope you don't mind me putting in a word here. Soham321's talk page is on my watch list and I have been noticing the to-and-fro there. I think he has a difficult enough time dealing with his topic ban. Can you cut him a little slack? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

He should know better than to put back a post containing anonymous advice for people who want to evade their blocks or bans, and he should know much better than to put back the anonymous troll's second post, which I had explicitly removed as block evasion. Sorry, Kautilya3, I appreciate and respect your input, and I understand the topic ban was a blow to Soham, but he doesn't get any more slack for such nonsensical actions. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

They're now getting involved in stuff at ANI, if my watchlist is anything to go by. Given their numerous misunderstandings of policy, they probably should keep well away from that hellhole. Perhaps they will listen to you, Kautilya3 ? I fear it will only end badly otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

An ANI discussion involving you has been created

An ANI discussion involving you has been created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_respond_to_anonymous_socks_writing_on_your_talk_page Soham321 (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Jon Stewart

I didn't initiate an "edit war." A person keeps deleting my factual post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impartial Scholar (talk • contribs)

Yes you did. And before you use terms like "tool" and "shifty" in a biography again, have a read of WP:BLP, particularly the part that says Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. If you don't understand what "poorly sourced" means in this context, then it's time you looked at how we identify reliable sources on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Impartial Scholar: Also, please note that the "factual" parts of your post have not been deleted. The information about the meetings has been retained, and the sources you listed are still there, properly formatted. The only thing that has been deleted, by several different editors, is the accusations made on Fox News. If you want to argue that those comments should be retained, the place to do it is at Talk:Jon Stewart. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi

A project for you perhaps. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen

Respect, but how on earth do you wrangle this page with such an archive lag... Ogress _smash! 00:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

[A little embarassed.] Wrangle? Wrangle? Oh, is it slow to load? Sorry. I don't like to archive… I love my talkpage posters… but OK, I'll archive. Conservatively. Just for you, Ogress. Bishonen | talk 14:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC).

@Mohanbhan's edit with @Soham321 sourced material?

Please see this.

Is it okay for @Mohanbhan to create wiki articles/sections in IPA-scope wiki articles, with material sourced by @Soham321? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh... yes, I think so. On principle. Whether the sources are good, and whether the article is good, is something I'm not going to look into at this time, because Indian philosophy is one of my many areas of ignorance, except in the most sketchy sense. I'm simply not the right person to do it, and so I simply answer your question as a matter of principle. I assume you ask it because Soham321 is topic banned from India-related pages? But Mohanbhan isn't, so far. Bans aren't inherited. Do you know if Mohanbhan has taken the material from Wikipedia? If not, one can assume that Soham has provided it to him privately. If you have reason to suspect that that happened during the topic ban, then Soham has violated his ban (again), and Monabhan has enabled that violation. That would be bad. Perhaps the best thing would be for you to ask them both about the circumstances? Incidentally, a while back, I wanted to ask you something privately (not connected with this), and was disappointed to find you don't have Wikipedia e-mail enabled. Is there a special reason? I mean, do you prefer not to have it, or have you just not got round to it? If it's your preference, you certainly don't owe me any explanation for that preference; I find wikimail useful myself, that's all. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

(Talk page watcher comment) The article lede seems to have been taken from the Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya article - without attribution. Both Mohanbhan and Soham123 had been working on this prior to Soham123s topic ban, so I don't think there is any problem beyond a failure to note the copying, which is a mistake often made by people not familiar with what is a fairly obscure policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy. In that case, I suppose the edit summary "Created with material sourced by Soham321" may have been a good-faith attempt to provide that attribution. Would you like to tell them how to do it, Andy? Or perhaps a tps would care to. I can't face looking it up, I'm running a temperature. :-( Bishonen | talk 21:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

Done. Look after yourself, and get well soon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cough, cough, sneeze. Bishonen | talk 22:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen:, @AndyTheGrump: Thank you, both. @Bish: never got around to setting up the wiki email. Tempting suggestion. I wonder if it triggers clutter/junk anon emails through wikipedia? Hope you get well soon. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found it does; I get hardly any spam to the account I set up specially for wikimail. (Most people do set up a dedicated account, and I'd recommend it.) If trolls use the wikimail to write to you — something rare, in my experience — remember they don't know your e-mail addy. Don't reply if you don't want them to learn it. If you keep that in mind, you'll be fine. Also note that anons don't have the mail feature, they can't write to you at all. Bishonen | talk 07:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC).

But Sarah, your email id and name will be visible to others to whom you mail, whatever you are in your real life male/female, you don't use your real name in email. Don't use your original email, you create new email with your current username. Emails can be helpful in life of a Wikipedian, I think you should have email, you are good contributor to Wikipedia. Cheers. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  07:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

I have posted at WP:AIN#Astme redux on matters which concern you. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Bish, about your remarks here, please re-review the block log here. Alexbrn you might want to consider changing your ANI posting in light of Bish's action, linked above. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)