User talk:Bishonen

[[?title=User_talk:Bishonen&action=purge Purge the page to see a different image |?title=User_talk:Bishonen&action=purge Purge the page to see a different image]]

Yuletide Greeting

Happy Christmas

Greetings from all of us holed up on some remote island south of the Italian peninsular. I do hope you’re well, if yet another year older. My year has been dreadful. The kitchen staff have decamped back to the Philippines, my French maid has said ‘bollox to Brexit’ and gone back to France, and Stanislaw my devoted plumber has found he can earn more in Poland. Now Rishi Sunak (such a mice looking boy) is raising my taxes. I already subsidise the whole country and single handedly fund the NHS. Fortunately, I never think of myself or complain, so I have moved in with my nephew and his odd wife, which is why I’m here in wherever. Do you like my Christmas card? Giano had hundreds printed, (apparently some distant connection of his, who he says was the first Santa Claus) anyway, it’s cheaper than buying my own cards. Do take care of yourself, I’ve always admired your energy and stamina, you and the dear Queen are such examples to us all. I just hope I’m the same at your age. Much love to you all The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Happy Christmas from me too. Love Giano (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC) xx

• As I'm sure Bishonen (or, at least, Darwinbish) knows already, I too wish her and everyone a most excellent holiday season. But, seeing the fine comments of the most gracious Lady Catherine, I decided to educate myself about her ever-so-inspiring history – something I was unable to do until just now, due to a rather pesky neurological disorder. (I should hasten to add that I'm half American and half human.) I'm most interested in the history of formal dance, and I can only imagine the magnificent balls that must have been in Scrotum House. Perhaps they climaxed years ago, but still, I'm sure they must have been marvelous. But I digress. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Dearest Lady Catherine, what an honour to hear from you, and receive a lovely Christmas card. Your nephew's taste is exquisite as always. My sockpuppets and I send you both many, many respectful greetings and venture to hope that, amongst the exodus of your faithful (?) retainers, Sven the Swedish majordomo remains staunchly in attendance. Comparing me with the dear Queen is too, too gracious. I am now actually fully twice as old as she! That takes me back... I remember your funeral, what a solemn occasion that was! We must do it again soon! Bishonen | tålk 13:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC).

Merry Christmas

Heba Aisha (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• Merry Christmas to you too, Heba! Bishonen | tålk 11:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC).

Error

It was not my intention to log two warnings - Twinkle did not reload the page and I thought the first warning did not go through. Anyways, wishing a pleasant holiday to you and your's! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

You too, TrangaBellam! No, it was me, I didn't read carefully enough — they were actually warnings about different aspects of one edit (probably not necessary, but still, I shouldn't have removed it). I've put it back. Bishonen | tålk 20:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC).

Sreenivasan KG1

You haven't actually blocked them. FYI. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Rats, I forgot the very last click. But the tab was still open and live, so now it's done. Thanks, RP! Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC).

Deaths in 2022

Hi - a happy New Year to you for four days time.

You were kind enough to protect the page Deaths in 2021 last year, and save it from the potential ravages of goodwill misguidance (and sometimes malevolence). Could I kindly ask that you consider stepping in for us on January 1st 2022 and doing the same, as we who often edit the Deaths pages are always apprehensive about this issue as each New Year approaches? If I am being too forward in this request, I do apologise and wish you every health and happiness for 2022. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Refsworldlee, happy new year to you too. I'm sure you're right about the vandalism to be expected at Deaths in 2022, but since the protection policy explicitly disapproves of preemptive semiprotection against vandalism that hasn't happened yet, I guess I'll hold off a little. I've watchlisted the article, but feel free to remind me in early January in case I forget. Bishonen | tålk 20:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC).

That's very civil of you - I'm aware of the rules regarding "pre-emptive strikes", and I'm appreciative of you keeping the project in your thoughts. I will certainly pop up again if it's still unprotected on January 2nd. Every best wish for you. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Pala Empire

Hi Bishonen, hope you had a great Christmas! Please look into the article on Pala Empire, where DD (whom you had warned earlier) is forcing their POV, and removing a reliably sourced statement in the midst of an ongoing talk page discussion (initiated by them). DD is also engaged in edit warring. Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ekdalian. I already looked at that situation, but I don't feel competent to intervene in it. I recommend my admin talkpage watchers to take a look, as well as other users with an interest in the subject. Bishonen | tålk 08:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC).

Thanks for your prompt response. I am not requesting to pass any judgement regarding the content related issue; I am only concerned about the fact that user Dear Debasish is violating the very basics, removing the reliably sourced statement during an ongoing talk page discussion before arriving at a consensus (in spite of valid concerns raised by me as well as an established editor LukeEmily), as well as edit warring, which is not acceptable! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

---

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Bishonen: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

• Thank you very much, CAPTAIN RAJU, what a fine card! Bishonen | tålk 22:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Merry Hogmanay and a Happy New Year to All! Especially your socks. . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- [Reverently:] Thank you, Uncle Dave! bishapod talk to your inner fish 22:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Bishonen! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year, Bish!
Thank you for all your amazing work in swatting those Wiki bugs in a jiffy!

Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the holiday wishes

		Bringing you warm wishes for the New Year!
		In the midst of the snowy season, sending you some cheer with the sounds of nature I enjoy in my garden when the Indigo bunting return with the warmer weather. May you and yours have a healthful, happy and productive 2022! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

in friendship

January songs

in friendship

Happy new year, in friendship! - Thank you for still being around! - one of my pics is on the Main page, DYK? - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gerda. I love the snowy trees and the Sweetbriar rose, which I've put into the image carousel at the top of this page. Keep watching and it'll turn up one day! Bishonen | tålk 17:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC).

I like the lion! - Seriously, I just went over my "blushing" corner, and have the feeling that 80% of my old friends are gone, which boils down to feeling sort of fossil. You are there, how great! ... and I remember that crying is allowed here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

February songs

frozen

Did you know that I heard Ich lasse dich nicht, du segnest mich denn, BWV 157 when missing RexxS began? It's on the Main page now, pictured, expanded over that year and a decoration for my talk. Interesting article history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

ps I managed uploading vacation pics today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations, Gerda! von Ponickau adorns the main page, indeed. Bishonen | tålk 19:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC).

Very pretty gefrorenes Wasser, too. Bishonen | tålk 19:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC).

taken in memory of Flyer22 Frozen, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Revoking TPA

Hello Bishonen, would it be possible to revoke the TPA of Autoconfsock1? Pahunkat (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Right. Thanks, Pahunkat. Bishonen | tålk 20:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC).

Mehler

Thank you, talkpage stalkers, but I'm tired of looking at this. IfonlyIwasBradbury, don't argue here, argue on Talk:Barry Mehler . You have never been blocked from that, only from the article itself. Bishonen | tålk 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see you block me. I just wanted to defend this man, everyone is asking for his head and I don't think it's fair. In your edits you say that "He responded by claiming the content of the video was humorous in nature, and was well received by his current and former students." That's a lie! He says from the beginning of his video that he is citing, that he is being sarcastic. That's all I wanted to include. English is my second language and I'm still trying to figure out how to use Wikipedia, but there, hope you're happy, you block me... duck you and duck this cancel culture of fhit, you people don't have enough neurons to debate anything. It's pretty unfortunate to see how a little guy with a little power turned out to be such an impatient censor like yourself, there, have your Wikipedia, and help destroy the world with false information. IfonlyIwasBradbury (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Really..? You see I blocked you from one article, but apparently you haven't read my posts on your page, where I attempted to explain some of Wikipedia's principles. Seriously, why haven't you? You've seen my posts, since you "thanked" me for them. And I guess you haven't seen or understood the article history — here it is — since you talk at random about what I 'say in my edits'. I haven't made any edits to Barry Mehler apart from once reverting your first addition, for reasons I have already explained. In view of these misunderstandings, which have led you to come here to recklessly insult me, I don't see much point in trying to explain all over again. Please re-read my posts on your page, click on the links in them, and don't attack anybody else, or you will be blocked from the entire site. Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC). One more time: I just wanted to offer unbiased information to what happened with this man. EVERYWHERE they're only talking about "how rude," but there is more than that. That's all I wanted. You can see that I just joined today, and that aside from those two edits, I haven't made any other. I tried to respond you where you left your comments, but it only gave me the option to thank you, so I did, bravo, you deleted my two edits and blocked me from the article just because I 1. Erased your Fow News source and 2. Included some missing information, not interpretation, not opinions, facts that he stated and that you for some reason are very keen on not include. Fine, I don't think it's fair, but there's nothing else I can do, you already threatened to block me forever of the site. LOL, and to think that I kept donating to Wikipedia cause I thought it was a free place. This world is doomed because of people like you. No dialogue, no nothing, you may think that you're quite the smart, but today you probed to be a brute. IfonlyIwasBradbury (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker) – Comment: that "donation" argument never, never, never works. Literally. It is not worth saying. If anything, it could have a slight negative effect in that it perhaps makes other editors less sympathetic. I really, honestly, would advise you to never say that again. Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you, DBaK. Amazing how many aggressive newbies turn out to be disillusioned donators, isn't it? As you say, it makes a terrible impression. (Besides, I'm rather personally offended by having Fox News called my source.) Bishonen | tålk 11:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC). Absolutely. So many people are offended when their edits are reverted ... surely the Foundation must be down to its last few pennies by now? And yes, your source ... dodgy!!! Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC) If it makes you feel any better, the comment was actually Fow News. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Well I am only the TPS here but yes it makes me feel much, much, better, thank you. For a moment I was all angry and suspicious of Bish but then I read those acronyms and now I am overcome with acceptance and admiration and am about to write a huge cheque for this year's fundraider. (Sorry, sorry, typo.} With best wishes to all, I remain, your humble servant, DBaK (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Okay, you both got me, congratulations. The point is that Mehler did give context and justified the language use. IfonlyIwasBradbury (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Romani people

Hello @Bishonen, as you know i Cant wrote on the Romani people page, yet there is something written who doesnt have to do with the source, as you can see under genetic evidence, turkish and tatarian gen etc...the source there doesnt mentionend anything about that

Can you please have a look it?

Thanky

--Nalanidil (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Nalanidil. The section "Genetic evidence" is over my head, sorry; I know very little about genetics. Even if I did understand it, I'm afraid your complaint is too general: the section is both quite long and highly specialized and has lots of sources. Please explain more specifically which bit of text (quote it) and which source (name it) you mean. If you add these specifics below, perhaps some of my esteemed talkpage watchers will be able to help. Bishonen | tålk 16:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC).

Hi, I mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people#Turkish_and_Tatar_Y-DNA_genes_of_the_Muslim_Roma699

the reference says nothing about turkish or tatar Y-DNA, or even muslim woman got children from turks, tatars etc, the source says only about Genetic influence of the Ottoman occupiers on the Balkan-Roma population. That's why I wanted to fix it but I can't. You blocked me from editing the Article.

Nalanidil (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Nalanidil, that helps a lot. It's a strange very short section, where the header is actually more detailed than the text! The text doesn't say anything about DNA or even about genes. It looks to me like it's the header that wants changing, say from "Turkish and Tatar Y-DNA genes of the Muslim Roma" to something like "Turkish and Tatar influence on the Balkan Roma". But, anyway, this should be discussed on the article talkpage rather than here with me, an ignorant admin. Please start a discussion there, and ask that somebody change it. You are only blocked from the article, not from the talkpage.

I did block you from the article, and was sorry to do it, but you know why I felt it necessary. If you're now prepared to abide by our sourcing policies, I suggest you appeal the block, in the way I told you about here. As I told you at the time, I'll unblock you myself if you undertake, in a convincing way, to add only material supported by reliable sources. Bishonen | tålk 17:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC).

No it's ok, I don't want to write anymore on this page I don't want to start a discussion either, because that only degenerates into long discussions, etc. Maybe someone can change it, delete the headline and just insert the sentence "Genetic influence of the Ottoman occupiers on the Balkan-Roma population" in front of the source.

Nalanidil (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Block avoidance/sock puppetry?

Hi Bishonen. First, I wanted to thank you for the quick response on this one. Many of my requests on ANI are ignored or it handled with great latency, meaning much more damage to correct later. My issue here is that this IP created an account Romberd to avoid the block and continues with the same behavior. This is the first time I had an IP serving as the sock puppeteer so I'm not WP:SOCK applies, but they are certainly avoiding the block in this way. --Muhandes (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Muhandes. Yes, I'm always sorry to see well-grounded reports being ignored at ANI. The Romberd account was actually created a week before I blocked the IP. But guess what — it never edited until the day after the IP was blocked. Anyway, the wording of the edit summaries is enough to show it's the same person. Pity they chose that road, instead of replying to 331dot's questions. I don't think we'll bother with an SPI in such a case, as checkusers won't connect an account and an IP anyway, for privacy reasons. I've blocked Romberd per WP:DUCK and written a note at User talk:190.5.46.74. Bishonen | tålk 18:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. I'm afraid none of this was for any good. I'd attribute it to WP:CIR, but as you can clearly see from their talk page, after being unblocked they simply reintroduced all the same edits like nothing happened. -Muhandes (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure, Muhandes. The big deal that I blocked them for was failure to communicate, and now they are communicating. I agree there's a CIR problem, and a problem with their command of English, and I understand your frustration, but I hesitate to block just yet. Pinging 331dot. Bishonen | tålk 15:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC).

I agree, they started communicating after I reverted most of their edits and left them another firm warning (which happened after I left you that message). I don't mind waiting until they repeat the offense (if they do, I hope they don't), but I think the CIR issue will be their downfall. Even the "good" edits they do need to be completely redone. --Muhandes (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Now blocked. Bishonen | tålk 21:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC).

Thanks. So help me God I tried. --Muhandes (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Closing an unanimous discussion

Can you (or any of your admin t/p watchers) be willing enough to close this close-challenge at AN? I requested a closure at AN itself but failed to interest anyone. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, TrangaBellam, I looked, but it's a bit too much for me. Bishonen | tålk 11:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC).

Thoughts

I came across this and of course you are spot on, speaking freely, & asides anything else, please, in your opinion, how effective is COIN of recent in negating and dealing with possible COI & UPE? I’ve found that if it isn’t an air-proof evidence nothing much is achieved there, but please what are your thoughts on COIN? Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Celestina007. I'm not sure I ought to opine about COIN in general, since I only use it in a lazy way — reading sections that appeal to me as interesting, which means I don't read most of it. But for what my impression is worth: it sometimes looks like admins are pretty cautious at COIN. It's in the nature of undisclosed paid editing that you can rarely strictly prove it, and so there's a tendency for admins to merely give an opinion, but not act. Not true of all admins! But I quite often find myself to be the one to block, which I do when circumstances (i.e. not strictly evidence) convince me that we're dealing with a UPE. So, in my personal opinion, we could do with being less cautious at COIN. OTOH, I suppose it's also questionable how much a block achieves, when it's so easy to create a sock or socks and continue as before. :-( Were you thinking of a particular case? Bishonen | tålk 11:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC).

Nah not really Bishonen, no particular incident, but I was thinking of it as a general gradual retrogression of the efficiency of relevant boards dealing with UPE, I’m aware you aren’t one to be afraid of making tough calls(blocks), it’s a handful of you brave lot, MER-C, Zzuuzz, Yamla, Blablubbs and a few others who I’m not remembering at the moment. In any case, thank you for giving me your insight on this. I’m appreciative of it. Celestina007 (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

COIN is playing a central role at an ArbCom case that is going on right now. And I fear it will end very badly, ArbCom losing us even more respected and liked editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, that case. Yes, it may well end badly. Mind you, there's so much to read that I've only been able to inform myself in a superficial way. Bishonen | tålk 21:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC).

Disruptive IP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amy_Schneider#Error_in_gender

Valjean (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ignore, I think, as long as it stops there. Possibly Acroterion, who has experience with them, might be interested. While it's supposed to be a dynamic IP, their manner seems pretty recognizable from last summer. Anyway, I think you did right to remove the last couple of posts. Bishonen | tålk 22:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC).

OK. Let's see if they react to your ping and do something. -- Valjean (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm with Bishonen. If they stop, we can ignore. If they keep trolling, a block is in order. However, I suspect a lengthy block is in their future, as they keep doing thigns like that.Acroterion (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

page protection

Hi, I noticed you edit at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase, theres a bit of a backlog to yesterday morning (including my request), might you know if there will be more reviews of the current requests today?...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ozzie10aaaa. I'm afraid I'm not up for RFPP work today, but I've put an alert at WP:AN, like this. You can do it yourself another time! It usually helps quite quickly. Bishonen | tålk 16:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC).

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Can I see what was said?

Hello, I received a notification that I was tagged in this user page but the edit seems to have been removed by yourself from public viewing. Can I please see what was said about me? I just want to know why I was tagged by this user. I've never talked to them in any memorable capacity. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, NarSakSasLee. The user had been indefinitely blocked, and they flamed out and posted some obscenities. (Yawn. Nothing original.) They pinged several people, that they had had disagreements with, so I was in fact just wondering if any of those people would ask! Believe me, it was very generic and uninteresting. I don't blame you for being curious, though. I'm definitely not going to post any of it in public, but, if you like, I'll e-mail it to you. Just let me know if you want that. Would any of my dear talkpage stalkers perhaps like to be cc'd with this stuff? (Jk, that's not gonna happen. You lot will have to make up your own.) Bishonen | tålk 15:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC).

*Logs out with Bishonen's permission / proceeds to MEGATROLL WT:JIMBO*  ;) SN54129 15:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the most hilarious thing I've read in a while. I'm floored lol. I honestly have no idea who he was. Yeah I would like to see what he said through email though if that's okay. Not sure if my email function still works on the Wiki (I've been here for about 14 years now), but please let me know. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've sent it, enjoy! If it doesn't reach you, you may want to think about updating your wikimail function. Bishonen | tålk 16:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC).

His first edit

What is done with this edit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Count_Of_The_Baskervilles/vector.css&oldid=1006533964 Knight Skywalker (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Knight Skywalker. That is code which makes the user see Wikipedia in a particular way, for instance with special colors. I'm not proficient with such code, so I can't be more specific. It's not harmful, and has nothing to do with the reason the user was blocked. Bishonen | tålk 20:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC).

Okay, but if the first edit is like that, mean he was editing before also? Knight Skywalker (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he was editing before with another account, and had changed his name. That's not a problem. He may indeed also have been a sock in the bad sense all along, but I don't see how even that would be a problem, as he's now indefinitely blocked and is highly unlikely to ever be unblocked. If you were interested in trying to identify a sockmaster, Knight Skywalker, it's unfortunately too late for that. CheckUser logs only go back a limited number of months. Bishonen | tålk 08:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC).

Arbitration

Thx for the edit though I didn't notice that the space was only meant for uninvolved admins (header sez "editors"). In any case, I guess I'm involved so thanks for parking it wherever. Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Parked now. Don't worry, it happens all the time. Bishonen | tålk 12:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC).

Which one of you and Bishzilla is the admin these days? Jehochman ^Talk 12:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

[Reluctantly.] Letting little Shonen use the tools just now. For the moment. bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 12:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC).

Oh really? Bishzilla wielded the tools briefly some 12 or 13 years ago, Jonathan. And wielded them heroically, I must admit — she blocked FT2, a sitting arb, and was taken to arbitration for it, haha! Where she was admonished, hoho! But ever since, it's been all me. Bishonen | tålk 12:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC).

Recently I learned how to make userboxes. Here's one now. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

BAD ZILLAThis user strongly admonished by Arbitration Committee

That's great! I wonder if I can personalize it for Bishzilla, by adding a link to the admonishment itself? Maybe better not, though, because I'd love to see it widely used. Have you seen my own sort-of userbox, with "This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia 3 times"? Also a fine thing. PS, ha, I see Floquenbeam has already personalized Bishzilla's box! Naughty! 👏 Bishonen | tålk 15:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC).

Yes, fully personizable with wikicode. Also, we have web colors if you want to beautify. Jehochman ^Talk 15:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Dammit. I'm so tempted. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah... that brown and black... now see it in Bishzilla's favorite colors! [Proudly:] Hurts your eyes, don't it? Bishonen | tålk 20:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC).

Ha, ha! 'Zilla was strongly admonished, that scoundrel. Jehochman ^Talk 20:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Feisty little scoundrel safely pocketed by concerned Zilla. For own safety! [Checks on the little scoundrel in the pocket. Yep, still there.] bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 20:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC).

Mmmf! Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, a little lint never hurt anybody. Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC).

There's WP:LINT around here? Uh-oh! Now the bots are gonna come around and really admonish someone. We can't be having disorderly things that nobody can even see or care about! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes

AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh

28bytes

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocking people with different (and possibly scientifically correct) opinions

Defending marxist users will not solve the fundamental problems of society. There are thousands of people reading Dutton's page and asking themselves why only the marxist point of view is represented and defended by this website with clever linguistic and textual manipulations / tricks. I will wait the two weeks, and then change the page again. Truth will prevail. --SamZane (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

As noted over at User talk:SamZane, I extended the block indefinitely as a result of that comment, though only to that single article. --Yamla (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Yamla. I've commented there. Bishonen | tålk 22:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC).

yeah yeah whatever... cowards. --SamZane (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Baidya

Hi Bishonen, hope you're doing fine; in fact, it's been quite some time in between. Can you please look at the recent edit warring on Baidya, and particularly user Nobita456, who seemed like a sock of previously blocked caste warrior(s). Please refer to the discussion [here]. Though Nobita456 could possibly be a sock (as per CU), they couldn't confirm; there's a lot of behavioral similarities which were pointed out. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll read up on it, Ekdalian. Watch this space. Bishonen | tålk 09:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC).

• Hey Bishonen Nobita here.Ekdalin and Trangabellam both removed my sourced content see here 1 2.I added them under WP:NPOV along with Rc Majumder and Sen's modern source, the statements of them are so important and impactful for this article. But they removed that and started complaining against me here. They even complained against me earlier for socking but couldn't prove anything see .I even started talk page discussion before making these edits but our views didn't match.so I added them under WP:NPOV which is not negotiable.Nobita456 (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I also pointed out some faults in the edit of Trangabellam here. Trangabellam even cited a direct census(which is WP:OR and has no values in caste-related articles) edited some controversial lines but after my complaint, he removed that see. Nobita456 (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

And Coming to Ekdalian he himself said you cant remove sourced content under WP:NPOV in his very recent edit see his edit summary but in baidya case he himself removed it, which is really funny and ultimate level of hypocrisy. Nobita456 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, Nobita456, I will make up my own mind, and I'm sure RoySmith will as well. Bishonen | tålk 13:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen, would really appreciate your honest judgement and Roysmith's also. Nobita456 (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita456, I've now had 8 alerts in less than an hour from your editing of this page, and it's pretty distracting. Please consider planning and proofreading your posts all together instead of being so incremental. Bishonen | tålk 13:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC).

sorry about that.there was some typing errors and spelling mistake.I will definitely take care of that afterwards,thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, Nobita456. I have studied the issues, and consulted with some more knowledgeable admins, and in my opinion your interest in the Baidya article is almost excessive. You're edit warring, and also coming close to bludgeoning on the talkpage. I hope you will cool your jets a little at that article. And please don't make accusations such as "hypocrisy", but assume good faith. Comment on content, not on the contributor, as our No personal attacks policy says. Bishonen | tålk 20:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC).

• Thanks Bishonen for your studies on this case. There were many errors in this baidya page that I already pointed out and fixed. but there are still many in which I am working, that's why I am so committed to this article.I mean why do you cite a direct census to the article and edit a line where their brahmin clam goes to the slender ground which is very sensitive, then it is very hard to assume good faith edits. now coming to my next point, please tell me on which ground they revert my well-sourced line see 1 2.please check the sources and judged your self first one is from Rc majumder which also doesn't fall under WP:RAJ and the second source is by Ranjit Sen who is a modern Historian. so If they revert my edits which give different views then it becomes a clear violation of WP:NPOV .please tell them not to revert my edits. I initiated a talk discussion but they refused my edits. that's why I need an administrator who can judge it, like you. Thanks Nobita456 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• I will not judge content questions, and RoySmith has already told you the same. That's not what admins do. You need to work to get consensus for your edits on the talkpage (without bludgeoning the discussion) before you reinstate them, as your opponents have already repeatedly explained to you. They are all experienced editors; that doesn't mean they're right and you're wrong on the content question, but it does mean they know more about Wikipedia's rules and practices. Please listen to them. Bishonen | tålk 22:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC).

what thats mean? if they say I cant cite a WP:RS I have to do it? WP:NPOV is not negotiable and I don't need editors consensus,if they revert my sourced line and saying they dont like it I have to accept it? WP:RAA is there for a reason as per my knowledge.and there reliability is quesnable when they cite a direct census which is a WP:OR. Nobita456 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nobita456: You absolutely need to reach consensus before making contentious edits; please read our policy on the subject. In this particular case, it means you need to discuss the sources on the talk page (without edit-warring at the same time); and if a consensus fails to form, you can open a request for comment, start a discussion about your source at the reliable sources noticeboard, or request dispute resolution. What you should not do is repeat the same arguments to the same people a lot of times; that's what bludgeoning a discussion means, and it's disruptive. You also need to slow down a little when you make talk page posts; you're obviously typing in a great hurry, which means you make typos, which means your posts are hard to read and need to be corrected a number of times. All of this is very aggravating to anyone trying to have a discussion with you. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks that was really helpful. but also WP:NPOV allow me to edit without other editors consensus,what is your view on that.please can you review my sources?as I found my felow editor judgement doubtful and one of them cited a direct census which is not a WP:RS for caste articles under WP:OR,in my opinion a neutral and experienced admin can judge it fairly. Nobita456 (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No, NPOV does not allow you to edit without consensus. The policy page says that local consensus of editors cannot override the NPOV policy. You as an individual editor still need to obtain consensus for your edits, and if you feel that editorial consensus is violating NPOV, you need to invite outside input, through one of the methods I mentioned above. The policy is absolutely not a license to edit-war when you feel you are in the right. I will not look at your sources; I don't have the time. Please engage with the editors who are already on that talk page, or take your source to WP:RSN. At this point, at least four administrators have given you this advice, so you really need to listen, or you risk getting blocked for disruption. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thaks that's what I wanted to ask.the exact process.you and other admins really helped me on that.Thanks again.Nobita456 (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Bishonen and Vanamonde! Ekdalian (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen, sorry to bother you; honestly speaking, Nobita456 is still showing 'excessive' interest on Baidya & related articles (where there's slightest scope of POV pushing), also showing similar intent as the socks who have been blocked. On a lighter note, there's a positive side of such volumes of erroneous edits or typos; they have reached extended confirmed user rights. I have warned them at my level; would request you to check their contributions. It is really disruptive at times, and constant monitoring/unnecessary debate is required in order to stop such levels of interest & POV pushing! Not sure if they are a sock; but meatpuppetry cannot be ruled out. I am sure you will do your best, in case possible. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I am showing interest in all caste related articles of bengal as I have knowledge of that.I am involving with other editors at those articles talk page.and please stop doing complain against me every day to Bishonen.and I am urging you not to revert high quality academic recent sources like you did in Vaidya article.Bishonen please take a look at that article also.Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Would request Bishonen, RegentsPark, RoySmith, to take a call please regarding Nobita456. It is quite evident from their edits that they belong to the sock farm of User:Bengaliwikipro; all such socks have been blocked for obvious reasons, some as suspected ones as well. Look at their recent edits on the articles on Vaidya & Brahmin‎; adding POV content (without context) after being repeatedly told to discuss on talk page by senior editors like LukeEmily. Even, LukeEmily has now mentioned on their talk page about the same. Even if CU can't confirm, as per this, Nobita456 still deserves a block for disruptive editing, constant POV pushing, violating the warnings & advice by senior admins (above) and adding contentious content without achieving talk page consensus, and now edit warring. The user (whether a sock or not) is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but to promote/glorify Baidya & POV pushing. Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I described it here.admins please see . all my edits are well-sourced and high-quality academic. I am accusing Ekdalian of edit warring by reverting my sourced content in Vaidya and Brahmin pages for a reasonable reason. Nobita456 (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, Ekdalian and Nobita456, but I think I'm going to have to bow out here. Caste isn't really my subject. I'm capable of adminning caste articles as long as the problems are simple, but I have looked at the ongoing source discussions on these pages, and they're way above my paygrade. I suggest you appeal for example to RegentsPark or Vanamonde93 about these latest developments. (Though I know they're very busy. We don't have enough Indian admins!) Bishonen | tålk 11:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC).

• It's not about content; its more about intent; Bishonen, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, RoySmith, please look into the pattern; also these were the sources cited by User:Bengaliwikipro & their socks. In spite of detailed explanation above by Vanamonde, look at the edit warring on Brahmin, I guess Nobita is on the verge of violating the three-revert rule as well, that too reverting the edits of senior editors on caste articles; please check 1 talking about primary source Rigveda, 2 and 3. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Ekdalian is misguiding you guys. previous users cited directly Rigveda, which I myself removed under WP:OR.see. I added an academic recent source not a primary source see. even another editor Satnam added some other sources which make this claim even stronger and clear. despite three reliable sources first Ekdalin and now Tanagabellam reverted that and started edit war without giving any satisfactory reason. I initiated a talk discussion but they did not give any effort there see. under WP:REMOVAL Unexplained removal of content occurs when the reason is not obvious; the edit is then open to being promptly reverted. Ekdalin was not able to give any satisfactory reason here also. please warn them not to revert any well-sourced content which is relevant to that article. Nobita456 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen & Vanamonde93, I am really tired of explaining them and reverting Nobita456's edits. Here's another one; please look at the edit as well as the edit summary here. Just after the block has lapsed, this is how they are tampering with sourced content in order to push their 'Baidya' agenda; clearly not here to build an encyclopedia! You may simply click on the source and the relevant page will open! I believe, 31 hours of block will fail to stop a caste warrior, sorry to say! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Please see this time Ekdalian break that rule,luke didn't give his opinion and in middle of that discussion ekdalian started to edit that article,which I reverted.LukeEmiky even thanked me for my edits at talk page.Bishonen you told us to wait for the consensus but this time Ekdalian didn't wait for luke.please see Bengali Kayastha article talk discussion.I didn't do any edit war, Ekdalian break that rule.Nobita456 (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  At this point your desire to complain about each other seems to outweigh your desire to discuss content, which is a highly misplaced sense of priorities. Looking through the history, I see Nobita making a series of edits [1], Ekdalian reverting and adding some content [2], and both of you reverting each other after that, while talk page discussion was ongoing. As such, both of you added content that does not have obvious consensus, and reverted at least once to keep it in the article; which isn't ideal. If you were reverting to the last version that had consensus, this version is likely what should have been reverted to, and the edit-warring that occurred wasn't ideal.

  That said; Nobita, your editing still shows the problems I've discussed with you before. The one instance where you provide a quote on the talk page, here, the quote does not support the content you are using it for. More generally, when material is contentious, it isn't enough to have a single source supporting what you want to see in the article; we need to present the consensus of reliable sources, and where such consensus doesn't exist, all views in reliable sources, duly weighted. Please read WP:DUE before making any further edits; I am very close to recommending a topic-ban for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong,but why Ekdalian edited in a middle of a discussion? I didn't do any edits before ekdalian started editing without hearing anything from LukeEmily (who edited that line). I would be happy if Luke and Ekdalian said that to me what you said me here.I am trying to get consensus from other senior editors including Ekdalian before making any edits as advised by you and bishonen. I am here to work together with other,not here to complain against other editors everyday. Let's dont make this more toxic. Ekdalian I don't have any hard felling against you from now,lets work together.Thanks Nobita456 (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Your desire to work with Ekdalian is commendable, but please address your use of sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for being an awesome admin!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for walking the extra mile and devoting your time for the issue(s) related to Baidya. Ekdalian (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, Ekdalian. Bishonen | tålk 16:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC).

Arbitration 2

Reading the thread above about Bishzilla's admonishment has led me to a truly radical re-evaluation of the history of Arbcom. Back in 2009 when Bishzilla was subjected to this admonishment, I was a fairly new editor. (I'd actually been around for a few years, but I was only just beginning to be significantly involved.) I knew pretty close to nothing about the Arbitration Committee, but I vaguely thought they were doing a good job. I continued in that blissful view until just a few years ago, when I saw a few examples of Bloody Stupid Arbcom decisions. In the unlikely event that you have nothing more entertaining to do over the next few hours than search through my editing history, you will be able to find places where I have made scathing remarks about recent arbitrators, and contrasted them with the good old days when we had decent, sensible, constructive arbitrators. ​Aah, the folly of youth! Aah, how the sun always shone more brightly in years gone by! 🌞 What an absolute load of idiocy the Arbcom handed out in the Bishzilla case. Maybe after all they've always been a bunch of fools. Sigh...

In the interest of fairness, I should like to say that there are some excellent arbitrators, but they just get swamped by the ones who are, well, less than excellent. JBW (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

No. I don't. Read or write anything about arbcom. From time to time, I make an exception: When I was admonished, I just said I stand here and sing. That is a line from a motet by Bach, which just made it to TFA, DYK? (It's in movement 5, Trotz dem alten Drachen - defiance of the old dragon, and described by an authority: "Gardiner noted that the firm stance against opposition could depict Martin Luther's attitude and also the composer's own stance".) I smiled. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

JBW, I do believe the 2009 ArbCom were amused by the idea of admonishing Bishzilla (rather than, say, Bishonen). Newyorkbrad, always a good friend of the 'Zilla, is my suspect for floating the idea of doing it that way. Bishonen | tålk 16:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC).

Oh, so maybe I was right first time, and they were reasonably ok back in those days after all, and it was just my inability to appreciate a joke. Thanks for setting me right on that, Bish. Now I shall be able to sleep peacefully tonight. (Well, maybe.) JBW (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't be too hard on the ArbCom. "The stupidity of a committee is equal to the sum of the stupidities of its members." When there are 14 or 15 members, at least one of them is probably rather stupid. While sometimes the stupids cancels each other, leaving an ok result, they sometimes joint together, producing a very stupid result. Jehochman ^Talk 16:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Speaking from experience it's not always wise to point out their shortcomings. Been blocked for that a time or two. Unbroken Chain (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Every time I post negative comments about ArbCom I wonder whether I'm risking desysopping, indefinite site banning, being beaten up one night when I'm walking down a dark street, and goodness knows what else. Well, when the day comes when someone files a request for an ArbCom case against me, we'll find out, I suppose. JBW (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The best way is to buy protection from The Cabal. (Nice little Workshop Page you have there. Wouldn't want something to happen to it, would you?) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Mm. I have noticed the odd "We know where you live" warning, JBW.[3] Bishonen | tålk 22:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC).

Wow! I had completely forgotten about that. I expressed myself even more aggressively against the ArbCom than I remembered I had ever done. And I've got away with it for almost a year... But maybe the committee is waiting until the anniversary of my post before jumping me... JBW (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You were amazing. 🙌 Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC).

What a pity I didn't make that post until the 28th of March, instead of jumping in on the 15th. That would be a good anniversary to have to be wary of. JBW (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup in aisle 1

The main page portal links were the subject of discussion, and the participants decided to remove them. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure_review: Portal links on the Main Page's top banner. Have you ever wanted to screw up the layout of the home page? Now's your chance! If you or your talk page stalkers aren't interested, I could ask Doug Weller, but you know what happens when he tries to use wikicode.[4] Jehochman ^Talk 21:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Says the butterfingers who let that two-factor authentication fiasco lock him out of his account. Makes me smile every time I think of it. Anyway... bad things happen when I use wikicode too. I used to look much more competent with these things... purely because RexxS used to do it all for me. 😟 Your close looks good, Jonathan, but I have not been inspired to read the whole thing. Bishonen | tålk 22:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC).

Yeo, I’m useless with it. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Heh!

not my area of expertise. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

That's an extremely alarming username + userpage, young Fritter. I'll block just for that. I don't think I'd better revert the article edit, though, since it's not my area of expertise either. Would one or more of my stalkers perhaps like to take a look at Dhar Mann? Bishonen | tålk 08:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC).

Never mind, it's been reverted as not supported by the cited sources. Bishonen | tålk 09:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC).

Thanks, not familiar with the subject, but thought that was the case. I was very alarmed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's almost worse than those "Truth" usernames that we block on sight. (No, we don't, but we should.) BTW, would you rather I called you "young Burger", Fritter? Clearly anything you might could put in a sammich can be a burger now.[5] Bishonen | tålk 11:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC).

Fritter is fine. What do you think of "Lichenous Rock?" Has a nice ring, doesn't it? And I can take better pictures of lichenous rocks than okra. Though now I self identify as a dog. I think "dog" should be my preferred pronoun? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't you dog start! [6] Bishonen | tålk 12:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC).

Well, he could be an orca. It's long been the case that anything can be called a burger. I have significant doubt that even the most traditional fast-food burgers (just talking about the mass-produced ones) have meat from any identifiable animal life-form. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey! Since you blocked... looks like they're back, with a personal attack and an identical userpage. Bridget (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The SPI clerk blocked it as obvious, I see, as indeed it is. Thank you, Bridget. They must think we're really stupid, to be using the same userpage. Bishonen | tålk 06:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC).

Ezhava page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ezhava&oldid=1065152666 This is the original version of the page befor Ip vandalising

and you reverted to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ezhava&oldid=1069946166.Please protect the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.133.204 (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita here

Hello I didn't do anything wrong, you have some misunderstanding.I didn't do any edit war.I explained my reasons at my talk page.please unblock me.Iuke emily put that tag , he was not satisfied with the nutrality.but Ekdalian removed that tag before luke emily's opinion.I told him to wait for luke.but after when luke emily give his green light,I had no objection with that tag.please unblock me.and yes I will edit more articles from tomorrow,but for my good faith edits don't block me from Baidya article. Nobita456 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I did have some misunderstanding. Replied on your talk. Bishonen | tålk 21:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC).

Advice wanted

Hi, I'm looking for advice on what to do about this and the user who published it (if anything). Sciencefish (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That's frank, Sciencefish! OTOH, it's really clueless. Whose account do they want to buy? Just anybody's? Hans Isaac isn't even a userpage, it's an article. Clearly deserving of a NOTHERE block, in any case, and I've obliged. As for anything else... maybe you'd care to put it on WP:AN, to ask if anybody has had a more personal offer? Not sure that's worth doing, but perhaps just think about it. I wonder how much a well-established admin account such as mine would fetch in the open market.. hmmm. Or the Bishzilla account, unique and also well-established? Possibilities opening up! Bishonen | tålk 11:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC).

Does the Bishzilla account come with lessons? Support? An extra large beer stein to help get in the proper frame of mind? Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Certainly not; it comes with responsibilities. You'd have to take good care of Bishzilla's sock, and of his socks. And also handle her office of superclerk to arbcom. Bishzilla does not care for her legacy to be trashed, young Jonathan! Bishonen | tålk 16:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC).

Sock of a Block

Hey Bish, hope all is well. I just leaving this as any fyi Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anti-propaganda-man. Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Thank you, Unbroken Chain. See also Bridget above. Bishonen | tålk 06:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC).

Republican party article (RNC=party)

Hello there. I believe one of the editors and I are getting into a dispute over policy/guidelines here [7]. I do not wish to be uncivil so I'm taking a step back from debating them. I'm also considering an RfC but before I make any decisions, I wanted to humbly ask if you could offer some advice on the matter. Thanks. DN (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, DN. American politics on Wikipedia is depressing, with these endless quarrels about every last detail. I agree it's probably time for an RfC about the inclusion or not of the sentence in question. Advice... well, just the obvious: present it neutrally and provide alternatives for people to discuss. If you list at least the alternatives "the party censured" and "the Republican National Committee censured", other people can then offer other wordings. But I think you know all that. An RfC means it's likely to be debated for a month... groan... but it's probably for the best. If you do open an RfC, I'll just leave my protection to lapse in a few days, on the assumption that nobody will try to add anything while an RfC is ongoing. Hopefully I'll remember to restore the semi..! Bishonen | tålk 07:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC).

I propose, “As of 2022, the RNC’s belfry was inhabited by numerous bats.” Jehochman ^Talk 08:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian and his problems

This guy Ekdalin seems to have a problem with every Vaidya-related article. He continues saying to me that I am a POV pusher.I created a separate article Vaidya (surname) for Vaidya caste and surname related article and keep this vaidya article only for Sanskrit term. how this is a POV? this was made to make it easy to understand for the readers. and we have many separate articles like this before see Pujari. I also created a talk page section but Ekdalin never showed up.LukeEmily told me he doesn't have much information in caste-related articles see.I wanted to describe and accumulate information about the Vaidya profession but Ekdalin removed my sourced content but couldn't provide any satisfactory edit summary see . even lukeEmily added this later saying it was sourced see . please judge yourself in reality who is pushing POV, and who is violating Wikipedia terms. Nobita456 (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Great Barrington Declaration

Could you please do something about 207.47.175.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? The long and meandering posts without any specific proposals yet full of accusations of bias and bad faith, misunderstandings of PAGs, disregard of reliable sources in favor of third-rate garbage like The Epoch Times and baseless BLP violations are becoming quite tiring. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Kleinpecan, not yet. My suggestion would be that people just stop engaging with them. That said, I had some hesitation. This post is old; if it had been recent, I would have felt justified in blocking the IP from Talk:Great Barrington Declaration. Also, while Dennis Brown shut down the AE report on 8 Feb, he also warned the IP. And, significantly, a few days after that, the IP dismissed The Lancet (sic, The Lancet) as a reliable source, thereby, if not before, going full woo.[8] (And also promoted The Epoch Times, as you say.) And finally, I note the IP according to their own statement has an account[9] but prefers not to use it on that talkpage: "I will not sign in to establish that and reveal my identity because of the severe left bias herein". All of them very dubious things. Feel free to come back if the situation worsens. Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC).

Thanks. Kleinpecan (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Email

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

- Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I've replied. Bishonen | tålk 12:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC).

Thank you so much! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Given warning

The second sentence did not have any sources and the Guardian article didn't mentioned it. A09090091 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Darwinbish steals the banana split. No sharing! darwin bish 15:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC).

Even if you were right, A09090091, that's hardly a good reason to use rollback to revert it. But I don't think you are right. Did you see for example this bit: ""The state hides the poor very well," said Rosie Bsheer, a Saudi scholar who has written extensively on development and poverty."? The only trouble with the source I can see is that it's old (2013), which ought to be acknowledged in the text. Maybe you'd like to copyedit the IP's contribution so as to add something about "As of 2013.."? Just a suggestion.

Oh, I just noticed you reverted them again, before you even posted here. That was a very bad idea. I'd self-revert if I were you, or you're liable to be warned (at least) for tendentious editing. Bishonen | tålk 15:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC).

(talk page watcher) The IP's edit stated that here is alot of poverty in Saudi Arabia. This is often not seen by people; while The Guardian article is headlined Saudi Arabia's riches conceal a growing problem of poverty and asserts, in its second paragraph citing a scholar, that The state hides the poor very well...The elite don't see the suffering of the poor. But you think the article doesn't claim what the IP said...? SN54129 15:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Fortuna. Yes, there's a tendentiousness about the user's edits and also about their argument here. Also, rather tiresomely, they're addressing me both here and on their own page. I feel split. Bishonen | tålk 15:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC).

Apologies, I didn't know you were around; ignore me, we said the same thing. Here's another split,but this one can be shared with 'zilla  :) . SN54129 15:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Mohammad bin Salman

Since you blocked me from editing that page for 1 month and no problem I will not edit it forever. You as a veteran user on Wikipedia should known that this website must be a natural not biased.. on Mohammad bin Salman page, there were many misleading information and false allegations that were denied by both Saudi Arabia and Jordan like ((poising king Abdullah II)) and talking about his controversies on the first page. There should be many reforms in his page otherwise it will look like a hatred page Aziz bm (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(I blocked you for two months, not one month.) Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. Editing for the purpose of whitewashing is not allowed, and removal of large swathes of sourced content is also not allowed. Is anybody paying you for your Saudi Arabia-related editing? By the way, accusing another user of "vandalism" for restoring the content you removed from Women's rights in Saudi Arabia was a bad idea. Vandalism is a serious allegation, and your report of the other editor at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism was rejected, because the other person's edits weren't vandalism. Please note that if you continue to make tendentious edits to other pages, as you did here, you're likely to end up blocked from the whole site.

But you can appeal the block from Mohammad bin Salman to another admin. If you follow the instructions I gave in my block notice, it will call an uninvolved admin to your page, and they will review the block.Bishonen | tålk 08:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC).

I promised you that I will never edit or delete anything on Mohammad bin Salman and now on other articles so no need to worry, my appeal should be accepted you know why ? Because when I added the picture of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S that user reverted it and called it “absurd move”,, I mean, seriously ? Is this site becoming an anti-Saudi agenda ? Also, what do you mean by paying from Saudi government to whitewashing people ? What do you mean by reliable sources that are mostly from Washington Post and Middle East Eye ? Are you assuming that any negative sources about him should be published but positive shouldn’t because it’s considered a whitewashing ? I have no words to describe… Aziz bm (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to insult you by asking if anybody's paying you: it was a question, not an accusation. (And I didn't mention any government. That was your assumption.) Washington Post is indeed considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, see WP:WAPO. Middle East Eye is more dubious; compare all the discussions found by this search.

As for your appeal being accepted, I don't see you making an appeal; have you? Your saying that you won't edit Saudi Arabia "forever" gave me the impression that you don't care about appealing my page block from it. If I misunderstood and these posts on my page are in fact meant to be an appeal to me, I decline that appeal. Your edits to the article were too disruptive, in my opinion. Please appeal to a different, uninvolved, admin on your own page, following the instructions in my block notice. I have told you this several times now. It's all I have to say at this time. I'm not interested in going round and round with you further. Bishonen | tålk 15:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC).

I didn’t mean to not care about your block, in fact, I’m worried that I got blocked and your decision is respected . What I mean is that if you believe that I’m trying washwhite or Disrupt any articles related to Saudi Arabia then I’m not going do that again, I didn’t meat to despise you and your personality, If you feel that I offended you or something like that then I apologize to you. Aziz bm (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, that's fine, Aziz bm. I didn't take it like that. We're good. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 17:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC).