That owl I had looked so incredibly wise and meditative and full of itself. I think I'll just go with the African Hooded Vulture, a k a Adminbird Waiting to Pounce, for a while.
This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia 3 times. And the last admin blocked by Jimbo. The LAST. Don't trifle with her.
Userbox barnstar
Awarded by DHeyward
10:19, 2 September 2015
Hamster-powered barnstar created for this user by User:Penyulap 24 June 2013
Saw this at the top of my watchlist. As I'd already warned for topic ban violation once before, I've blocked for 48 hours as an AE action. —SpacemanSpiff 07:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Oh, look, what a beautiful page notice picture today, thank you User:MONGO. I just this minute warned another topic banned user who had gone right ahead and violated their ban. The fact is, they hardly ever get it. I always tell them specifically to read WP:TBAN when I ban them, but apparently they never do. Maybe I should start quoting it at length? Bishonen | talk 10:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Arghh, I can't believe I wrote articles instead of pages in Peeta's ban notice. Changed now. It makes no difference wrt the violations you blocked for, Space. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Bish: I clicked edit just to see that MONGO picture! Cool Tetons... ages ago I visited the Yellowstone, stayed for a while in Jackson Hole with a family. They, pre-wikipedia NPOV pioneers, gave me two stories behind the name. Those majestic peaks were called Teton by lonely, French-Canadian men with imagination (Tétine, teats = téton) who were apparently trying to cross the vast midwest country to get somewhere, or it might just be the name of adventurous Lakota Indians in Lakota-speak, who knows. On quoting WP:TBAN, I doubt it will help the person behind the sanctioned account, but it sure will add more work for you. @Peeta Singh seems upset unfortunately, links IAR for @Doug Weller to read, added a note inviting you to block. All this after the kind words and suggestions by @RexxS, @SpacemanSpiff and others above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ms Sara, I saw the rather sad message from PS to Doug. :-( Please note again that "@" system you have doesn't ping people — not sure if you were trying to do that? You need to link their username, the way I just did with yours. Actually, when I wrote about the edit notice picture, it was a wonderful mountain lake — it switches every twelve hours, courtesy of RexxS. The Tetons are cool too, indeed. Bishonen | talk 14:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Sometimes I just use "@" to identify the addressee, not to ping. With a lot of participants, I find it easier to read a thread. But indeed, sometimes I just goof up. I don't think I need to ping you when I post on your talk page; but may be I am mistaken. Now am wondering about that 'wonderful mountain lake'!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh, I bet you are. Here it is. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@SpacemanSpiff: thanks for the block. I was in a content dispute for him so was loathe to do it myself. Doug Wellertalk 15:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great...some folks get views of mountains and I get to look at a Praying Mantis. MONGO need add more pretty pictures...mantis not pretty.--MONGO 05:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hurry up and look now, little MONGO, it's a storm! Not pretty, but magnifique. Better take a good look before it turns into a whiskered fish! Bishonen | talk 16:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Grrrr...I got a weird looking bird. MONGO slow.--MONGO 21:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Celia Homeford! I've blocked the range 172.58.216.0/23 now, which takes care of both of them. Please let me know if you should see any obviously related IPs that are still at large. If necessary, I could block a slightly larger range. Bishonen | talk 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
New Violations of Sanctions
Fly-by socks: Image of incendiary socks dropped from free flying balloons. Detail from: Civil Defence Training Pamphlet No 2: Objects Dropped From The Air (3rd Edition). Issued by the Ministry of Home Security. This training pamphlet described some of the objects which could be found on the ground after an air-raid, including certain items which, though not of enemy origin, may be mistaken for hostile weapons, and others that may drop from the air at any time.
Since it seems like you were one half of the decision on this AE [1]to give TTAAC an -ahem- 'last warning' about his disruptive behavior, I wanted to bring to your attention that there's been yet another jaw-dropping 1RR violation by this user no less than a mere few hours 'AFTER' the AE thread was closed with yet another "last warning" to that user: [2][3].
Forgive me for the irritation I may cause to the powers that be, but appeasing TTAAC like this over and over again and in the past has only served to empower him over the years (and this isn't the first time he has bullied and conned his way out of consequences for his behavior). It should be about conduct and competence, not a false equivalence about politics and a /false/ perception about how Trump supporters are unfairly treated on wikipedia. Their movement is largely an anti-intellectual one. So it's par for the course if they continually run into conflict with others in a decidedly *intellectual* community like wikipedia. The rest of us non-partisan historians shouldn't have to suffer because other overly-sensitive types feel like they these far-right conservative editors should be graded on a curve. It's not about liberal versus conservative. It about how many good editors who don't even go to speak up at AE because disruptive editors such as TTAAC have driven them off of articles that Arbcom recognized need special protection. Otherwise, why do we bother with the distinction at all?
I will never understand why Admins are so reluctant to enforce Arbcom discretionary sanctions and then even when a formal case is filed they second-guess whether the sanctions are really necessary, especially in a case as blatant as TTAAC. In fact, when TTAAC thought he was going to be topic banned he blamed it all on a liberally-biased conspiracy to rig the system against him, citing "a fix".[4] He only began to watch his behavior carefully at the end when and only when he was under the gallows. How you all missed that is mind-boggling. That he resumed his disruptive behavior (see above) the very moment the investigation was over shouldn't come as a surprise. Also ignored in the AE, in favor of appeasement, was the fact that TTAAC had been called out for a serious BLP violation when he falsely slandered the Christian American President of being the founder of the radical Islamic terrorist group ISIS.[5]. Maybe in America this is the norm where a black President's birthplace can be questioned without evidence and his religion questioned without reason. On the international community that is wikipedia, I hope the standard is higher. Never one for drama, I'm content with occasional editing of history pages, leaving the drama to the others, which is why my ego hasn't required the creation of an account until now. But if necessary to take a stand against this disruptiveness, then so be it, count me in officially.
Make no mistake, this was never about a willy-nilly mistake by a grumpy first-time editor. In that instant, I too might be so inclined to believe that only a slap on the wrist was deserved. Certainly "power tools" are required to fix this kind of slanderous damage to law-abiding public servants and others by wikipedia when it is misused this way by attacks dogs like TTAAC and Hidden Tempo.Lurking4thetimebeing (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of fly-by socks. Please log into your regular account if you expect me to address your concerns. Don't avoid scrutiny, it's not respectable. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
A kitten for you!
Edit conflict? with moi? It would be our first conflict ever...
[Darwinbish herds off the little critter to join her hitman training camp and eventually her lifeguard.] darwinbishBITE☠ 19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Appreciate, little Drmies, it'll be fine here. It's a mistake to think db eats them (they're more useful as capos) or even that Bishzilla will eat them (she's fond of pointing out that they're too small to be worth the trouble; possibly that's some kind of hint about giving her BIG food). Bishonen | talk 19:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Article needing a DS tag?
Hi, Bish! Take a look at the article 2016 United States election interference by Russia. It's being furiously battled over at the moment. Do you think it might slow down the battling if it were logged as a DS article? Just a suggestion; as you know I don't do admin stuff on political articles. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And with good reason, her being Trump's wife and all. Perhaps you could put a decorative picture of yourself on your userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh crap, Melania. I have to dig out another ever-loving template? Why is my life so full of them? [Slouches off miserably to look for something suitable.] And then I'm to log it somewhere, no doubt about it. This is what I get for telling you you're only supposed to do fun stuff on Wikipedia. Isn't it? Bishonen | talk 20:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Yep, that's what you get. When you give someone advice, there's always the danger that they will take it. 0;-D And Bbb23, believe me, if I were really as good looking in RL as Melania is, you better believe I would have a picture of myself on my userpage. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(wrinkles his nose) Not my brand (says Lucy), MelanieN, but chacun a son gout.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're such a gentleman. How about this: I put HER picture on my userpage, with a disclaimer. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, like User:Percy Bish Shelley who has a lovely portrait of the Romantic poet on his userpage: "I'm not this guy". That's the ticket. Beautifying one's page but without deception. I wonder if I should have a pretty bishounen on mine? Bishonen | talk 21:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
If I may ask a question, I see you logged the DS notice and the page says that these actions must be logged. However, I have seen users just place a DS notice on the talk page and that is it. I have seen actions against users based on those notices, even though it is not properly logged. Indeed, I found one on a page that was so far out there that I removed it. It seems to be that sometimes people place them there incorrectly. What is the correct procedure? I do think admins/editors need to be aware that if you place a template on a page it must be logged. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 21:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would sure be helpful if, when article are placed under strict Coffee™ restrictions, we also added extended confirmed editing restrictions so that the obvious socks, trolls, and agenda-driven SPAs would not have the upper hand in content disputes by their sheer numbers. So far, this has not been much of an issue at this article, but I would be surprised if it doesn't become one in the next few days. My poor head hurts just thinking about it. MrXasperation 21:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your head hurts, MrX? And now you want me to go find another template? I admit I do know exactly what you mean. Maybe tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, sorry about that. I did try to make it easy by linking to a template that can be copied to the link I also provided.- MrX 22:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to add, MrX, that Extended Confirmed Protection is not something we use lightly. It is supposed to be used rarely and only after standard Semi-Protection has failed. We certainly can't use it pre-emptively just in case there might be disruption. Obvious socks and trolls can and should be dealt with individually - and many are screened out anyhow by semi-protection. POV warriors are another problem, harder to deal with, but many of them would be eligible to edit under Extended Confirmed anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know MelanieN, I'm really just venting here, shortly before I burn out.- MrX 22:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. Don't give up, an article like that needs reasonable voices (I am assuming you are one), and the DS actually do provide a good tool for removing POV warriors and other disrupters. I looked at that page and thought "this really needs help" but haven't had the time or energy to jump in myself. At least not right now. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RexxS. I didn't notice, below, that you already had it in hand up here; also, I wanted to explain about admin discretion, because sometimes people (and, frankly, admins among them) seem to get the idea that an interminable AE discussion is supposed to happen before anything can be done in those areas. That's a mistake. Hey, I notice you didn't use any of those accursed anchors either! Bishonen | talk 22:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
You're welcome, chère. Those anchors are particular to the DS page, so it's not obvious to editors how they are to be used. In those sort of cases, I prefer to use standard section links when explaining to others, as it's one less novel item for them to take in. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. I guess it seems from the links that only an admin can place the DS notice, and it must be logged. It appears some admins have been shirking their duties then. :) 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 01:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see anything that restricts the tagging of Talk pages to admins; the links above appear to refer only to their applying protection, editing restrictions (1RR & the like), or edit-notices. In case your interpretation is correct, though, I hereby confess to having tagged Talk:Macedonians (Greeks) as falling under WP:ARBMAC and request that an administrator review same.—Odysseus1479 02:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Russia-US relations and WP:ARBAPDS
Hi @Bishonen: I see that you have notified everyone at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia that the article is subject to WP:ARBAPDS arbitration remedies. I'm not familiar with ARBAPDS, and I'm wondering if there's a central place where articles subject to it are listed? Also, I'm wondering if there's a place where the decision to place 2016 United States election interference by Russia under ARBAPDS has been discussed? I would love to see that list, and that discussion. Thanks, I appreciate it, am sure you're busy. -Darouet (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess the discussion occurred on your own talk page! -Darouet (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Darouet and Sir Joseph, post-1932 American politics is a topic under standard discretionary sanctions. Please click on the link and... sigh... I've no idea how to use those kinds of ≠}{\¶‰¢¥¢‰¶ anchors. Make a search for "page restrictions". The idea of discretionary sanctions is that admins, can, at their own single admin discretion, place sanctions such as topic bans and page restrictions in an area. DS are emphatically not supposed to add an extra layer of bureaucracy, but on the contrary to make it simpler to do something about battlefield topics, so there has been no discussion of the kind you'd like to see, Darouet — even what you call the "discussion" above, which wasn't really one, wasn't needed. It was just me responding to a request from an editor, MelanieN, above, naturally after first assessing the situation for myself. The correct procedure is for an admin to decide on page restrictions, place a note about them on article talk, and log them here. And that log is also the nearest thing to a list of pages under page restrictions, Darouet. As far as I've seen, page restrictions are logged in a separate subsection for some topics ("Editing of Biographies of Living Persons", "Gamergate"), but not all. For instance, for American policics, everything is just logged chronologically, restricted users and restricted pages all mixed together. Adminning is a work in progress, performed by volunteers, so you get inconsistencies. However, it's always reasonably easy to find a particular article in the log for a given year — you can just make a search for its name. I hope this is clear. Bishonen | talk 22:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: thank you. I wasn't trying to indicate displeasure or put you on the defensive: I've been unsettled by editing behavior on the page and so I think additional oversight is ideal. I just wanted to be sure I understood the mechanics and could contribute to any discussion, if there was one. -Darouet (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And, Darouet, just in case it wasn't clear from Bishonen's response: There does NOT have to be any discussion about placing an article under those restrictions. It is not a community decision. It does not require process or consensus. Any article relating to American politics since 1932 can be covered by the Discretionary Sanctions, at the sole discretion of any individual administrator. That process, authorized by the Arbitration Committee, exists for multiple subject areas that are likely to become battlegrounds, precisely so that action can be taken swiftly and without any bureaucracy. I could have done it myself, but I came here to ask Bishonen to consider it, because I am WP:INVOLVED at multiple articles relating to the the recent election so I do not take admin actions in those topics. (Bishonen may regard that as a convenient excuse to get me out of making any tough calls.... or to dump them on her!) --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: Thank you! Clarification always helpful. I should probably know these things by now. -Darouet (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do! But I also admit my own failure to edit those topics and help keep them clean day-to-day — an ungrateful job which you stubbornly perform, Melanie — is a convenient excuse for keeping myself "uninvolved" so as to be able to admin them occasionally. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
High-five, my friend! We each have a role - and a convenient excuse to avoid having to do the other's role! --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather have my job than yours, MelanieN. Sometimes it does feel like I'm unendingly explaining the abstruse wrinkles of Discretionary sanctions, and heck, of blocks, to inexperienced users. But that's OK, because a) I don't blame them, as discretionary sanctions are abstruse, and b) I'd much rather do that than to be unendingly answering stupid talkpage questions like you do. Especially that one, where the temptation to simply link to this would most likely get the better of me. Bishonen | talk 16:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, I don't find it hard to be nice to newbies. I can relate. I sometimes feel like a newbie myself. (What's an anchor? 0;-D) As for answering the same question over and over, I don't mind. I recall what my high school trig teacher used to say to his fourth period class, mocking himself: "I have explained this three times already today, why don't you understand?" --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Bishonen: this may be an unusual request, but one editor at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia has accused me of a DS violation, but also not reported me formally, and is asking me to check with an admin that they're correct. I'm a bit dubious because my edit is neither a revert nor an edit to a revert, but does modify content recently added by the same editor here. The implication seems to be that when they edit the contested topic that's fine, but when I do, it's a DS violation. I'd consider that obnoxious and an effort to scare other editors from working on the page. On the other hand if they're correct, they've been charitable not to report me, and I'll self-revert. It is my first edit on the SZ content in the article, and there's not an active edit war, so I assumed I should be fine. -Darouet (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page protection
Is it possible to have my talk page indefinitely under extended-user protection? Whoever is trolling me keeps coming back as soon as protection expires so it will save everyone a lot more time if this can be made possible. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see Barek took care of it, though only for a month. Now I suppose we may see very patient sleepers waiting for one month and then making 500 nonsense edits, like this character, who I indeffed for gaming (I'm not as soft as Dennis thinks). Bishonen | talk 16:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The only reason I asked for such an extreme measure is because even longer periods under that level of protection have been put in place but the person or persons who do this still come back. They are not saying anything particularly harsh, but it causes a lot of trouble for other editors who continuously revert him until an admin comes along. It is a cycle that has been going on for almost a year. Strangely, I know it is not CrazyAces so I have absolutely no idea why whoever it is feels inclined to keep this going on for so long.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Star + snack
The Barnstar of Good Humor
With all due respect to the lovely menagerie, this one goes to the H. sapiens sapiens—the "one'n only 'onen". And, because barnstars aren't especially delicious, a bite-sized loaf of banana bread. (Don't give 'zilla; 'frigeration not required.) RivertorchFIREWATER 02:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One'n only 'onen, hehehe. Thank you User:Rivertorch, it's nice to see you yourself on my page, with all due respect to your evil twin. Banana bread, delicious! [Bishonen hides the banana bread away from the socks.] I only hope Darwinbish isn't already in there, tunnelling around like a pacman and gorging herself. She thinks that's a very good joke whenever I get something tunnel-able to eat. Bishonen | talk 11:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
BIGFOOT article is fine just needs a update
The Bigfoot article is fine it just needs a update like a few more more recent sightings P.I.M.S. (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't need an update saying Bigfoot definitely exists, which is what you've been trying for on the talkpage, P.I.M.S.. Please use reliable sources. This is not the way to find reliable sources! And please pay more attention to all the warnings and advice on your talkpage. I'm afraid so far you have simply been wasting other people's time — and you think it's getting annoying?[6]Bishonen | talk 15:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry won't happen again P.I.M.S. (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't think so. WP:AE is the place to request topic bans. Giving reasons and things. Bishonen | talk 19:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
But, Vanamonde93 made the request on your talk page against Barthateslisa, instead of WP:AE? --MarvellousSpider-Man 01:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't see any difference between Vanamonde's request and your pointy one, I can't help you. I'm too busy to start investigating a user who's completely unknown to me. Administrators are volunteers. You may be able to find some with more leisure at AE. Why do you keep changing your username? Bishonen | talk 10:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Please don't block me!!!!!!!!!!!!p.s. see my talk page.
Don't block me!!!!!!!!!!! I love Wikipedia p.s. see my home page. Wordsighn (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look I like you and I would like to have some friends please don't ban me please. Wordsighn (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't panic. I've answered on your page. Bishonen | talk 11:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I didn't know having book recommendations on y user page was bad. Thank you for the information it was very useful I didn't know the rules of Wikipedia so thank you for giving me a chance I probably should not have paniced and went overboard with the messages ..... Wordsighn (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User page design center
Hey can you help me? I can't find out how to use the Wikipedia User Design Center. Wordsighn (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, can you advise the user? I went to Wikipedia:User Page Design Center/Help and collaboration/FAQ and looked at the tips. Unfortunately, the note at the top, "This page exists only to help users with the design of their pages, not to design it for them. For that, go to Wikipedia:User page design center/Help and collaboration/Trading spaces", turned out to link to a long defunct page. Wordsighn is so new that I suspect he needs more practical help than those tips (and that's probably why he came to me). I'm pretty sure there's some help to be had somewhere, but that's as far as I've got. Wordsighn, I'm stupid about that stuff, but I've got very smart talkpage watchers, RexxS and others. Please wait until one of them posts either here or on your own page. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, of course I can help, but I really need to know what Wordsighn wants. Perhaps if they looked around at other users' pages, they might find something they like and I could adapt it for them? User:Alarbus has an elegant minimalism about it. User:Giano has hidden links all over the image. Jack's userpage had lots of little flourishes. And so on. Multiple columns, different background colours, borders, drop shadows, etc. are all design features that can be used, but Wordsighn really needs to make some suggestions. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really want a useful user page that has reliable information on it, can that be done? Wordsighn (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JustBerry. I've upped the block to a week (it's a static IP) and revoked talkpage access. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Not a problem, and thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This user popped up on my radar about a year or so ago, and notice that they still come to Wikipedia. [9] Would it be worth looking into a possible unblock considering it has been like 4 years now since they got blocked? I am asking you because it looks like you have had dealings in the past with the user. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgekid87: Oh, that reminds me: I've got plenty of room to unhide Penyulap's hamster-powered barnstar at the top of the page again! Done... I don't think the wobbly TOC will interfere with it. I have indeed had dealings. I'll think about your suggestion and get back to you. Thanks for bringing it up. Bishonen | talk 12:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
You're welcome, and also unrelated but your namesake Bishonen could use some work. You interested in Yaoi or just have a random wiki-name? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited Bishonen occasionally in the past, but I don't really want to; COI, you know. Update on Penyulap: I've tried to get in touch with him, so far without success. Bishonen | talk 17:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Okay well thanks for trying, if he still comes around though I am sure he will read it eventually. As for Bishonen I don't really see COI being of issue there, if you have knowledge about the subject and can source it then it would be beneficial. You have been on Wikipedia awhile now so I feel that you could work with others when it comes to neutrality. This is just my opinion anyways, it doesn't have to be a bad thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Merry
Season's Greetings, Bishonen! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is all. I wish I had your gentleness and patience. Guy (Help!) 01:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really..? Half the time I feel like a wild-eyed slasher of promotional accounts and articles. But thank you, Guy. I thought this was very cool. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The annual Panettone
May you have very Happy Holidays, Bish
and a New Year filled with peace, joy, and panettone!
I've added another carefully wrapped pressie for you. You'll never guess what it is. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an elephant-shaped box of salmiak, my favourite! I'm going to have to send Santa and her little helpers around, sing some Christmas songs! Bishonen | talk 09:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Funnily enough, today we had some people by the house singing Christmas carols, which is a first for me. I found it peculiar that, as a Canadian, my first experience with Carolers is in Indonesia, and they were Australian. A merry Christmas to you Bish (and Bishzilla et. al.) And a happy new year. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the Tex-pack to the Bish-pack. Tex (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, that's a big Darwinbish! Look at those teeth! [Runs.] Bishonen | talk 16:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
From me, too. God Jul. Thank you for your lovely greeting. I smiled broadly. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]
It's a wonderful time of the year!
Christmas tree worms live under the sea...they hide in their shells when they see me,
So with camera in hand I captured a few, and decorated them to share with you. Atsme📞📧 15:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --DougWeller
UTRS Request #17193
Would you please take a look at the Log Comments here, that don't seem to have made it to your talk page, and let me have your views. Just Chilling (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Just Chilling. When you ask for my views, do you just want my views, which you can certainly have, either here or on the UTRS page, or am I supposed to also deal with the user (unblock them, and discuss their draft page)? Or will you take care of that? When I softblocked them, they were called "Arabic Robotics", and I can't quite understand why there's no trace of the name change.
You know, I rather regret ever volunteering for UTRS, because I have a lot of trouble with the interface and the whole system, and didn't get any help when I asked for it the last time. (My own communication was at fault, no doubt.) After the current issue has been solved, I think I'll just un-volunteer. (Assuming I ever understand how to do that.) Regards, Bishonen | talk 22:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I, also, have had issues with the UTRS interface. Though the name change is puzzling, my inclination is for me to unblock the new name with a COI warning. Their article will then have to take its chances. Are you OK with this? Just Chilling (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine, Just Chilling. I get the impression the user's main reason for appealing to UTRS was to have their Draft:ِArabic Robotics undeleted — I deleted it as unambiguous promotion. But that may have been a bit hard. I don't mind at all if you undelete it, still as a draft, of course. Possibly they can get enough help with it to eventually make it reasonable for article space. Bishonen | talk 23:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. I have unblocked/restored with comprehensive COI warnings. Just Chilling (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Just Chilling. I've now attempted to un-volunteer through the medium of an e-mail to utrs-admins@googlegroups.com. I think it may be more a place for computer nerds, not so much for the likes of me. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
LessHeard..? [Percy Bish Shelley is suitably impressed by the appearance of this towering presence from before his time.] The giant race before the flood is upon us!
Well then; the promis'd hour is come at last;
The present age of wit obscures the past:
Strong were our sires; and as they fought they writ,
Conqu'ring with force of arms, and dint of wit;
Theirs was the giant race, before the Flood.
(To my Dear Friend Mr. Congreve on his Comedy Call'd the Double Dealer, By John Dryden.) Percy Bish Shelley (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Soham321 sanctions
@Bish: Have the sanctions on @Soham321 expired, or been lifted? Please see this, which would fall under the old sanction. Is there an easy way to find out what active sanctions apply on a particular user? Nothing urgent, enjoy the holidays. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: That topic ban expired a year ago, yes. I'm afraid it's not exactly easy, but the way to find arbitration enforcement sanctions is to go to the discretionary sanctions log and search for the username. Community bans are logged here. Bishonen | talk 23:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Hello
I'm new here and just wanted to say hello. Where do I start?
--BotCreat0r (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reforming AE
Hi, I came here to offer some off topic thoughts after reading your comment at a current a AE thread. But first I have to thank you for the double-take, followed by the laugh. I've never seen the slanted TOC before. Did I enter the lair of Batman's enemies? Anyway....
I'd like us to make reforms that
Block editing until complained-about eds make a reply
After said reply, encourage unilateral admin action
Condemn admins who make "no action" closings because both sides are in the wrong or by dismissing bad behavior by classifying it as a "content" dispute
Encourages sanctioned eds to appeal their own sanction and purge any badge of shame from their record, but deals harshly with any appeal based on how wrong the other party might have been
Readily dish out sanctions to eds who vent about others without diffs (and use 50-word limit without diffs as a likely red flag)
Maybe other things; idea is to renew the DS/AE process by nurturing a culture of Clean hands. I'm interested in general goals or tangible ideas for other ways to make DS/AE work better. Your thoughts?
Welcome to my page, @NewsAndEventsGuy: WP:AE, though very much run by admins, is an arbitration committee page, so a proposal for reform should probably be put on... hmm... somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. I feel cynical about changing human nature or internet customs by either encouragement or condemnation, though. When it comes to appeals based on how wrong the other party might have been, and venting without diffs, they pretty much dominate AE, and the most common reason for it is WP:CIR. Did you happen to notice the new request, posted on the page after my complaint, and well enough illustrating what I was talking about..? For my part I feel more like going with TNT than reform. (And then setting up a new page for appeals only, because sunlight and publicity are essential for bans by cowboy admins. Input from the community, and from more admins.)
Admins ought probably to be more ready to trust their own discretion, and mete out sanctions. But that said, there's often a respectable reason why the most knowledgeable admins don't: they're involved. Many (most?) Indian admins edit the slough-of-despond of caste pages, and many American admins edit the major American political articles. It's often in practice left to European admins to "admin" both areas — even though they're statistically less likely to be knowledgable about them, and consequently less confident in handing out sanctions. A bit of a cleft stick, that.
Sorry to be so negative. Hey, did you notice that my TOC not only slants, but wobbles? Reload the page a few times to see. It's that RexxS character.[10]Bishonen | talk 22:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
did you notice that my TOC not only slants, but wobbles? Oh, is that what it was? I thought I was just overdoing it with our new espresso machine.... Yes, I generally agree with your description of the state of affairs and that the arbs would have to debate any changes. Its my understanding incoming arbs are interested in exploring reform ideas and am trying to (optimistically) marshal my own thoughts to contribute. Interesting observation about admins shying away due to conflict of interest issues. Maybe the admins could articulate some guidelines to encourage them to act. If did blow it up and start over, what are the general goals it should strive for? What are the chances we'd end up with something demonstrably different than what we have now? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't picked up on the talk page yet over there yet NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bish: Ahh! A lovely Yellowstone-like pic by MONGO!! The meditating owl in the silent wilderness is amazing too. On AE/AN/etc.... I see SpacemanSpiff is now hauled by @Junosoon in three venues ANI, AN and AE. Ludicrous, frankly. The edit history of OP filing the cases, is just rapid fire edits, each separated by some 1 to 4 minutes, of major deletions/disruptions of a high traffic ARBIPA-space article, without any consensus or serious discussion on the talk page. These ignore wikipedia content guidelines. @SpacemanSpiff, as usual, made the right call.
The ability of upset editors to post the same issue/appeal at a rapid fire pace on AE/ANI/AN noticeboards needs a rethink. Due process objective for the upset editor is important, but so are three other objectives: [a] the time and effort of admins, [b] the time and effort of non-admin editors hauled up, and [c] the goals of the wikipedia project. Time is a zero-sum issue. It may be time to consider, if there aren't already, rules on [1] case consolidation, that is cases by the same editor cannot be posted on more than one admin forum [2] cool off rule between appeal(s) on the same case; that is, if someone is sanctioned or blocked, the first appeal can be immediate; but if the appeal is denied, thereafter, the editor must wait for 24 hours before second appeal; if that is denied, wait for 72 hours before third appeal on a different board, and so on. This may help all concerned. Just some suggestions, but I confess I am really clueless about AE/AN guidelines and history. I also confess that I am far more concerned about the three objectives above, far less about the due process for upset disrupters after the first appeal. Happy new year to you and all your talk page stalkers, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those boxed welcome messages never work. I have learnt by experience that {{subst:welcomelaws}} is the only one that works, i.e., make people read something and learn from it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was that MONGO's geyser you saw, Ms Sarah? I'm never sure when exactly the pic changes. The owl is there for the long haul, though — at least until the horse comes ambling back into the summer meadow. You make very good points; won't you add your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, the last section? I'll say one thing, though: I feel both admins and non-admins who are hauled before those boards could often afford to be a bit cooler about it, and not take so much time and effort to respond. If you can see the report is without merit, then likely enough the uninvolved admins can, too. Of course it's harder to ignore a report if you're not used to being hauled up and criticized, and you may feel your rep is on the line. But you note how brief SpacemanSpiff is in his response at both ANI and AE, and as for me, being a very abusive admin, I'm so used to being reported that I sometimes barely reply at all — though of course it depends on the quality of the report. Kautilya3, I'm glad to hear welcomelaws works. It looks awfully long and a bit overwhelming to me. Bishonen | talk 18:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Maybe we should have a word limit at AE, while allowing people who post to their word limit to request a specific number of additional words. We could instruct admins to routinely deny such requests except in complicated cases where the first posting has high signal-to-noise. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Roter Glühwein
@Bish: Yeah, geyser with steam going one way, clouds the other. Pretty. You are spot on about the time and effort if one is not used to being hauled up.... may be it is the process, may be it is human nature, may be it is just lack of good cup of something wonderful like tea/coffee/glühwein. May be it is inner geyser of the frustrated affected parties venting some steam. May be it is the urge to either be silent or say all that must be said. Will post that para; is this the right section, or some other, or should I start a new section? @NewsAndEventsGuy: there is a 500 word limit already at AE, if I remember right. The archives suggest filers typically don't care!! Are you suggesting the edit box should automatically count and force this limit (or just display the first 500 words)... that could be interesting if our software wizards can figure out how to do so? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the section I meant, Sarah, but if you think it's veering off from the subject and/or the header is mysterious, I suppose you might start a new one. A new section typically gets more attention, I think — people notice it. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Sarah, absolutely, the loquacious droners should be cut off. In my view, the project would benefit if we jettison all those lacking the self-discipline to stay within a limit, because such people probably fall under WP:CIR.... this assumes, of course, that they know about the limit. I post at AE from time to time, but I did not. Maybe that's so obvious that my failure to realize it means that (((I))) fall under CIR, but whose counting? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen
Have a happy new year!☺ Wordsighn (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable IP actions
I had a brief interaction with User:SlitherioFan2016, in which I tried to explain that they should not continue the behavior that was currently leading them down the road to being blocked. Shockingly, they are now indef blocked. However, before this, they left a message on my talk page. Standard Christmas stuff, but as I had washed my hands of the issue I removed it because I didn't want to encourage further correspondence. Twice now, an IP editor has come in and restored it. Now, I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I have suspicions that this might be SlitherioFan2016 editing from an IP address. No IP editor took this much of an interest in my talk page before this, and the double reverts from two different IPs makes me wonder. Do you have any suggestions? If SlitherioFan2016 is indeed socking, how do I go about requesting a check user? Obviously I don't want to make a false claim, but this is just too coincidental for me to let go. Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now another sock, unrelated to SlitherioFan2016, has tried to get my talk page deleted randomly. I'm a bit confused as to what has drawn all of these vandals to my talk page all of a sudden... --Tarage (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It won't profit you to request a CU; the CUs will never connect an account with an IP, for privacy reasons. I've blocked both IPs for 48 hours as obvious ducks. The account has also been blocked and was, guess what, brand new. As for "all of these vandals", I expect they're all one person. Shall I semi your page for a week or so? That'll protect it against both IPs and new accounts. Please reply soonest, as I'm about to shut down for the night. Bishonen | talk 00:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Not soon enough, I'm logging off now. Please ask another admin if you want your page semi'd. Bishonen | talk 00:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry I did not reply fast enough. Either way I'm fine for now. I'll let you or another admin know if things get worse. Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year ...
... dear Bishonen. Will the molybdomantic result be shaped like a crown, as Lasse saw it, meaning you will be Queen next year (or just a book, as Anna saw it, meaning you will be spending another year editing Wikipedia)? ---Sluzzelintalk 18:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sluzzelin, happy new year to you too! As long as it's not shaped like a ?=≠}{\)(/&%€# handheld device, I'm good. I just donated my tablet to my techie son, who had some peculiar use for it... remote control for his camera, I think. Bless him, just as long as he takes it off my hands. Our Molybdomancy article is quite interesting: apparently the shapes are to be interpreted "symbolically", e. g. the shape of a horse would mean I'll get a new car. LOL... you'd think the shape of a car was easier for the lead to assume, wouldn't you — why go round via the difficult shape of a frigging horse! Montanabw, if you tried molten lead divination and were pleased to see it predicted a new horse for you, I'm sorry to say no, it didn't, all it meant was a car! Disappointing, I know. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
You rang? LOL! Actually, I DID get a new car in November AND a new horse last April, so who knows? Thanks for the ping! Montanabw(talk) 17:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!
Wishing you a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2017. Thanks for your friendship! -- WV ● ✉✓ 00:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Winkelvi, I appreciate it. Nice to hear from you! Bishonen | talk 16:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
New year
Half an hour till 2017!!!!!! Wordsighn (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to bother you with this but I could use help nipping a possible wikihounding in the bud. My goal in writing you is not enforcement, just a warning so this does not grow into anything bigger (hopefully). Specifically, I think My very best wishes (talk·contribs) has hounded me to the essay WP:Wikilawyering and I explained the reasons for my belief at his talk page. In reply, MVBW simply purged my comment with the dismissive edit summary "if you disagree with my edits, please explain why on talk page of the corresponding article". I'm aware of WP:OWNTALK so the fact he deleted the comment is not the issue. The problem is that I laid out what I believe is pretty clear evidence that I was hounded to that page, and MVBW has disruptively ignored the polite question that concluded my comment -- "Setting aside the merits of my bold edit, can you please explain how you managed to appear there so soon after I made that change?"
Under WP:WIKIHOUNDING, the merits of one's edits are not the issue. It's the stalking and bugging and annoying that is so effective at driving away editors. I'd like MVBW to answer the polite question about how they managed to appear someplace they have never been just 30 min after my edit. The merits of the edit is a separate issue. To their credit, they did start a talk thread at that essay page, but I have not yet read it because the merits of the edit are far less important than the respect and trust that are so essential to collaborative efforts at consensus. Might you have a word with us, after looking the matter over? Thanks for thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NewsAndEventsGuy, the "User contributions" button is there for a purpose; there is nothing wrong with somebody clicking on it on your page, or even with going on to click on one of your contributions to take a look, even if that contribution is on a page the person has never edited before. (I do that all the time, when I'm either concerned about, or simply interested in, somebody's edits.) The question isn't whether MVBW has turned up at a page you have recently edited, but whether they have followed you from place to place and joined discussions on multiple pages or topics you have edited, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to you. (The italicized bits are verbatim from WP:WIKIHOUNDING.) I can't see that MVBW has done any of that, or even has put forth anything like a bud that wants "nipping". You made a bold edit to the essay, MVBW reverted it, with an explanation (a good explanation IMO) in the edit summary. The next thing that needed to happen, per the highly respected essay WP:BRD, would be for you, if you wanted to stand by the edit, to start a discussion on talk. Instead you went to MVBW's talk and accused him, in a roundabout way, of acting improperly. After removing your post on their talk, MVBW started an article talk discussion themselves, which was nice of them, you know, as it was actually your job. I'm afraid I don't understand your reaction at all; not your insistence that the merits of your edit don't come into it and perhaps least of all your statement that you haven't even read MVBW's article talkpage post, instead giving priority to going to an admin to talk about hounding. I suggest you go read it now and, if you're still interested in the matter, respond. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I'm glad we agree that he (almost instantly) followed my contribs to a place (he'd never been before); and you're correct that there are no further details with which one might analyze the interaction. My intent, before he started that thread, was to start my own and call attention at talk for WP:3RR and WP:3RRN, and I will carry on with that plan as time allows. FYI, I'm reserving the option of revisiting this example if any additional evidence should emerge which suggestgs the possibility of a problem. Thanks for your time, though we disagree. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see... I think. Thank you for raising this, GSS-1987. You know, I have trouble even understanding how the templates you link work. I see he created a whole heap of them, so I think I'll just ping a couple of admins who are more at home with the subjects. @RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff: might one of you like to take care of this? Bishonen | talk 11:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I usually stay away from Template deletions unless they fall under the G criteria for speedy, I don't deal with Tx deletion rationales, though I think in this case the couple mentioned here may classify for G2 as I can't see them being anything more than, "See, I can make templates" kind of actions. GSS-1987, if you think something can be speedied then please tag them per WP:CSD and any admin can perform the deletions, others will have to go throu WP:TfD. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacemanSpiff: Thank you for your responce, Actuly I was not sure which G criteria for speedy I need to request so thank you for your suggestion and have a very Happy New Year. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I spoke too soon. The first temlate can't be deleted G2 because it is in use. The appropriateness is a different question altogether, so a TfD might be needed. Also, why is a religious symbol being used in a geographic template? —SpacemanSpiff 12:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking and not only in geographic templates even in music and biographic related templates too. I have replaced that symbol on few stub templates and still doing on others. I have not yet requested G2 on the first one but there are some more which fall under G2 so am working on those at the moment. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorely tempted to invoke IAR and delete the most pointless of these, but going to TfD might be best, just to be safe. These are less test pages in the strictest sense, and more just an outpouring of pointless and not-thought-out templates; for which, regrettably, we have no CSD criterion. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted that one, as for the task force, you may want to check with Cyphoidbomb or others interested in Punjabi cinema and at WT:FILM if that should be kept or sent for deletion (I'm guessing that task forces get discussed at their project before being created). I notice that the Khanda (Sikh symbol) has been spammed there too, sort of like putting a Cross or Star of David in a Hollywood project.—SpacemanSpiff 13:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SpacemanSpiff: I'm not so familiar with the guidlines for creating WikiProjects but I can see many of the WikiProjects and other pages created by the user looks incompleted and unused. I tired but can't find any discussion for creating task force project. As per his behaviour and edits I think he was here just to prove Punjab as a Sikh homeland but I think he forget to check the census report and the use of Khanda (Sikh symbol) everywhere related to Punjab seems like a part of his mission, In one of his comment he said The Khanda is a symbol of the Sikh nation and Punjab, which represents the Punjabi and Sikh people and their homeland. I think am done with the templates so moving to concentrate on other pages he created. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Purple flowers/weeds or whatever
Posting this here to see if one of your 2 million talkpage watchers has any clue what these purple flowers are...I've never been able to find anyone who knew. Happy New Year!--MONGO 17:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And there you go, MONGO! See what clever talkpage stalkers I have. Acroterion please give my regards to Mrs A. Very pretty, Liatris. I've never met them IRL, which is explained by their being North Americans, I guess. Bishonen | talk 18:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Acroterion and his wife are probably super smart Reptilians...Masters of the Universe, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc. cause I've asked around alleged experts and they said "purple flowers". Thanks Mr. A and to his wife especially!--MONGO 18:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very fine Rivertorch...see master of Bishzilla, they might have these Jurassic looking flowers somewhat nearby afterall.--MONGO 18:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, I have these in my garden, although I confess that the name escaped me since I planted them long ago. Like just about everything else in my garden, they're chosen because the bees love them. There are side effects to having a garden filled with plants intended as food for pollinators - I had a stand-off with a hummingbird last summer when trimming some shrubbery. Definitely the coolest thing that happened to me in the past year. Risker (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mme A complains that they don't grow for her, but it may be that the rabbits, voles and groundhogs like them too. Considering she has no trouble growing anything else I think the critters are the real problem. @Risker: last April I was fixing the house and heard angry buzzing. I turned around and there was a male hummingbird two feet from my head to complain that I hadn't put out the hummingbird food yet. They remember food sources from year to year and they aren't shy about making demands. I had new food out within the hour. By August we had 6 to 8 little demanding birds tanking up on sugar water. Acroterion(talk) 19:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They tend to self-seed in my garden adjacent to the border where they're supposed to be. (Liatris, I mean, not hummingbirds.) If I were more punctual in my weeding, I might inadvertently pull them before realizing what they are and moving them back where they belong. RivertorchFIREWATER 19:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's so nice to get a notification that I have seven new messages, and none of them turn out to be from <long-term vandal name redacted> and/or the kind stalkers who revert them. Happy new year, everybody, and thank you for sorting out the purple flowers and also the stroppy hummingbirds. Especially it's cool to get all that while MONGO's purple Liatris are still featured in the edit notice (which will probably change soon now). Bishonen | talk 21:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Naughty puppy! Probably, but its your guess what the results would be.--MONGO 20:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Donald lede
Thank you for your message and taking the time to explain.
1. I did not knowingly violate 1RR. I thought that meant 1 edit per day only but GoodDay seems to explain that it is not that strict but follows another rule. Still, I never tested that to the limit.
2. There is no clear stable version but the one that I am suggesting is among the more stable of the non-stable versions.
3. The version that I proposed is very much a compromise version. I discovered that the Donald article is very heated and discussed more than once to withdraw from the article, which I did, with the noted exception of fixing the prose and grammar to the first sentence or two, at which time I would completely withdraw. I have followed that for a few weeks but even one sentence is difficult to nail down in that article.
3a. There are reasonable rationale that Donald is not a politician having never held elected political office before. Therefore, mention that he is an American politician is wrong. However, in the interest of compromise and de-escalation, something that many editors in that article are not doing, I said that forget about the politician issue. Let's assume that it is there. If so, then fix the sentence structure and make it not redundant. That is really being accommodating and conciliatory, far more than the other editors. You should recognize this.
4. You wrote that I have not discussed the matter since December 20. Millions of Wikipedia users have not either. In fact, NOBODY has. The last discussion was in archive 40. At that discussion, NOBODY disagreed that redundant prose is good and nobody disputed that one version was redundant.
4a. To refresh your memory or explain to you for the first time, consider the following sentence. Bioshonen is a Japanese businessman and a Japanese businessperson. Isn't that redundant? Trump is an American politician and the President. That is redundant because the only claim to being a politician is being President. However, if you separate it into 2 sentences, it is not glaringly redundant because the second sentence expands on the first.
Once again, it is not "my preferred version" but merely a compromise to put my feelings aside and concentrate only on the quality of the prose and withdraw from the article otherwise (and withdraw from the article totally after the first 1-2 sentences are corrected in the medium term).
Your preferred compromise which you have no consensus for, then. That's the last straw; I have topic banned you from Donald Trump and related pages. Please see your own page. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Mistake
Cooperation happens when the boss and the subordinate truly agree to work together.
Your action has stifled desire to work in Wikipedia, for example in the Boeing 717 article. You write that "it won't be a great hardship". This is where you are wrong about human psychology. Cooperation is better.
Here is where I feel I have been hurt.
1. One of your first sentence is "you have been sanctioned for disruptive editing". This is not true. The non-redundant prose by having 2 sentences instead of one repetitive sentence is still there. This has not caused disruption.
Furthermore, plenty of people edit and don't add talk page comments. The easier to understand rule would be that all edits, except typos, must have discussion by the editor wanting any change.
3. I have adopted a truly neutral position. I do not take sides to what to include in the sentence, whether Trump is a politician, television personality, etc. I do have an opinion but have limited myself only to prose correction in the first paragraph of the lede, not even the whole lede.
4. I am truly hurt by your sanctions and the permanent mark it leaves me.
However, I hear what you are saying in that you want to apply sanctions.
Therefore, I suggest the following:
1. You remove this sanction as if it never existed.
2. I will voluntarily not edit at all for a week for any article. This will show self control. Believe me, this really would show willpower.
3. I will be more familiar with the rules. I did not know this technical rule about commenting on the talk page because I thought it was a settled matter after archive 40 and NOBODY else raised a discussion in the talk page after archive 40 until those comments (which support me) hours before your sanction.
Thank you for your kind consideration of not sanctioning me. Please undo it. I will not disappoint you for doing so. In fact, if you do so, I will make extra effort to repay such thoughtful action by diving back into Wikipedia and make stuff good, especially that Boeing 717 article (after a week of self imposed total self control of not editing). Usernamen1 (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamen1:, I do understand that any kind of sanction hurts, beyond the mere inability to edit a certain article (which you probably don't mind about so much, am I right?), and I was sorry to have to do it. But you were actually being extremely stubborn. Your changes to the lede kept being reverted, by different people, and both Melanie and I warned you, so you surely aren't going to tell me you didn't know that others disagreed with your version. It's really not about not understanding a technical rule, but about insisting on your own version beyond what's reasonable (yes, it's your version — your compromise version — and it has now been reverted again).
I'm not interested in testing your willpower; I don't see that it would be any benefit to Wikipedia if you stay away for a week, rather the contrary. I have a countersuggestion: if you undertake voluntarily to not edit Donald Trump or related pages for the next few months, I'll lift the sanction "as if it never existed", as you say, including removing it from the log. No permanent mark. How's that? You wouldn't have to do anything of an official nature: just state below whether or not you accept my suggestion. Bishonen | talk 15:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Kind request
I, hereby, kindly ask for your reconsideration of the topic ban. Please consider the following:
1. I have not had bitterness but showed extreme restraint in not editing or looking at Wikipedia for a week. Ok, I think I looked at it twice over the past few days but only for a moment.
2. Your statement that "I don't see that it would be any benefit to Wikipedia if you stay away for a week, rather the contrary." shows that your actions actually harm Wikipedia because it take the lifeblood of good editors when you take action against them.
3. The most important is that a week later, the grammatically correct and non-redundant version of the Donald article is just what I said. My suggested version IS the stable, consensus version. It has remained for a week, not the bad prose, redundant version, which is now a past, no-consensus version. My suggested version is that if you have the word "politician" (and I have taken no stance on that in recent weeks), you cannot have President-elect or President in the same sentence. So you are punishing me for doing the right thing and encouraging people who did the wrong thing.
4. There has been absolutely no support for a redundant, bad prose version. Many are fighting over content, but nobody is supporting the bad prose. There are a few people mentioning about redundancy and support my suggestion. Remember, I have disengaged from all politics and only concentrate on the prose of first 1-3 sentences of the lede. If there is a model for constructive behavior in this article, I am the one.
5. I was never warned or made aware of the offense which caused the topic ban, namely "you're not supposed to re-add a disputed version without first getting consensus for it through discussion on the talkpage". I did leave commentary in the edit summary. Others changed stuff without talk page discussion and are in clear violation yet I am the only person among 7 billion people that is topic banned for the Donald article, as far as I can see. This is not right!
5a. The talk page has some consensus FOR my suggestions and no support at all for wanting redundancy (nobody said "Americans are stupid, you have to repeat and be redundant" or "this should be the exception for redundancy")
Please make this a positive experience for me by removing the topic ban. This will energize me in Wikipedia writing. I have no desire to wage political battles in that Donald article, unlike many.
Thank you for your kind consideration of my request. Please be a nice person and unban me. The result will be a happy situation and you can be sure that I'm not going to jump back into that article....for sure! Usernamen1 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usernamen1, please be a nice person and agree voluntarily to stay away from Donald Trump and related pages for three months so that I can lift your ban and remove all trace of it. Bishonen | talk 04:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Perhaps I didn't read your message carefully enough. When you say "you can be sure that I'm not going to jump back into that article....for sure!", is that actually your voluntary undertaking to stay away from it (and other Trump-related articles) for three months? You only have to say "yes" or "no" below. Bishonen | talk 04:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
But not absolute refraining. My intent is to merely and occasionally remind others, if the non-consensus, redundant, bad prose version creeps up, then I plan to remind them of the prose error. (Note that my suggested version or similar versions have stayed on the article for a week and before that was on for a while (with others making edits but keeping the same non-redundant sentence structure). I don't get involved in the politics, merely the prose....and the prose of just the first 2 or so sentences. As far as voluntarily staying away from Trump-related articles, sure. As far as voluntarily staying away from political aspects of the Donald article, sure. As far as voluntarily staying away from prose issues in other parts of the article, sure. And if users come out and state "I want a bad prose article and want crappy writing for the 1st paragraph of the lede" and everyone else says the same thing, sure. It's crazy to punish me when there are so many aggressive and fighting editors in that article. Think about that! Usernamen1 (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow this and lift the topic ban. I now realize that you do not have the power to remove all traces of it because then you would have to oversight all of our conversations and many edits over different user talk pages. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usernamen, the reason I topic banned you was that you zoomed in on this one thing, which was never an "error", and insisted on it to the point of disruption and beyond, in defiance of consensus and the page rules, and kept "reminding" people that they must accept your version. I won't have any more of that, sorry. You can't come back in any shape or form to that talkpage. If you won't agree to that voluntarily, please take your appeal of the ban to either WP:AE, WP:AN, or WP:ARCA, per the instructions in my ban notice. As for "not removing all traces", no ordinary editor nor people outside Wikipedia would be able to see it any more. Let it go. You think an admin would be digging around for traces of it in the log history? Nobody will. Anyway, please stop this now. I'm going back to bed. Take your appeal to one of the boards I've mentioned, if you like. Bishonen | talk 05:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry to wake you up. You must have a different kind of Wikipedia because my Wikipedia does not have any kind of alarm to wake me up. Sorry also to have made you angry. But please note that my suggested version has become the consensus and stable version for a full week. My suggested version was "whatever you want but don't have redundant, bad prose". Others agree.
No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator
I am having trouble understanding your suggestion. You mentioned WP:AE but that says that they will act only if you agree to lift a topic ban. If so, then why go through them when you have to approve it whether I go to you or go to them (who will then go to you)? Again, I voluntarily agree to stay away from all Trump related articles and the Trump article itself, with the exception, that if people forget about bad prose in the first 2-3 sentences, I will see if they have considered the current consensus version WITH respect to prose and non-redundancy....choose whatever political contents you want but write it in a decent way. Again, sorry for making you angry but you have the final say whether I appeal or not. Funny how Wikipedia works. You are the decision maker and there is no real appeal because you must give the ok for any change. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Is this trolling deliberate (and hence disruptive), or through an inability to read (and hence incompetent)? 'Shonen is far too soft on both disruption and incompetence, but others are not, and I will not treat your behaviour here with kid gloves. So take this seriously: The text in WP:AC/DS #sanctions.modify states "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). (my emphasis). Do you not understand the word "or" in English? Or did you just stop reading after the first option? The "Important notes" clarify that an appeal will succeed if there is a "clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN." For somebody who spends so much time arguing about the niceties of English grammar, you certainly seem to have little comprehension of what is written about the sanction. Now, either take your complaint to WP:AE for uninvolved admins to decide it; or take your complaint to WP:AN for uninvolved editors to decide it. You actually have other options such as wasting Arbitrators' time at WP:ARCA (which will end badly for you), or accepting that the sanction was properly placed for your blatant edit-warring after a warning on a page under discretionary sanctions. But you've had to chance to appeal here, and it's been politely declined: if you post here again and mention the topic that you are banned from, I'll take you to WP:AE myself with a request to have you kicked off the site indefinitely. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, your threat is taken seriously. Your threat to have me kicked off the site indefinitely is very aggressive. That sort of attitude will get you the "yes, sir" but is not a service to Wikipedia. Like a concentration camp prisoner, I say "yes sir".
Bishonen, your behavior is mixed. In some ways, very effective in getting understanding and cooperation. In some ways, you shouldn't get up from bed to answer but wait until the next day. In some ways, your warning was unclear because I did not violate 1RR so your lack of precise sanction notice comments was a disservice to your good reputation. Do not get discouraged in administering but also know that some people, including me, see sanctions as a badge of disgrace and clear discussion with the user, if they are open to it, can lead to long term good behaviour, rather than resentment.
My plans is that this whole thing has soured me on Wikipedia. I do not plan to edit anytime soon, not even 2 non-political articles that I had high hopes to make them featured article quality. Usernamen1 (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@Usernamen1: Your warring over that lede was stunningly lame and time-wasting, your refusal to hear what you are being told is hard to comprehend, and the support at AE for your topic ban was unanimous. You need to drop it now. If you don't drop the subject of your topic ban, and you continue distracting productive people who have much better things to do with their time than listening to your incessant complaining, I will block you for disruption. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you've been soured on Wikipedia, Usernamen1; I hope it's temporary. And, while I can understand a bit of venting when you were topic banned, and again when your appeal was declined, you need to stop souring other people's Wikipedia experience. No more crap about concentration camps or the like. Wikipedia isn't anything like Nazi Germany or South Africa during the Boer War. It's just a website which you're free to edit or not. BTW, I now withdraw my rejected offer to remove the topic ban and the log note on my own in exchange for a voluntary self-ban by you from Trump-related pages. It's a little dodgy to tamper with the log anyway, and I was going out on a limb for you — I'm done with that. Altogether, since I have already declined the appeal you made here on my page, I don't see that you have any further business here. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 11:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I do see that I have further business here and that is to offer you a cookie. I do not agree with you completely but I do see that you don't have the aggressive, bullying attitude that some administrators have.
Many administrators used to edit before getting their administrative power. Then they either edited as part of a secret plan to get administrative tools or became corrupt that they didn't feel they had to edit anymore. They then became bullies. Such description is a sizable chunk of administrators. Another chunk are those that are inactive. Yet another chunk are editors and do not do much administration. Only a few are calm ombudsmen that try to be the positive face of Wikipedia.
One part that could stand improvement is that you never explained your 1RR topic ban clearly. After your January 3rd message to me, you topic banned me on January 4th even though I edited once, I believe, not twice. And there was never any consideration that my suggestions held for over a week when I voluntarily stayed away from Wikipedia.
My foray into getting non-redundant prose was a compromise to Wikipedia warriors but they did not take it. I wrote that, for a moment, stop edit warring and just concentrate on good prose. I became the first to do that. Those who supported saying Donald was a politician should have taken that as a clue that they could get their way through good prose (bad prose would be one reason to eliminate the word politician). But in Wikipedia, it's becoming clear to me that compromise doesn't work, just gets you punished. Another problem with Wikipedia is that consensus is voluntary. Compromise should be a required part of consensus. That would be a significant change in Wikipedia. Should there be a WP:CompromiseIsRequired?
At times, you've shown that you have some great potential. Work on that and fight the bullies...and enjoy that cookie. I do plan to exit Wikipedia, at least for now and this week and maybe longer. We'll see. I just don't have the urge to fix those 2 non-political articles that I had planned. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... not for a cookie, surely, Boing. Considering I've already eaten it, I've unblocked. But now seriously don't come back here again, Usernamen1, no matter your errand, and don't discuss Donald Trump or the article or your topic ban again anywhere on Wikipedia, other than in the context of an appeal at WP:ARCA. (I really don't think such an appeal would be worth your or others' time, mind you, after admins at WP:AE have unanimously upheld the ban.) Bishonen | talk 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Well, if it had just been a cookie I wouldn't have blocked... but there was more about his topic ban and that bloody lede sentence argument again. Still, if you're happy to unblock, that's fine with me, but I think RexxS is right that you're too soft sometimes ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
measurements against User:207.251.43.98 because of this edit, in which my work on Indo-Aryan migration theory is being compared to Mein Kampf, and his related racistic remarks ("he presents the Western Academic (race-based) view"; "your main impression of being informed is to accept Western theory and negate indigenous theories");
and also for a warning for User:Crawford88, because of his response in which he calls the expected responses to pov-pushing "a shit-storm": "I encourage you to try and edit some pieces of this article.. and see for yourself how large a shit-storm it causes."
The IP is ranting against the present state of the article, insisting that it's incorrect, meanwhile arguing for an Indigenous view on the Indo-Aryans, which is evidently fringe, without presenting any sources, despite a request to do so. This way, the talkpage is not used to improve the article, but to rant against mainstream scholarship and the editors who try to present this scholarship to a larger audience, and consuiming their valuable volunteer time. And Crawford88 does nothing to stop this rant, but, on the contrary, seems to take sides with this IP. Enough of these rants by people who have no interest in scholarship or creating a reliable encyclopedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you came straight to me, JJ. Topic bans of IPs are rare, for obvious reasons, but this IP does seem to have been used by the same individual for a long time, so possibly a topic ban might be useful, if they should persist in personalising disputes in that way. Hopefully a strong warning might work. And a discretionary sanctions alert. Bishonen | talk 14:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. Coincidentally, this afternoon I was at the Jewish monument in Utrecht; this IP does not seem to realize what he's writing... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Educational question please? Why are Tbans of IPs a rarity? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because topic bans are on people, not IP addresses, but we can never be sure what person is behind which IP address, since they can change. So practically, a topic ban on IPs is impossible to enforce consistently. 2600:1003:B002:A673:3A39:BAF8:7DF4:AFDA (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, IP, that's it exactly. I'm afraid I thought it was obvious. Bishonen | talk 18:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
EEEEK IP Sock alert! Grab the knives and axes!! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<creeps out of the bushes long enough to write down an IP address in a notebook with the words "stalker notes" on the cover before disappearing again>MjolnirPantsTell me all about it. 18:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Range block / range contribs
I remember reading here about some tool to check range contribs but I don't remember when it was so I can't even find it. Can you point me in the right direction? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here, for IPv4, SpacemanSpiff. You can check IPv6 too — the long forbidding-looking ones — those ranges are actually easier to contribs-check and block, once you get into it, but it takes a little preparation. First you have to enable or tick something in your prefs... looking... I've done it, but now I can't find it. @Johnuniq and RexxS: help! Where is it? What does Space need to tick? And one of you might as well tell him what to do next, too, if you will. I'm sure you'll explain it better than me. Space, it's really worth being able to identify and if necessary block those ranges, so don't give up. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Putting the IPs into {{blockcalc}} and previewing the result shows a note with instructions on what needs to be done. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, I should have known this. —SpacemanSpiff 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Help!!!!!!!!
HELP!!!!!!Bishonen. I got hacked and now im being blamed for vandalisum . What should i do i have hpalready been blocked temporarily but I'm afraid it will happen again . Should I make a new user id? Wordsighn (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hacked, Wordsighn? Do you mean you have let somebody else get access to your password, or to your phone/computer while logged in? I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe your account was actually "hacked". Secondly, how do you mean, you're being blamed for vandalism? I don't see any vandalism warnings on your talkpage, nor any block on your account. Where are you being blamed for vandalism? What account are you talking about? I can't see these things, you know. You have to tell me. And it sounds like you need to read WP:SOCK, too. You're not allowed to have more than one account. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
OK so I hit the "change it" button on the template for my user page hoping to fill it in when I saw this thing that said you received a message or something like that and it said that I'd I vandalize Wikipedia one more time I would be blocked and that a temporary block was on me that made me think that I was hacked . Wordsighn (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait!!!!!!it's gone now sorry for wasting your time . . Wordsighn (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would still like to understand what you're saying, and I don't, not a word of it. User:RexxS, you got anything? Bishonen | talk 21:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
No, sorry, Chère. Wordsighn has a template {{New user bar}} on his user page as a start point for editing. If Twinkle were enabled, I'd have guessed at an accidental click on the warning button on his own user page. Anyway, I'm happy that it's gone now. Perhaps we'll never know what the problem was. --RexxS (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) I have been trying to REMOVE the biased phrase "Roe protects a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is viable, which anti-abortion activists contend is at the 20-week mark" without adding the other side's POV language. I have also included the widely used terminology "pro-life" and "pro-choice". This is obviously not biased as the language is balanced, unlike Neutrality's wording "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights", which you can see is not balanced. I have also added a dispute tag so other users can contribute. Please withdraw the accusations that have been made against me. As you can see, I have been seeking neutral and unbiased language which is the exact opposite of pushing POV. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, you have been topic banned for breaking the page restrictions at Political positions of Donald Trump by repeatedly reinserting your preferred version without consensus, despite being repeatedly warned about the rules. Apparently you didn't look up the explanation of what a "topic ban" is, although I urged you to, since you have already violated it with this edit. If you do that again, you will be blocked. I noticed you had some trouble with the formatting of your appeal at WP:AE — I certainly don't blame you, I hate templates — perhaps one of my talkpage watchers could help format it? (Don't worry about the lack of notification to me, it doesn't matter.) Bishonen | talk 20:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for formatting it, MPants at work. It looked worse than it was, apparently! Bishonen | talk 21:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Another fucking warning? Honestly, you're getting softer than Famously Mild. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just because I've done so many warnings for the first topic ban breach, I've made a principle of it, for fairness: whoever they are, they get one for free. (That is, iff I'm the first admin to see it, so don't count on it, mofos!) Doesn't really do any harm, does it? They don't get two! Bishonen | talk 23:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, with this long overdue sanction User:Ontario has got off lightly, "abortion, broadly construed" is not broad enough. She has done substantial damage to electoral systems pages but, far from being shown the door (cf.RexxS [11]), it was her principle opponent (moi) who after sweating blood for six months decided to seek the exit; despite two ANIs, two DRNs, and some admin warnings on her talk page, admins would not block, not even for a day (apart from a 3RR block which I provoked just to see what would happen). RexxS is so right, a couple of judicious blocks of a day, a week, a month, then would have saved an enormous amount of editor time. All Ontario's electoral systems edits are partisan, all of them; sooner or later they are all going to have to be undone. The point also should be made that they are of a piece with Ontario's anti-abortion edits: the introduction of proportional representation in Canada would make an abortion ban impossible - that's the only reason Ontario is interested in electoral systems. But thanks at least for this ban. --BalCoder (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BalCoder, I understand that a big problem has been that your ANI and DS filings haven't had much attention. That's how it sometimes goes on a volunteer website: the subject is pretty abstruse, and probably non-Canadians hesitate to dive into it (as do I). Therefore, I won't advise you to take it to ANI again. The best I can do is keep an eye on their edits going forward. Please don't hesitate to report to me if they should edit some subject that involves abortion in ways I might not realize. Bishonen | talk 11:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Sadly, I think that BalCoder gave up last February. See Special:Contributions/BalCoder. It's not your fault, 'Shonen, but BalCoder needed that sort of help a year ago. --RexxS (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks and condescending attitude
Hi, I was wondering if you can look at the contributions of Nishidani at Talk:United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334. One of my issues I have with him is that throughout his editing tenure here, he is extremely condescending to everyone. He pontificates, and throws out snide personal attacks. Is this a personal attack: "You've obviously never read a paragraph of anything he's written, not only because it would require more concentration that you seem capable of." And also calling someone "foggybrained," I know this may seem small, but it's basically with every interaction, and it's not just with me. Finally, I ask you to notify him that his user page violates WP:POLEMIC. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sir Joseph. Please ask another admin, or maybe WP:AE if you prefer. Palestine-Israel is a highly contentious and contested area under discretionary sanctions — as arbcom said in 2008, it's a bitter and long-standing real-world conflict — and I'd rather not stick my ignorant nose into it. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, it was more of the comments I posted right above that I was questioning. I'm not going to take him to AE just for that, but I did warn him to stop insulting others. Sir Joseph(talk) 23:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And he now responded to my warning with a post (in yiddish so people wouldn't notice), that "to write history, you need a head not an ass." Sir Joseph(talk) 14:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting Nishidani is a saint or always correct, but you are totally misunderstaning him. Google confirms the obvious conclusion that the text written by Nishidani is a quote that would be well known to those who study in certain areas—that is why he wrote the text in the original. You may be right to think that nevertheless the text is inappropriate, but perhaps it would be better if those involved worked to reduce the level of misunderstanding. If such a simple post can be misinterpreted as "in yiddish so people wouldn't notice" what other meanings are being missed? Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand that, you need to realize it's coming after all the comments above, and this one that wasn't mentioned, "
"Okay- I'll dumb this conversation down even further to help you grasp the point." He has a habit of being condescending to all and it really needs to stop. Sir Joseph(talk) 14:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When somebody says something like that, they hurt their own cause. Don't take the bait. JehochmanTalk 15:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, thanks and I try, but he continues to attack, now he is also talking down to another editor for daring to disagree with him. He has also labeled my edits as abusive because I don't share his opinion. Talk:Sippenhaft#Connsistent_abuse_by_Sir_Joe, this has nothing to do with content/conflict of the IP area, this is a behavioral concern and I am upset that no admin is doing anything about it. That is all I'm asking for, I don't want to open an AE case when all that is needed is an admin warning him to stop his attacks. Sir Joseph(talk) 18:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, this really has to stop. Can you please do something about it? As the admin who blocked me for supposedly not listening or bludgeoning or whatever, Nishidani is doing the same thing. Bradv and I are constantly pointing out to Nishidani our concerns for why the Trump inclusion is not warranted, and I am pointing out to him that he can go to WP:DR or open an RFC, but he just keeps bludgeoning and reverting potentially BLP edits, which BTW violate ARBCOM sanctions, as a BLP and as a US Politics area. Sir Joseph(talk) 17:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph, I advised you above to contact another admin, which I believe you did (Drmies), or a noticeboard such as WP:AE. I'm no longer sure AE is the best place, since it's a civility issue; maybe WP:ANI. You should consider which to use, if any. Anyway, I don't understand why you would come back here after what I said above about not wanting to get involved with the Israel-Palestine area, where I feel ignorant. Frankly, you're bludgeoning me. The way you put it this time ("As the admin who blocked me for supposedly not listening or bludgeoning or whatever") suggests you come here because you can't get over my block of you in May 2016. Note that that block had absolutely nothing to do with Israel-Palestine, compare [12]. Please stop. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
firstly I didn't mean it like that. And trump has nothing to do with Israel.whatever. He took it to blpn.Sir Joseph(talk) 21:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CrazyAces?
Sorry you have to read that name again. I came across a user called BlackAmerican (will not ping for obvious reasons) whose editing style matches CAs. He mass produces articles, his grammar is similar, and uses bare links on a majority of those he starts. It is also telling that one of the userboxes is adjusted to say number 1, like CA did in the past. Should I take this to SPI?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think you should, TheGracefulSlick, since you ask me. I'd say more, but the subject is a little delicate, so I'd prefer to say it privately. But you don't have wikimail enabled — I could have sworn I advised you to get that some time ago? Oh well. I advise you to hold your horses while I make some private enquiries. Bishonen | talk 17:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
My apologies, I registered an e-mail but never confirmed it. I fixed that so you can e-mail me now. If you have time, please inform me of the situation. I think it is rather obvious who this user is but I will wait as asked for now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if for whatever reason this account is not indef blocked for sockpuppetry (cannot think of one reason), I want to push for this account to be required to have articles reviewed before being placed in main space. As I survey the work, I can safely say CA on this account has learned nothing about notability, formatting, and overall quality. It is going to be another long clean-up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The user has been blocked by a Checkuser as a sock of CrazyAces. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
(talk page stalker) and I've asked him to remove it. I took a quick look at the history and there is no indication that there is disruption. It appears to me to be a content dispute and you are trying to protect the page to gain an upper hand. The IP is using sources, using the talk page, using the edit summary. In addition, if protection is warranted, it should be regular semi-protection not ECP protection. Not every article with the word Jew in it is ARBPIA protection material. Sir Joseph(talk) 00:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reject this claim about me I have more sources to add to the article. I tried to work with the IP but he would not listen. I am willing to reach a compromise.Jonney2000 (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to seem inhospitable, but I'm hard pressed to see how any of the comments after my own response to Jonney2000 belong on my page. Keep it on Talk:Arab Jews, please. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
John de Ruiter Article
Hi Bishonen. I don't know if you are Japanese but I lived in Japan for years. I agree I have only had interest in creating and editing this article after I went to a retreat years ago which was really good and I wondered why I could only find negative things on the web about this teacher. I thought I could present a more balanced view of him and let people make their own minds. I also have interest in a very old sword art school but it is almost impossible to find any references to it and good luck getting access to old museum scrolls. At any rate, I have noticed certain individuals that have vehemently attacked the article over the years. Look at the history. As of writing this Richard Gooi has just undone all of the edits made the the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee editors within a day of their edits, cleverly crafting a negative picture. Wikipedia is to be impartial and balanced. Who said it was to be slanted negative. See for yourself. Thank you.Planktonium (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:Planktonium, welcome to my page. Your approach to writing an article is at odds with the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. It's Wikipedia's job to reflect what reliable sources say, not to push for righting great wrongs. You don't get to express your own opinion by being more positive than the existing sources. When you say "I could only find negative things on the web about this teacher", you have really said that it's unavoidable for the article to be pretty negative too — if, indeed, we should have an article about John de Ruiter at all. It might be better not to, IMO. Of course, now that we have it, it must by no means be an attack page, or unfairly slanted, but I don't think it is at present. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Socks of TTAC
Hello Bishonen.
I see that there have been at least half a dozen sock IDs and IPs of TTAAC blocked recently for vandalism, personal attacks and TBAN and block evasion. The master ID's block is going to expire next month. It seems clear this user has gone off the edge and that its block should be extended to indefinite. Is this something that's going to require another round at AE or SPI or if not, I suggest that the Admins deal with this promptly so that the community doesn't have to? Thanks.
SPECIFICOtalk 15:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have made private inquiries about a couple of new accounts (not IPs). If they do turn out to be TTAAC, or even one of them does, I guess it'll be time for an indefinite block. So, no, I don't think there's any need for AE or SPI, if you'll have a little patience. But thanks for keeping your eyes open. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
This fits you perfectly. MONGO 15:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Nostalgically] Way back in the Jurassic era I was a writer... not so much any more, unlike you. But thank you, Hairy Shakespeare of the Woods! I hope you saw the pelicans, aren't they great? Bishonen | talk 22:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Ah, well, your skills are still with us, thou your motivation may be less than it was.--MONGO 12:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged "disruptive editing"
Edits using wikisources are not disruptive, nor are they invalid.
Aside from your baseless claim that User:Sitush knows a lot about these things, it does not matter when using a wikisource. I notice you've been banned a few times before, and I think adding page protection to remove reliable sources to protect your friend is a serious infraction.
This conduct is inexcusable, and it is hard to dispute that your previous behaviour a few months ago is harder to defend now that the edits follow protocol (and both of you are still acting like this).
Thank you. I have replied at ANI. Your reports there and here make me wonder if I should revive my old special noticeboard for clueless complaints about Sitush, which was intended to de-bloat AN and ANI of these things. I've deleted that noticeboard because I felt it got old, but you can get the flavour, as well as assistance in framing future complaints, from the Clueless Complaint Generator, a help page that I've kept for the historical interest. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Everything's better with extra Drmies. Bishonen | talk 17:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
OK I do have to congratulate you on your astuteness, and I appreciate your courtesy. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Afew years ago, I saw a comment directed at Drmies along the lines of "love the username Drmies" and didn't understand it. I thought that one day I might achieve enlightenment, but alas I am still a novice. Please help. Roxy the dog.bark 18:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, Roxy, I hope you didn't bait the fine bear which currently adorns my edit notice! "Drmies" is just "Dr Mies" afaik, Not sure what's to love about it. Now "Bishonen", that's a name of infinite grace! But now you've started it, perhaps somebody will come along and enlighten us both, grasshopper. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I used to suppose it rhymed with "armies". It had a certain musicality, and you could riff off it, e.g., Please don't harm me, Drmies. Sigh. Reality is so boringly prosaic. RivertorchFIREWATER 20:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In Welsh "Doc Mice" is "Meddyg Llygod" (as he knows only too well, I'm sure). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
WTF? Now I'm ordinary and boringly prosaic??? Bishonen, everything that goes through your talk page seems to get flattened into the kind of sad, grey, monotonous bleakness we know so well from realist Scandinavian fiction. If only The Lady Catherine de Burgh were around to bring grace and life to this odd conversation. Yes, Drmies does rhyme with "armies", as it rhymes with "ballet", "beauty", "butterfly", "butter", "bootyshake", "bodily", "beholden", and "Bishzilla", and that's just a few random b's--oh and I forgot Eric B. Drmies is "just" Dr. Mies--pshaw. That's almost like saying "grace is just not falling on your ass in the middle of a triple pirouette". Drmies (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you're not a pretty Japanese boy, are you, Dr Mies! Yes, it's always a privilege to see Lady Catherine on my page, but I'm not sure how often she logs in. Perhaps her nephew knows where to find her. Bishonen | talk 23:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
What are the odds--I just sent Bishzilla an email containing revealing photographs of said nephew from some twenty-odd years ago, from that crazy dinner party. You might want to see if that hickey is visible in any of them. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bishzilla is pretty easily shocked, you know, A delicate constitution. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I can assure you that there has never been any untoward behaviour by any of my family members at any dinner party hosted by myself. Such claims are phony news from sick people. I’m a very high profile person, I’m surrounded by bodyguards: it didn't happen it is fake news! I’m also very much of a germaphobe; In fact, many of closest friends are from Dusseldorf. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the user did the same thing on the Sony Pictures template:
[[14]]
I've told that user to look on those two links that I've provided two years ago and this user's behavior is getting out of control. The Bizapedia reference says that it's active and when I've looked under CorporationWiki's site, the site says that Adelaide Production is still active. I'm looking up more sites that'll say that it's still active. I'm having a discussion with that user under the Adelaide Productions talk page right now. Can you please do something about that user? King Shadeed 20:59, January 23, 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand where the information "Defunct June 23, 2014" (in the infobox) is supposed to come from; no source is given. I've asked a question on the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 05:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The user preferred not to reply to me, King Shadeed, but apparently got the point, as they edited the article to remove the insistence that Adelaide Productions is inactive. That's good. I've warned them about the namecalling. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate it. [User:King Shadeed|King Shadeed]] 14:09, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
Talk:John Peter Grant
If you or any of your stalkers are prepared to opine at Talk:John Peter Grant then it might be useful because I am coming to the boil there and likely to mis-speak. There was a spat there a couple of years ago and the same contributor has returned in the last few hours. The third party who got involved that time is, alas, no longer active. In fact, their involvement in that case appears to have been their last involvement with WP (hopefully, correlation ≠ causation ?!) - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poor Mrs Bishonen seems to have gone absent without leave. At her age it's hardly surprising if she goes wandering off; so I am here in her place. Now remember dear Sitush: "least said soonest mended" is always good advice and I'm sure that's what poor little Mrs Bishonen would say to you if she remembers who you are. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) To my reading of the remark, it was not Sitush on whom those aspersions were cast, but the WMF. This is presumably in reference to unspecified claims the site may make to represent the truth (as the poster sees it), or perhaps the “anyone can edit“ slogan, on the premise that donations are being solicited under a promise to fulfil them. So I wouldn’t take it personally.—Odysseus1479 07:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, the guy is clueless and he's likely not going to change. He talks of WMF "subscriptions", he talks of personal knowledge of the Grant family, of deduction from primary sources etc. His writing lacks care, he misrepresents sources, he doesn't take on board stuff he is told (eg: WP:VNT was explained to him 2 years ago) and so on. I'm sorry but I don't cope well with people who have such a multitude of issues. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fear not! My 3rd husband (he may have been the 4th) was a High Court Judge so I am well versed with such matters, and it that is almost a legal threat so we need to ban the perpetrator. Lots of Admins keep an eye on this page and they will now go and ban him. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been out on the tiles. Sorry, @Sitush:, can't face it today — resting — maybe tomorrow. Not only admins but lots of other helpful users keep an eye on this page — hello, little talkpage stalkers! Bishonen | talk 21:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
<Abashedly>Actually, that is all Lady Cat (Sorry if that's too familiar for M'lady; I'm a big GoT books fan and couldn't resist). I just happened to see the edit summary of the comment I replied to and got a little silly... To be fair (to myself), I took a look at it, but the history of colonialism in the Caribbean is just not my thing, and the content dispute at the heart requires some familiarity with the subject. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it. 13:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush:, I hope it has petered out. The user hasn't edited since the post to E. Ripley. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Here We Come A-wassailing...
Hi Bish! In all the Christmas melée, I forgot to thank you for your gift... a truly remarkable musical moment . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot. little Tenor? And here I hoped thought you were incapacitated by the bomb in the box! Glad you enjoyed the basso of the great Bishzilla. But I wish it had struck me at the time that I might have used an explosion for the sound file (for the opening of the box). Bishonen | talk 17:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Well, that explains those mysterious, scary rumblings I kept hearing back in December. 'zilla was rehearsing, practicing Scottish rolled 'R's. RivertorchFIREWATER 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being stalked? Oh, wait, it's not by a giant radioactive lizard, so that's OK.
Thanks for the note. I've looked at the edit history, and near as I can figure -- and I will admit I'm not up on the subtleties -- Nkansahrexford (talk·contribs) created this page, but did it in the sandbox of a different user, Iamjunie07 (talk·contribs), who moved it into mainspace [15]. This seems odd, especially since the only communication I can find between them is a welcome message left by Nkansahrexford on Iamjunie07's talk page. Am I missing something? --Calton | Talk 08:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And now see also [16]. But I think I, rather than you, am missing something; I didn't realize they had created it in another account's sandbox. That to me suggests they may be using multiple accounts. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for clearing that up. Other things remain unclear, so I hope you will answer the further questions at the WP:ANI thread. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Question
Who would you recommend I speak to about looking into a rangeblock for some spamming IP's? MjolnirPantsTell me all about it. 15:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the reverts. I've semiprotected this page for a while to give you and myself a break. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I'm really suprised "you know who" hasn't realised that he's never going to be unblocked and even though it's been over 1 year since he was blocked. He really needs to go spend his time doing more important things rather than just sit at a computer and leave messages which achieves nothing. Hope you're doing well Bish! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This page isn't semi protected. All you did was downgrade the move protection level, I assume by accident. Sro23 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I could have sworn... thank you, Sro23, fixed. Anyway, I hope you both enjoyed MONGO's very fine storm in the edit notice! I'm so glad I had the notion of having a switch (or whatever the term du jour is) for those photos. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Bikak tribe
I am thinking of issuing a sanctions alert for Bikak Rasool Bux (talk·contribs) but I wonder whether they are yet another person who is unaware both of their own talk page and that at Talk:Bikak tribe. I don't think I can revert any more. Any suggestions? - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted and warned, and I'll issue an edit-warring block if they continue (if nobody from the noble Bish clan gets there first). I'd think a DS alert wouldn't go amiss if you choose to offer one, but I think I might hold off for now to avoid swamping their talk page after my warning and a COI one from Toddst1. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I will hold off on the DS alert. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the account is related to Bikak R A, which added kind of clueless stuff to Bikak tribe and also its talkpage in December? Of course I understand the "Bikak" part of the name isn't distinguishing. Anyway, never mind, that one hasn't edited this year.
What do you guys think of PRODding Bikak tribe, @Sitush and Boing! said Zebedee:? What good is it? Shorn of the clueless additions, as currently, it's 17 words long and innocent of references, also a honeypot for additions referenced to (or I presume indeed lifted from) unreliable British Raj sources. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
It's completely unsourced, yes, so I'd not object to a PROD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to find any reliable sources. There are a couple of passing mentions in gazetteers which may or may not be reprints of Raj stuff but that is all. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I, by contrast, found H. A. Rose's glossary! Article prodded. But I'll eat my pussy hat if the prod survives the statutory week. Bishonen | talk 18:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
hey
wordsighn here how do you find other users without look ing on other wiki articals? Wordsighn (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand your question, Wordsighn. Find what other users? If you know their name, you type User talk:X in the search field to go to X's talkpage, but I think you knew that. Please explain what users you're looking for — there are so many. (To find very new users, you can look here.) Bishonen | talk 15:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
sorry i was trying to find another user but i could not understand how to find it, thank you Wordsighn (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
India Topic Ban
Hello. It seems that I have been topic banned from articles related to India. I would like to point that I mostly make minor edits and also create articles once in a while. I'm definitely not here to push any agenda and seeing this ban honestly makes me quite sad. Yes, arguments do occur and recently I haven't been taking the best methods to resolve them. You can check my talk archives and see some ones that have been successfully solved. Question: Does this topic ban affect articles in other languages as well, or is it just on the English Wikipedia? Thanks. Filpro (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This only concerns the English Wikipedia; our discretionary sanctions and admin decisions here don't affect any other Wikipedia, or any other Wikimedia Foundation site. I don't agree that you mostly make minor edits; it looks to me like you mostly make reverts, and remove text. You have been edit warring very recently on several articles. That's emphatically not the best method for resolving arguments. As for your talkpage archives, if you mean your own user talkpage, it looks to me like you rarely reply there other than by removing the posts you receive. Here's your response to an IP user who attempted to discuss sourcing with you, with regard to the articles Languages with official status in India, Languages of India, and Names of India in its official languages, and to warn you about edit warring. You had been reverting a lot at those articles without, as far as I can see, ever responding to attempts to discuss on article talkpages. Look at this talkpage history, for example: the IP is all over it, and you're nowhere. That's just one example; indeed, I hardly ever see you on article talkpages. But you know you can appeal my ban at a noticeboard, right? See this information: you can appeal either on WP:AN, WP:AE, or WP:ARCA. The difference is that at AN, the community will evaluate your appeal; at AE, uninvolved admins will; and at ARCA, the arbitration committee will. AE is the most common, and probably the best, for these appeals. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I can't speak to user:Filpro's violation of Wikietiquette etc, but it is clear to me that the IP is attempting to wreak mischief by making nonsensical claims. Hindi written in the Devanagari script is the official language of India, has always been, with English as a subsidiary, or associate, official language. So, the locked down page Languages with official status in India carries incorrect information, when it begins with the IP's version, "The Constitution of India designates the official languages of the Government of India as English, as well as Hindi written in the Devanagari script." Filpro's version is the more correct version, and has been the stable lead sentence in the article. This is an issue that was settled long ago on Talk:India. See Talk:India/Archive_12#Secondary_sources:, and see continuing discussion in archives 13 and 14. Filpro, might well have made tendentious edits on other pages, but here he is correct about the underlying content dispute. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi F&f. Topic bans are not issued for being right or wrong on content but rather for a pattern of disruptive editing which includes edit warring, not participating in discussions, and, as in Filepro's actively avoiding discussion. In the case of the language article, you're probably right - since it's you, almost certainly right :) - and, if the current version is the wrong one then you should take it up with the protecting admin (Ferret) and ask them to revert the article back to the long term stable version (this one, I think). I'd do it but have edited that page in the past and am, consequently, involved. --regentspark (comment) 02:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't disagree wifh F&f on the lede in this case (I say that as one who has repeatedly used "subsidiary" for English on this and other articles), but, as I said earlier in response to Ugog Nizdast, neither are entirely right: with this edit he changed Union government to Republic, that isn't correct as the same constitution explicitly provides for English in the context of the courts and legal system as well as for individual states to adopt their own (subject to Presidential consent). That said, I don't believe the tban was based on this one instance, rather a pattern of disruption, as seen with many edits including this edit which hijacked the article to something against talk page consensus, and this which essentially furthers the same agenda as well as this which uses that new change in another article. Then, there's this which again goes against the consensus from a discussion he started, clearly refusing to accept any opinion to the contrary. There's also this behavior which is far too typical of their behavior so far, treating any disagreemnts, especially from IP editors like shit. Never participates in any discussions with anyone, just continues to edit war. A broken clock is also right twice a day, and this happens to be the case with the lede here. —SpacemanSpiff 02:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm not privy to user:Filpro's behavior; my point is that regardless of the words "Union" or "Republic," or the language of the High Courts, etc, the expression "Official language of India" has been interpreted by most sources, countries, and international organizations to be Hindi. English does not have equal status as an official language of India. It never has since the early 1950s, in the predominance of sources, that is. In other words, even [Filpro's lead sentence, Filpro's lead sentence, which says, "The Constitution of India designates the official language of the Government of India as Hindi written in the Devanagari script, as well as English," is not entirely correct, as seems to suggest equal status. That is why I used the expression, "more correct" in my post above. The stable version, as I remember it, was something along the lines of: "The official language of India is Hindi, written in the Devanagari script; English is an associate, or subsidiary official language. ..." But, anyway, sorry Bishonen, this is not really the place for these musings. My point, in some sense, was, that this particular instance, of an encounter with an IP, who, in my view, was deliberately flogging a dead horse of Indian linguistic sub-nationalism, should not be the last straw that breaks a potentially tendentious editor's back. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Fowler&fowler and the rest of you. No, it wasn't the last straw, even if it was the most recent problem. Just cast your eye at the user's contributions — just the list — see how there's never any talkpage discussion. And compare this discussion, which is very enlightening, with many more diffs. Perhaps I should have given the user some more examples. Bishonen | talk 12:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Fowler&fowler, SpacemanSpiff, and RegentsPark: In that case, I'll go ahead and make an edit request there to restore it to that version per above. The remaining changes can be made anytime later, at minimum, I'll just make it echo exactly how it's put in India since that's the most agreed-on. Will cite this discussion and Talk:India there. If everyone's probably having a discussion in some centralised article page regarding this matter in general, (cause I just watch that page that too because I rechecked some figures recently), link it there then as well. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
I saw you deleted this as an expired PROD. Just curious why it was showing up that way. I'm prettt confident I just placed the tag today with Twinkle. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious too. Not sure if there was a technical glitch or a brainfart on my part, but the second is more likely, no doubt. I've restored the article. Thanks for keeping your eyes open, TonyBallioni! Bishonen | talk 01:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
TheGracefulSlick and I are involved in an edit war on the talk page of the Garage rock article. He asked Ilovetopaint to propose a possible re-review of the article's current GA status. This is disruptive, because I was about to take the article to FAC. I've been trying to make changes that would satisfy everyone, so such a regressive step should be unnecessary. I think that his intention is to harm and disrupt. What can I do? Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) The quickest way to end an edit war is for one of you to stop. (I think I read that in a fortune cookie somewhere.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last fortune cookie I read said "Help! I'm being held hostage in a fortune cookie factory." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 16:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Reply
Got your message - will think about it and get back to you privately. Blythwood (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thank you very much for pointing me to the policy. please note that I didn't ignore you. We wont repeat it anymore. But do we do with the account that has been created? should the usernames be abandoned? Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, Olaniyan Olushola. I certainly don't want to block those accounts: the potential new users should not be bitten! If you can think of a simple way to give them new improved names and ask them to abandon the old ones, that might be best. But, you know, it might be better to leave it as it is — I don't think it's worth creating difficulties and bureacracy for them. They're brand new users (I assume), so they probably have enough trouble navigating our labyrinths without having to jump through extra hoops. I'll leave it to you to decide what's best to do. How's the editathon going? Thank you for arranging it. Bishonen | talk 23:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Breathwork
The disruptive IP is back it seems ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Semi'd for a month. Thank you, Alexbrn. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Five sockmasters
Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus. In this article sockmasters are using IPs for block evasion. As I expected RFPP request was declined. Maximum edits of the last 50 edits were made by socks.
Hi, Marvellous Spider-Man. Only one IP has edited the article (twice) in the past three weeks, so it's unsurprising the RFPP was declined. If you're posting here to ask me to semiprotect anyway, I'm sorry, I won't. If you think 2405:205:88:24af:94b:392a:7437:3f51 was used by one of the sockmasters you name, do you have an opinion of which one? It might be worth posting that IP to the relevant SPI. I know Checkusers won't connect IPs to accounts, but if the behavioral evidence is compelling, admins can block per WP:DUCK. @Kautilya3: I see you have been editing the article, do you have any opinion? Bishonen | talk 11:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, the page is on my watch list. I don't see a lot of traffic on it. The topic is contentious. So occasional edit=warring is unavoidable. I will take a look. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you dare to prove my article is purely promotional
You have deleted my article named 'Fathers of Missionaries of Mary Immaculate' . How are you saying that this article is not neutral? Can you give me valid reasons. Without any proper evidence you have deleted my article. Wikipedia is not a good place for emerging article writers. Because of you people, I have stopped to write articles. Having some worthless intentional causes you have done this atrocity. You will repent for it soon. Edson Frainlar (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Edson Frainlar: Yes, I dare. You have lifted most of the text from MMI's own site. Naturally, MMI are promotional and not neutral in talking about themselves. That's not a problem; but putting it into Wikipedia, which is supposed to consist of neutral articles, is a big problem. It's both a copyright violation (unless indeed you own the copyright to the MMI site,in which case you have a huge conflict of interest and shouldn't be creating articles about them at all) and results in the article reading like an advertisement. Compare:
From http://www.mmi-eap.com/our%20mission.html: "The world is our mission. Any culture and any country will be our missionary field. Our missionary thrust will be a living sign to encourage others to follow Jesus more intensely. Any service that helps human and spiritual development of persons will be a mission to us. Our Mission is not to provide fish but teach them how to fish. Our Mission as educators takes place in the education of youth in schools, colleges and Universities. As educators of faith, our mission take place in parishes,Rural areas."
From your article: "The world is their mission. Any culture and any country will be their missionary field. Their missionary thrust will be a living sign to encourage others to follow Jesus more intensely. Any service that helps human and spiritual development of persons will be a mission to them. Their Mission is not to provide fish but teach them how to fish. Their Mission as educators takes place in the education of youth in schools, colleges and Universities. As educators of faith, our mission take place in parishes,Rural areas."
You changed "our" to "their" but otherwise kept the text exactly the same. This is just one example, the article was full of them. So was the other article I deleted, Sisters of Daughters of Mary Immaculate and Collaborators. Please follow Samtar's advice above, and read our policy. Also, please stop harassing all the people who have been involved with you in any way, usually by trying to help and advise you, as you did here, here, here, and here (a whole dialogue, very aggressive on your side). Wikipedia is a place where people are supposed to be able to discuss articles without being attacked. Bishonen | talk 16:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Well, I double dog dare Miss Bish to delete the next overtly promotional, copyright-violating article she comes across. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 16:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
please stop reverting my article what i write are facts and i have given appropriate source for it. sitesh is saying pedia press is not reliable many wikipedia pages use pedia press as a source check other wikipages for example please understand (akshaypillai 15:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC))
Please discuss this with Sitush, who is knowledgeable about sources in this field. I will block you if you continue to edit war. BTW, I see you have never edited your own talkpage — perhaps you haven't found it? It's here. Please read the posts on it right now. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Possible IP range block
Hello Bishonen. I was hoping that you could impose a range block, as an IP seems to be continuing editing from a new IP (in the same range), after being blocked on their preview ones. They have been blocked respectively for 2 weeks ([17], block still ongoing), 31 hours ([18]), and had warnings ([19] and [[20]). I believe they are the same person as they seem to be in the same IP range, and have the same pattern of adding unsourced information about WWE events, in particular they seem to be adding the same fake reference to University of Phoenix Stadium about Wrestlemania 35 ([21], [22]. [23], [24]). I ask you in particular, as you have imposed a range block on a similar IP in the past, who may be the same person: ([25]), who also added a similar fake reference to that article: ([26]). Thank you for your assistance. Silverfish (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Silverfish. The range I blocked here on 15 January, 2600:8800:4487:aa00::/64, had a lot of edits from different IPs right up to 15 January; but has had none since, obviously, as the range is still blocked.
The IPs you have linked me to are in the range 2600:8800:4481:5b00::/64. There is a kind of similarity, indeed, as the first two groups of digits are the same, but I'm kind of hoping it's not the same person despite the similarity in editing, because I can't block the huge range that both the /64 ranges belong to. (How huge? @Johnuniq and RexxS:. I'll block your recently active 2600:8800:4481:5b00::/64 for a couple of weeks and can only hope that will help. Thanks for alerting me. Bishonen | talk 19:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The allocations of IPV6 tend to be a complete nnnn:nnnn:nnnn:nnnn/64 range for an individual entity (person, firm, etc.), and it's quite possible for someone to be editing from 2600:8800:4487:aa00::/64 for some time and later on from 2600:8800:4481:5b00::/64 - it could even be home and work, for example, although both are allocated to Cox Communications Inc., US. You don't want to be blocking everything from 2600:8800:4481:: to 2600:8800:4487:: - that's potentially half a million people. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know I don't want to do that, RexxS, I was hoping you'd crunch some numbers. Would there be an IP left over for your cat, for instance? Bishonen | talk 00:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I think RexxS is agreeing with you that the following should be blocked (you mentioned both of these and I think you blocked them):
2600:8800:4487:aa00::/64
2600:8800:4481:5b00::/64
That looks good to me. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John. Well, I just blocked 2600:8800:4481:5b00::/64 for a couple of weeks. I'd blocked 2600:8800:4487:aa00::/64 previously, for a month, nearly a month ago (that's probably the reason Silverfish came to me). That block will expire on Feb 15. I guess it is highly likely it's all one person, as the editing is similar. So I suppose 2600:8800:4487:aa00::/64 may well spring into action on Wednesday? That's worrying, but I can hardly re-block pre-emptively... or... nah. Silverfish, please let me know if you should see IPs from 2600:8800:4487:aa00::/64 making unsourced edits again. You can recognize them from the way they begin with "2600:8800:4487:aa00". Bishonen | talk 02:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the block. I'll keep an eye out for similar edits on either range. I've activated the gadget to check contributions for ranges. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting a range block to cover both /64 ranges, I just mentioned the previous block for context to explain why I asked you, and in case it was relevant in deciding the block length. Silverfish (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mayorkun
Hello Bishonen, You deleted the Article Mayorkun due to an AFD discussion lead by only one censuses which was a Sockpuppet and a block user. When u wanted to create the article Mayorkun their was a coloured box which warnd me, If am here to create a different content about Mayorkun I should continue but if am here to create the same content I should contact an administrator. Actually I believe my content was different from previous deleted version. I believe the deletion page was by mistake because the vote came from a Sockpuppet. I was trying to explain this but it seems there's no Understanding, Please look at the AFD discussion and found out what am saying. Mayorkun passes its citeria mainly WP:GANG and WP:MUSICBIO. If an AFD was raised on this new version I will be prefer that because it bring good censuses this time around wiich I believe. Please I would like you to look at the AFD discussion which was a Sockpuppet. Looking forward to your advice regarding Mayorkun article, thanks.--Donald422 (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I seem to be merely giving you a runaround, Donald422, but the fact is I speedy deleted Mayorkun simply because it was a recreation of an article that had previously been deleted per a deletion discussion in November 2016 (this deletion discussion). That is one of our speedy deletion critera. Therefore, I'm afraid you'll have to take your concern to MBisanz, who originally deleted the article, and who closed the deletion discussion. He's the admin who took stock of the Keep/Delete arguments. Sorry about that, and I hope the can stops with him. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Oh I see, I think that will be a nice idea, reporting to the admin who deleted the article as delete, thanks for your explanation, now I understand.--Donald422 (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bishonen , how are you doing?. I have lead my complain to the admin who deleted Mayorkun but seems his or her is not that active. [Complain here] thanks. --Donald422 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've really had a string of bad luck, Donald422! I'm sorry. But I think MBisanz is reasonably active. He hasn't edited since you posted on his page, but as you can see from his contributions, he's generally around. Please give it another 24 hours. If he hasn't replied by then, I'll take care of it. Bishonen | talk 21:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
ARBAP2
Hello Bishonen. Whatever your opinion, I think it would be helpful to all if you could comment at the AE case as to whether the reverts by Guccisamsclub (cited in my comment there) constitute violations of DS. This has come up repeatedly. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk 00:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SPECIFICO . I'm not sure. I was looking at it, but Sandstein has now closed the AE request. I suppose you might still be interested, especially considering Sandstein's closing comment — right? For instance, if you want to submit a request of your own. I can look some more if you like. I do understand these page remedies need some Kremlinology to interpret. Bishonen | talk 15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Basically, I try to back off completely, except for citing policy, when these things get contentious. I'm afraid it would only encourage more retaliation against me. But regarding "longstanding", I do think there is a disconnect between highly motivated editors who are on the computer all day and interpret "challenged by revert" to mean "immediately reverted" vs. others who do not track every edit real time and who read articles on many topics somewhat less frequently, over a longer cycle. Oh well... SPECIFICOtalk 15:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, @SPECIFICO: it is hard for all of us to follow the stream of edits on pages like that, which is why I wrote in my comment at A/E that it would be inappropriate to sanction you. But I disagree that it is appropriate to conceive of those who disagree with you as a separate class of "highly motivated editors who are on the computer all day." If there was more genuine AGF going on, the contention would be more palatable, and that is certainly possible. -Darouet (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you may not have seen, Darouet, I've already addressed that concern on the article talk page immediately after another editor took it personally. My remark referred to no individual. I was commenting, as a social scientist IRL who tends to notice such things, about the demographics of the WP editing community. The disparity in connectedness and web-centricity in editors lives gives rise to a particular effect on articles such as American Politics. The larger problem on that particular article is that some editors deny basic WP principles such as BLP, WEIGHT, RS, V, NPA. I do not make personal comments. I do point out that this or that edit violates one of these principles. Often an editor will reply with a personal attack, a derisive reference to a policy link as "alphabet soup" or some other unproductive remark. Just sayin'... SPECIFICOtalk 16:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that demographics are a major problem for Wikipedia. This includes the problem that you note about web-centric people, and the problem of ensuring that Wikipedia is a global (not primarily an American) encyclopedia. I also agree with you that policy links bombarded at fellow editors are obnoxious. -Darouet (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow you on the wikilinks. I was saying that the policy links must be followed and that editors should not misinterpret such citations as disruptive or personal remarks. SPECIFICOtalk 23:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now what you're saying. I used to hate the spamming of links in a dispute - sometimes it can become wikilawyering - but I've come to see it as necessary sometimes too. It's difficult because if someone has been editing long enough to know all these policies, citing one won't make much of a difference. I like citing them much more at the Teahouse because there at least, people genuinely have no idea what you're talking about and learn something whenever you link a policy. -Darouet (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New bird image
Rüppell's griffon vulture, known to fly higher than typical Lufthansa / United / British / SAS flights!!Secretary birds have beaks bigger than than their perfunctory name might suggest.
...but admin-vultures only eat the bits left after other admin-birds have made the kill. I thought you enjoyed the kill? (joke - please take in the light-hearted way it is intended). DrChrissy(talk) 17:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, the kill is most often suicide-by-wiki. Admin vultures just clean up the carcass. I'm really sorry the owl has gone; no doubt 'Shonen thought it reminded her of me ("full of itself"). --RexxS (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oh, I do enjoy it. I was actually inspired by this comment (not as light-hearted). But I'm not sure I'll leave it up very long. Hmm... maybe some dainty little critter next? Or a big squawky bird? You're good with birds, aren't you, @DrChrissy:? You got a suggestion? Bishonen | talk 17:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Bish: this one may be meditating on something different. Vultures... typically harsh looking, but some are impressive. Such as the Rüppell's griffon vulture. Came across a few, some 10 years ago at Lake Nakuru National Park, northwest of Nairobi during one of the lovely stays in East Africa. Don't know why a griffon flies above 35,000 feet? Can it see targets from up there? Who knows!! A nice @MONGO pic today. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed another possibility for you, if you're searching for options. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bish - be aware that although the bish-secretary bird appears elegant, thoughtful and gentle, it kills wp-prey by stamping on them[27]. You might end up with the name "Bish-Bash-Bosh" (UK humour which might not translate!) DrChrissy(talk) 18:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
After reading the above comment and watching the video, I rescind my suggestion below and wholeheartedly support this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 18:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a better name for the Bish-Secretary bird would be "Bish-Bash-Block"! DrChrissy(talk) 18:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
There are several birds I can think of, but they all seem to have negative aspects you might not like to be associated with. You could try the Marabou stork which spreads its wings over its kill so that other editor-birds cannot see what they are doing - but the have the distasteful habit of excreting down their legs to keep cool. You could try the Jakana which learns to tread extremely carefully over floating editor-lilly pads - but they are often eaten alive by editor-crocodiles. My third suggestion is the Hornbill. Hornbills are known for their intelligence, long memory and fidelity - but they have the lovely habit of blocking their editor-mate into a nest hole in a tree and feeding them through a small gap.
Bish's alter egos
Bish-Marabou stork spreading wings over a kill
Bish-Jakana treading carefully
Bish-hornbill
Bish-hornbill feeding a victim
DrChrissy(talk) 18:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just want you all to notice that I'm making a point of not cracking any jokes about choking the chicken. Whoever says I have no social graces is... Well, probably still right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite partial to the potoo bird as it reflects my moods well (confused, astonished, exasperated, etc.). But alas Commons does not have the quality of images Google provides. EvergreenFir(talk) 19:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe, thanks for all the cool birds, little stalkers. Maybe I'll make a carousel of them, like the MONGO carousel in my edit notice. Or change the pic according to mood. Love the Jesus bird! Bishonen | talk 20:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Possible reptile
Closeup of the head and fore-quarters of the Bish-dragon
Bishonen, perhaps you are prepared to consider (in the same light-hearted manner) the admin-Komodo dragon. First of all, the "Bish-dragon" would be a wonderful name, but their best attributes are the way they deal with pesky editors prey. They have venom glands in their jaws, but the venom is very slow acting. So, Bish-dragon becomes an ambush predator by hiding in bushes, waiting until an unsuspecting editor deer walks past. Bish-dragon then sprints at their target with huge speed and nips the editor deer on the heel, thereby injecting venomous saliva into the editor deer. As I said, the venom is slow acting so the editor deer initially runs away, but Bish-dragon follows the scent trail, often drooling at the thought of the inevitable block meal. Bish-dragon slowly, but relentlessly, continues to follow the editor deer until it becomes incapacitated from the venom or infection from the bite wound. This might take several days, but Bish-dragon is unforgiving. When the correct moment comes, the victorious Bish-dragon pounces on the defenceless, now completely disoriented prey, making a block kill inevitable. ;-) DrChrissy(talk) 21:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Bishzilla is very pleased with the little dragon.] Cute little critter! [Sticks it in her pocket for safekeeping with the other guests.] bishzillaROARR!! 21:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
This aint no little dragon and you would need mighty pockets to keep one in - an average adult male weighs 79 to 91 kg (174 to 201 lb) and measures 2.59 m (8.5 ft). Oh, and another cute feature is they can breed by parthenogenesis, which means Bishzilla would not need a daddy Bishzilla for all those baby Bishzillas! DrChrissy(talk) 21:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DrChrissy:, she'd need mighty pockets, is it? I can only assume you have never visited Bishzilla's pocket, where the entire island of Komodo would fit quite comfortably. Here's the link again. Feel free to drop in! Baby Bishzillas...? [Bishonen, unaccountably, has a fit of the shivers.]]. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I get the impression most maternity rooms would be more than a little scared of dealing with baby 'zillas too. Anyone know when the, um, "morning breath" issue as per File:Bishzilla blink.gif becomes an issue? John Carter (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... I see I forgot to actually place the block, Hemant banswal. Now I have, and I'm afraid the answer is no, you can't. Please get back to your talkpage, User talk:Hemant banswal, the only Wikipedia page you can now edit, and talk to for example User:McGeddon, who has taken so much trouble to reach out to you about your pictures. Depending on how that goes, I'll consider unblocking. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Happy Valentine's Day, Chère. Here's a flower that even DB can appreciate. --RexxS (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're both very sweet. Thank you. Hint to others: I like flowers, and incidentally chocolate I suppose, but I really like liqourice. HINT HINT. Bishonen | talk 11:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Article on Surprise Based Learning
Hint for 'Shonen
Hi Bishonen, I was posting an article about a new artificial intelligence learning approach called Surprise-Based Learning (SBL) when it was rudely deleted as advertising. I thought that Wikipedia was a free encyclopedia, so should it not be the first place anyone should read about a novel approach that rivals Deep Learning? SBL was a technique conceived by a Nobel Laureate and developed at the University of Southern California with many publications, and it must be linked under cognitive robotics, so would you be kind enough to undelete the page and allow me to finish it by adding the appropriate section titles, process figures, links and other things which adhere to Wikipedia standards. Thanks in advance.
(talk page stalker)Hi, SurpriseBasedLearning, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm MjolnirPants and I'm one of the editors who watches Bishonen's talk page. Your username leads me to believe that you are a single-purpose account, and while there are no rules against that, you should be aware that other SPA's have caused problems for us in the past. With a name like yours, it also raises the possibility of a conflict of interest. This is another 'red flag' for experienced editors who do things like patrolling new pages. Without being able to read the page you mentioned, I can't tell you my opinion on whether it was overly promotional or not, but even if it wasn't, the combination of your username and an article about a brand new field in computer sciences is bound to raise a few eyebrows.
So let me give you a few tips, if you want to be able to contribute an article. I'll start by answering your question:
"I thought that Wikipedia was a free encyclopedia, so should it not be the first place anyone should read about a novel approach that rivals Deep Learning?"
In a word; no. Wikipedia does not publish novel research or ground-breaking discoveries. In order to provide information which is accurate and verifiable, we generally wait until new lines of research are well established before writing about them. This allows us to find reliable, secondary sources on which to base our articles. This way, we can write about more than the technical aspects of such fields, including how they impact the wider world.
My next tip (okay, my first real tip) is that you should always sign talkpage edits with four tildes (~~~~) so we know who's talking.
Next, I would advise you to read through some of our core policies and guidelines. You can find these at The 5 Pillars of Wikipedia and Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. These will really help you to get a handle on how things are done around here, and what we look for in a new article.
Finally, I would invite you to check out our Talk page guidelines for some more in-depth information on how formatting and etiquette on talk pages is handled. You'd be surprised at how much easier it is to get on here when you know exactly how people expect you to communicate.
As a parting note, I'd like to add that the title of this subject has left me haunted by the mental image of Samuel L Jackson leaping out of my closet to smack me in the face with a math textbook and scream "Calculus, motherfucker! Can you do it now??" so thanks for that. I hope I've been able to help and I wish you happy editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 05:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What MjolnirPants said. Thank you very much for assisting the new user, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants. It's very common that people don't know exactly what Wikipedia is for, and only natural that they may think it's for sharing new discoveries with the world, though that's not so. User:SurpriseBasedLearning, please see also Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. I didn't actually delete an article, but your userpage, and I never mentioned advertising — I don't even think your page was advertising. I gave the reason "Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host", as you can see here, and I believe it was that. Please see WP:USER for the purpose of userpages; in a word, you shouldn't try to write articles on them. Bishonen | talk 11:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
School soft-block request?
I just saw this on 159.86.185.198(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) talk page. hereThis is a shared IP used by school(s) and other public places (currently a school) in Wales requesting a soft block to avoid abuse This was left a day or so after I reverted an edit. Not sure what to do with it. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) You don't need to do anything, Jim1138. That's probably a member of staff informing anyone who is contemplating a block that it's a school, and that a soft block would be preferable to avoid disrupting registered editors who might edit via the school's IP. The IP is a registered proxy server in Conwy belonging to "Welsh Assembly Government". Admins should normally hard-block open proxies, but may confuse the two. The school is almost certainly not asking for a block. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you think that's what they meant, RexxS? I read it differently, and was about to recommend ANI so more admins could enjoy and opine on such an unusual block request. But you're probably right. What you could do, Jim1138, is make the request more visible — you know, bold it, put it at the top, state that it's a request coming from this IP. Because in the usual course of things, with another warning or two, their little note will soon be pretty much invisible. Bishonen | talk 11:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Well, you could be right that they want to be blocked so that the staff don't have to worry about their kids causing vandalism. But looking at the contributions, it's 50-50 between useful edits and writing "poo" into articles, so we ought not to be pre-emptively blocking, IMHO. I've dropped a little template on the IP's talk page that should help to educate the users and warn any admins who may block in future. --RexxS (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everybody.Jim1138 (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
question
Are you available to do some revdels over on Donald Trump talk? I'd give you diffs but that just generates more revdels. Very recent, in the health section on talk. Thanks. Have already been revdel'd from the main article. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm just on the run and it looks reasonably complicated. Little admin stalkers? Bishonen | talk 21:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Don't worry, I've deleted them. Some very odd editing from Fred Bauder. Worrying when we can't trust former Arbs to follow basic policy... WJBscribe(talk) 21:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't know you were an admin. We usually have a few stalking the page but they are probably busy in RL. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that person is in the White House is going to make more than a few people forget the rules & common sense concerning those articles. Wise Wikipedians would do well staying as far away from those articles as possible; there is a curse on that man which will otherwise harm both their sanity & reputations, regardless of their opinion about him. -- llywrch (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vembu Technologies
Someone has unilaterally moved Vembu Technologies to Vembu-Technologies. The move is contrary to the spelling used in all four sources and also the official website of the company. I don't have the permissions to move it back. Can you or one of the admins watching here please do so. Ta! - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why the present redirect is now showing as a redlink above. It shouldn't be, should it? - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Although I know what salting is, I've never knowingly seen a salted title. That applied here, too! - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bishus komodoensis
(edit conflict) and then again (edit conflict). The history of Vembu-Technologies shows the user moved it to Wikipedia:Vembu Technologies (sic) to 'correct the name' — quite right in a sense, but the "Wikipedia" part was of course wrong, and the same person immediately moved it back, leaving a redirect which was later deleted as "implausible". The properly named page, Vembu Technologies wasn't involved in those moves. It has been repeatedly recreated and speedied as unambiguous advertising. There is also an AfD from 2013, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vembu Technologies, and it was protected against recreation in 2014. Of course that's the reason the alternative spelling Vembu-Technologies article was created — not, I daresay, because anybody thought it ought to be spelled like that. Complicated? Yes, and sneaky. I've deleted and protected the sneak version as well. Nobody is going to move it anywhere, RexxS. Presumably we can now look forward to, say, Vembu technologies. I'd quite like to block the person, who is telling us here that butter wouldn't melt in his mouth ("We both will take this feedback very seriously" — apparently there are two brothers, both named Kevin), but, meh, it was a year ago, and also, we'd just get more socks. Good catch, Sitush. Bishonen | talk 14:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict × 3) @Sitush: I was just about to propose speedy deletion for the article and the misplaced redirect as G4 and G6, but 'Shonen already deleted them (as G11 and G8). No messing about today! --RexxS (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Komodobish got them. Bishonen | talk 14:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Well, it's about time you put in a bit of effort. <g> - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bish and other talk page watchers: Several experienced editors such as Robert McClenon, llywrch and others have noted the problems such as edit warring, personal attacks and other high-spirited behavior in articles related to the Horn of Africa. This has stonewalled editors like Ilywrch, me and others in working on these articles. There are numerous ethno-religious groups in HOA, with a long history of wars / discrimination / slave raids / persecution / etc, as well as difficulty in accessing scholarly information behind paywall, and all this may be a cause of the poor quality articles and edit warring there (see Ilywrch's note on this). Bringing HOA under AC/DS may help. Do we have a procedure page on how to file a request to add Horn of Africa space articles under WP:AC/DS? Per this, do I need to file a request for a Arb Com motion? I am not sure, nor am I clear on where such a request needs to be filed. Help!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ms Sarah Welch - Only the ArbCom can impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions. You would need to request that the ArbCom either adjudicate a full case involving the Horn of Africa, which we want to avoid, or impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions by motion. Go to ArbCom Case Requests. At least, that is what to do if you really want ArbCom sanctions, and I can't promise that ArbCom will do that. The alternative would be to request community general sanctions at WP:AN. For some reason, community general sanctions have never worked quite as well as ArbCom sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks complicated. FYI, Cordless Larry, Buckshot06 and Doug Weller since you too have witnessed some of the recent high-spirited behavior in this articles space. I am leaning towards filing a motion, with the understanding that ArbCom may or may not approve it, as noted by Robert McClenon. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like most of the vandalism is IP or new users. Why not just protect the page using regular protection procedures? Have you requested any page protection at all for the page? Sir Joseph(talk) 20:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this suggestion as I see it is that multiple (perhaps many) pages relating to the Horn of Africa are affected, Sir Joseph. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been a little too worried about those articles. Unless things have changed since I edited in that part of Wikipedia 5 or so years ago, there aren't that many people editing those article. So discretionary sanctions may be overkill & edit bans of individuals may be a better fit. However, the potential for systemic disruption exists: it's not a part of the world where people are willing to agree to disagree, such as (for example) with Israel-Palestinian articles, & there are many passionate conflicts lurking just beyond the purview of the international news media. Lasstly, I guess my note at WP:AN/I wasn't clear: I stopped editing there not because of other editors, but because it was too freaking hard to find specific information about Ethiopia. For example, the reason most of the Ministers of Ethiopia lack biographical articles is that there is no information about them online; I guess politicians in Ethiopia are different from those in the rest of the world & are very modest about their achievements. -- llywrch (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "Horn of Africa" isn't exactly a space, Ms Sarah Welch. Do you mean these articles? That's a lot, with all the subcategories and subsubcategories. If you (or somebody) would provide me with a conservative list of articles being disrupted by non-autoconfirmed users (that's IP's and fly-by accounts), I could probably semi them. By conservative, I mean a short list. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Adding after reading llywrch's post (how it could give me two edit conflicts, I don't know, but I'm confidently expecting a third): And I can certainly sanction persistently disruptive autoconfirmed users if I'm told about them. Just take a look at my new adminbird symbol at the top of this page. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Bish: Indeed, that is the category. More specifically, the pages on ethnic groups, languages and history articles of Ethiopia, Somalia and nearby regions. If someone has time and patience, just read the walls of post on Talk:Oromo people, Talk:Somalis, Talk:Amhara people, etc, and then their article edit histories. Tiresome it is. The "newbies" aren't new editors, because they misquote wiki policy acronyms and wikilawyer too often to be new. Llywrch is right about "finding information is hard" on bios related to Horn of Africa etc, but my interest is not bios, my interest is the main articles such as Oromo/ Somalis/ Amhara/ Ifat/ Adal/ etc. Better sources and many more RS are available for these ethnic groups, sultanates, their history. Cordless Larry is right. Many pages related to HOA are affected. Bish: thanks for the note on IPs and fly-by accounts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 31 hours, I see. (It's dynamic, so not much point in blocking for longer.) Why do I feel it's not the last we see of Motbag? Bishonen | talk 12:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
No problem, he was back pretty quickly with a new IP in another range. Doug Wellertalk 12:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the Indian city projects are moribund. They tend to be created in the heat of initial enthusiasm and (if appeals for support at WT:INB are anything to go by) get nowhere. But I tend to stay well clear of MfD for the same reason I tend to stay clear of CfD. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally of the opinion that categories of this sort, and to an extend navboxes too, are a kind of cruft and should be disposed of when possible. Vanamonde (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Might be easier to wait seven days and then delete them under WP:CSD#C1. Unless someone is willing to do the bold thing and delete them now.--regentspark (comment) 14:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3 red links, maybe leave the rest of the categories as RegentsPark suggests? Not sure about the remaining subpage. Doug Wellertalk 17:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out the creator was a sock. I've deleted everything. --regentspark (comment) 14:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marvellous Spider-Man et al: This sort of chest-thumping unfortunately happens far too often on WP:IN. THis project in particular was rejected at WT:INB and if I remember correctly Redrose64 once declined to add it to {{WikiProject India}} citing that discussion but it seems to have found its way back into it creating this sort of nuisance. I remember a discussion earlier where Dharmadhyaksha, Ugog Nizdast and I had proposed getting rid of all these as they just clutter up the talk pages with inane categories and useless tags, not one of them actually helping the article but mainly making editors feel good about themselves. None of these will get deleted at MfD, just see the amount of trouble I had to go through to get some of the Tamil civilizations nonsense (all duplicative) deleted that just ended in everything being kept as "they are important". I can't find the links right now, but maybe someone else can look through the history at WT:INB. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And bingo: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_61#Consolidation_of_task_forces_and_sub_projects. Main issue is we have all these dead pages and new users posting there only to get no response; further adding to their confusion. We barely manage to man WP:INDIA and WT:INB. Ideally, I would picture all of them redirecting there for ease in communication. Just these two are more than enough but do we have incentive or time to tackle it? I just roll my eyes when I see someone add some random subproject template to an article's talk nowadays. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[/me rubs eyes.] OMG, I uncollapsed the list. My eyes sting now. Ugog Nizdast, are you familiar with this "rolls eyes" emoticon? Just what you need. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Always hungry! I had a wise and sleepy owl there before, but was inspired to make a change by this charming comment. I was too dignified to reply directly to that person, y'know, but a picture says more than a thousand words. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Barthateslisa (again)
It seems to me that as established editor, with a current topic ban under ARBIPA, who then goes around vandalizing articles outside their topic ban, is simply asking for a block, or alternatively a complete ARBIPA topic ban. BTW I don't understand the term they inserted, nor the language it is in, but it is different from the name of the article's subject, and a few minutes with google translate convinces me that it is pejorative. Vanamonde (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And a BLP, too. I see Widr has blocked for 72 hours. Yes, I'll certainly consider an extended (and longer!) topic ban if there's more where that came from. Bishonen | talk 12:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I think the editor didn't login after the edit warring block on 7th December. Today they logged in and saw the topic-ban notice. MarvellousSpider-Man 13:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant, Marvellous Spider-Man. We're talking about a BLP vio and vandalism, not a topic ban breach. The topic ban was quite narrow. Look it up in their history if you're interested. Bishonen | talk 15:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories
Hi, I'd like your opinion on a group of articles. First, take a quick look at the following articles. What's your first, quick impression? I'd like your unbiased impression before I explain why, below.
What do they have in common? They're all a part of this. Supervised by this editor. Note what's featured on the user page.
This strikes me a failure of proper supervision. What do you think? --Calton | Talk 12:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The intention of this exercise is to help students (1) develop a Wikipedia article and (2) learn about Wikipedia community, culture, and norms. We've run this exercise through six semesters, contributed many articles, and, yes, I am a long time Wikipedian and have even written a book about Wikipedia. This semester, some students were less prepared than in the past and encyclopedic tone is one of the things that are tricky for them. Additionally, I did not appreciate how much more the "unambiguous promotion/ad" had become deletionistic.
These are not conflict of interest edits but beginnings that I hope their peers and Wikipedians will collaborate on together during the rest of this semester. I think moving articles back into their user space or into the Draft space is a useful and productive action. I started doing this myself as a type of feedback on the day some of the students moved their articles. -Reagle (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Reagle. I was just starting to reply to Calton, after reading his post above and also the exchange on your own talkpage. Since you yourself are an experienced wikipedian, I hope I can talk straight to you without being accused of biting newcomers or being a jerk. I was going to tell Calton that I agree the supervisor (=you) needs to be more aware of our policies against promotion and advertising, and also altogether supervise more, rather than assume some other people will fix the problems. For instance, rather than responding to Calton, as you did on your page, by ungraciously conceding that someone (who?) might move a poor and practically unreferenced article to draft space, ("It could easily be moved to Draft namespace and provided with feedback. That'd be the non-jerky way to treat newcomers") ,[28] it would be a good idea to advise these students to start in Draft space, IMO. For you yourself to move them there sounds good, too (preferably before they're nominated for deletion). And yes, unambiguous promotion/advertising is a reason for deletion. Wikipedia is drowning in advertising and promospeak, and people like Calton attempt to hold back the tide. I hope you will help, too. Your post above sounds like we might all be more on the same page now. I'm also going to ping a couple of people who know a lot about these kinds of projects, and who are also better at the soft speech than either Calton or me (we're tart). @Drmies and RexxS: You got anything, fellows? Am I barking up the wrong tree with my suggestion for starting in Draft space? Bishonen | talk 15:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Bish: Starting in the draft sandbox space is a good idea. All 'student assignments and projects on wikipedia' – not just new pages – should ideally start there, with a note posted on the talk page inviting page watchers to comment and help in the sandbox, before changes are moved into the real page. This sort of collaboration, feedback and discussions, to the extent it is forthcoming, could be useful training, and a means for the supervisor to witness the effort. The sandbox idea may also appear to be "less biting". In the live space, it is tough to remember who is being disruptive needing fast reverts and who is a student needing tender loving care. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen All good points. We do start all articles in the students' sandboxes, and I should have done more supervision of some of the articles prior to the push to article space. -Reagle (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reagle, as a teacher of a Wikipedia class, I know it's not easy to supervise a lot of different projects at the same time, and it is also not easy to get students to write neutrally on such subjects. One of the things I do to prevent that is to steer them toward certain topics: not companies or biographies of business people, for instance, but toward things that are verifiable using books and academic articles. This semester I seem to be having an OK time with students writing about "dead" subjects. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take a stronger line, if I may be frank. My recommendations to course instructors always include negotiation with students on their proposed topic before they begin, including a review of sources that the students intend to use. In other words, if the intention is for their article to end up in mainspace, then the instructor will know if that is likely to be feasible, given the sources they are working from. One of the most discouraging things that can happen to students is to have their efforts deleted. The corollary is that all of the early work has to be done either in Draft: space or in User: sandboxes until such time as the article can survive in mainspace. In general, Draft: space is preferable as a starting namespace, although there is no facility there to export a draft article, for example as a pdf - that function is available from a user sandbox, however. Also, if you're not yet using meta:Programs & Events Dashboard to help manage the course, then I'd thoroughly recommend having a good look at it as many folks find it indispensable. Finally, I'm happy to be available if you need an extra opinion on issues as they arise, or if you want to bounce an idea off someone. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dreadful happening in the land of Scandabrod
I just had to drop by and check that you are well and safe. I have been so alarmed by the dreadful, secret goings on in your rather beautiful country. Like the Leader of the Free World, I was totally amazed to learn of such dire happenings in the sauna or wherever it is one goes to escape the weather; had it been in a hotbed of discontent like Wales or Luxembourg one could understand it. I am thinking of going to USA (I, of course, will be allowed in) to proffer my advice at the White House; I feel the President and I could be kindred spirits in our mutual understanding of the World's very complex problems. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dreadful, isn't it? Has anybody made a "Je suis IKEA" userbox or talkpage banner yet? HINT HINT little talkpage stalkers! Meanwhile, dear Lady C, thank you for your support and compassion. A propos, have you seen this rather alarming animation? I understand it represents President Trump shaking hands with the Japanese Prime Minister. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I Know and understand just what poor dear Donald is going through - no wonder his hair is turning a funny colour; he and I have both suffered the poison pens of the gutter press - some very cruel things were written about my very worthy and selfless efforts to find a peaceable solution to World War II. There are many unscrupulous people at large you know: take the Dutch for instance - have you seen this toadying and wicked attempt to steal the Special relationship from poor beleaguered little Britain? I don't care for the Dutch - all that tilting at windmills and whatnot. I'm not the least surprised that everyone is revolting in Sweden - I blame the nudity, but don't you worry, your country just needs a firm hand and I'm sure President Trump will send the American fleet and lots of nice nuclear submarines sailing up the Gulf of Finland to blast the revolters to smithereens - that's what people need, you know, a firm presence. Isn't your Prime Minister some connection of Neil Kinnock? He's Welsh you know, and they're not a nation to be trusted, they all have big teeth and one must never trust people with big teeth. I feel a great affinity with Mr Trump. Whatever, I'm sure my advice will be well received in Washington, when I get there - I wonder how much they pay, not that money is of the least interest to me. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lady, I'm sorry but not sorry but I take some offense here. I did see that "Oh Sweden is so good it should be second" video today--that is, I saw maybe a few seconds of it, but the accent rendered it incomprehensible. I think they were talking about potatoes? Anyway, the Dutch video was first, which means we are second. Also, we are naked at least as often as the Swedes, and--I might add--we have the decency to do our naked thing mostly on other people's beaches. I know you don't care for the Dutch, and why should you; they've never done anything to you. But, no, my good lady; banish Sjefke, banish Gunther, banish Matti: but for sweet Hans Brinker, kind Hans Brinker, true Hans Brinker, valiant Hans Brinker, and therefore more valiant, being, as he is, old Hans Brinker, banish not him thy Lady's company, banish not him thy Lady's company: banish plump Hans, and banish all the world. Pardon the interruption. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at this repeatedly with an eye to a comment about '"Swedes 2 Turnips 1" but, alas, I'm am not clever or witty enough to make the point. And I doubt that The Lady would appreciate even a well-formed reference to such a plebisn note. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jag ar IKEA! Drmies (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read about this in yesterday's METRO whilst on my way to college, I had to laugh at how stupid the guy really is. Apparently he confused Sweden for a place in Pakistan. What has Trump been smoking? (as an ex Swedish president said) 😂😂 Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 10:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't agree that President Trump is stupid - people said much the same about my great grandfather, the 11th Earl of Scrotum, when he built a brick wall around Scrotum Towers in the 1870s to keep Mexicans out, and how right he was proven when all those Mexican GIs and whatnot arrived here in 1942; swarming us all with that deadful over spiced food. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your ladyship well knows that the spicy food was merely an innocent misunderstanding wherein a coded message beginning "To Molly" was accidentally transcribed as "tamale". These things happen in wartime. Incidentally, wasn't one of your much earlier ancestors, the 3rd Earl, associated with the Sack of Rome or am I getting my Catherines confused? RivertorchFIREWATER 15:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha, fantastic, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. Thank you very much. Do you mind if I change "jag ar" to "jag är"? (I already did.) You probably went by Drmies's Swedish spelling, but that's a little, well, Dutch. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
To be honest, I went by my keyboard's American English layout. I literally didn't notice Drmies' comment until now, because I saw yours and the light bulb that lit up over my head blinded me to the rest of the page ;) But yes, by all means fix it. My 10-20 word Swedish vocabulary evinces only a Swedish family friend, not any belief in my own ability to correctly write it. My general rule is that my userspace is fair game for anyone whom I haven't explicitly asked not to edit there, and I even make exceptions for that when they're correcting me on something. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 15:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it at the top of this page now, changing the image link, just to violate your artistic rights a little, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
My artistic rights are known to be a little kinky; they like being violated. I had considered linking that same article, but decided to keep it on wiki and more vague.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 17:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Doctor has never written in Swedish, though he has read in it and discussed dirty thing and politics. And that free second cup of coffee, which also has diacritics--yeah, we're all Americans, so we don't do your fancy little symbols, out of spite. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to get anyone off the "Trump is an idiot" bandwagon and "America sucks" or whatever, but just last night, there was yet another riot in Sweden. [29] and according to many Swedes, there is a translation issue with "no-go" zones and indeed, there are what we in the US would call no-go zones. Here is a video where the police inform the news crew they won't enter the area. [30] Let's not take a statement from Trump and blind our eyes. Sir Joseph(talk) 17:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, I thought I knew "many Swedes". They call that "a riot".. ? But go ahead and cloak yourself in ignorance, Sir Joseph, just as the Australian TV crew did. I see they took their background from the notorious Jan Sjunnesson, of the xenophobic hate site Avpixlat, and swallowed what he said whole. And introduced Avpixlat simply as a "news outlet" — heck, we actually have an article about that website. Are you sure my page is the best place for you to share the profundity of your information about Sweden, Sir Joseph? Bishonen | talk 18:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I was just commenting, and the fact that the riot was a small one is irrelevant. I also am not sure how a YouTube video from ABC is lying when you see what is happening. Don't take their word for it. Look at all the many videos and news articles about Malmo. I just saw one the other week about a news reported being chased out of the neighborhood merely for wanting to ask questions. You can call me ignorant if it helps you, but when Europe is no longer safe for me to walk around in, I'd take the truth over being politically correct. Is the CBC also a biased news source? [31] If you don't want me to comment on your page, then let me know and I'll gladly take it off my watchlist. I just assumed that you welcomed dissenting opinions. Sir Joseph(talk) 18:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only about 1/3 of Swedish immigrants come from Muslim majority countries (and they ain't all Muslims, I promise you that). I also can't find any demographic information on Rinkeby, the neighborhood where the riots took place. In fact, it's more likely that those rioting immigrants were from the far-off, exotic land of Finland. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 20:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh do calm down Sir Joseph; I can't abide people getting humpy - we need to talk about this, we really do: it's a common American problem - you vote these people in, not the rest of us. The Swedish are a delightful race, one only has to watch Mamma Mia to see that. Indeed, you are correct Rivertorch, many of my forbears were frequently connected with sacking Rome (many of the art treasures of Scrotum Towers date to these periods), in fact my nephew is a direct descendant of Charlemagne, who it is academically acknowledged would have been the first President of the USA, had he bothered to discover it (it's true, it really is). My family have always had very close connections to the USA, like many European noble families - if it weren't for the 8th Earl's philanthropic free-passage shipping line, many poor African Americans would still be being eaten by antelopes and grizzly bears in the rain forests of deepest Africa. Does one get any gratitude from these people - No one does not. I am beginning not to care for Americans. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it's a common American problem - you vote these people in, not the rest of us. And for that, I can only extend my heartfelt apology and hope that in time, you will one day find it in your heart to forgive us poor, uncouth barbarians. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 21:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Your Ladyship, I beseech you not to give up on the Americans, they are in such dire need of your condescension and benevolent guidance. EdChem (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: I've waited a little so as to cool down after your prissy remarks about political correctness and suggesting it 'helps me' to call you ignorant. I can't believe you posted again after the way I responded originally. But I guess I'd forgotten you always have more to say. Please don't post on my page again, unless you wish to ask about an admin action by me, or something like that. Not for conversation. To other users: please don't comment further on Sir Joseph's post, as he would then reasonably wish to respond. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Symbolic representation of Lady C with another little stalker in thrall
(Non-administrator comment) Okay, I'm now officially one of Bish's talk page stalkers. I can't believe I missed this awesome discussion. >.< Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88, I'm most grateful for the condescension and guidance (as EdChem appropriately puts it) that Lady Catherine is pleased to post on my humble little page from time to time. It is indeed a magnet for stalkers! Bishonen | talk 17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
It's quite true, I am a magnet for men. Since I was a young girl, men have pursued me mercilessly; you are so lucky Mrs Bishonen not to have been born looking like me. However, I am one of the few women to have both brains and beauty, as Winston Churchill used to say: "Lady Catherine has a grasp like no other." And it's because of that grasp, that I fully expect to be appointed as a special adviser at the White House - I am travelling to Washington tomorrow, courtesy of that nice Richard Branson, who's another of my devoted admirers. I often feel that had we met, we could have become entrepreneurial soul-mates, something I intend to be with Mr Trump. I have a feeling they may use the same colourist, I wonder of honey-blonde woudl suit me? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sikh Rajputs
You semi-protected Sikh Rajputs last week, setting 17 March as the expiry date. Sandeep7422 has again reinstated the dubious content despite my note at Talk:Sikh_Rajputs#Edit war and the sanctions alert issued here. I have no idea if they've also used the IP addresses that were hitting that article for some time but I guess it is very possible. - Sitush (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I considered a WP:CIR block, but eventually went with a caste topic ban instead. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
That's ok, thanks. I don't think it is a CIR issue. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Jed's TBAN, or if you ever want to talk about it again, but if so this might be of interest. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hijiri 88. Thank you. I hadn't noticed that thread. But as for nobody pinging me, that kind of makes sense. I simply topic banned the user by way of assessing consensus at ANI, not via any profound research of my own. I'd rather let other editors and admins take care of this perhaps-ban-evasion, as I don't feel particularly qualified for the task. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Meh. I checked his contribs, and like half his edits since the ban were within a week of your closing, on this page. I didn't actually read through it all, but it seemed like the kinda thing you'da remembered. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<Pointedly doesn't make a grave-dancing joke about electronic mind control here.> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 21:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Could you please clarify application of the editing restriction currently in effect on some US politics related pages? I suggested some changes here, but the challenged material was reinstated by another contributor. Was it my fault? If so, I apologize, ready to self-revert and whatever, but the restriction is so difficult to understand that it probably should never be used. My very best wishes (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: I agree. It should probably never be used, and I'm sorry I ever applied it to any page. I think 2016 United States election interference by Russia was the only one where I did, and it looks like I didn't well understand what I was doing. I've never heard of removing the active arbitration remedies — 1RR plus consensus required to reinstate any edits that have been challenged — but I think I'll do just that, strew ashes on my head, and maybe post a note at ANI. Bishonen | talk 16:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you! I think we do not need anything for these pages beyond 1RR and normal policies, such as WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV, etc. Otherwise we will have countless disputes on WP:AE and well-intended contributors being sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bish. Just so you know, I've implemented WP:1RR on the page and replaced the article edit notice. [32] --NeilNtalk to me 21:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This edit breaches the topic ban you imposed on 20 Feb. Sorry to mither. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mithering always welcome, Sitush, and why am I not surprised? You remember I said WP:CIR. As the softie I am, I've only warned, for a first violation. It's all merely paperwork anyway, as I suspect he doesn't know he has a talkpage. Hey, I hope you looked at today's edit notice image with the lilypads, I love them. Bishonen in her incarnation as "respected MusicBot", 10:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I recall the CIR comment. I was rather surprised to do so but it does suggest that my short-term memory isn't deteriorating quite as much as I feared. And, yes, you may be a softie in this type of situation but it is understandable. We could (should?) perhaps consider an opt-outable on-screen notification equivalent to Blackpool Illuminations or (ahem) the Aurora Borealis for the first couple of months after registration but failing that we have to assume that they do not see the orange doo-dah. The current version is in fact much less conspicuous than prior notifications - and I am not sure whether it really counts as being an alert in mobile view.
I saw the pic, and the new one. I have a few somewhere similar to your latest but taken from the top of Macgillycuddy's Reeks, and some others from the rather more exotic Lhotse. I may upload them one day but I suspect the true photographers amongst us would consider them very poor quality. Happy days! - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And there we go. Where's that thrice-cursed template, now..? Blocked for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Complaint
Bishonen,
I don't really respond favorably to one-sided threats, nor do I appreciate being called a troll. That's uncivil and as an admin, I expect you to know better. If you have constructive concerns regarding the conversation, then make them, and I'll listen and respond appropriately. But don't jokingly chide one user, actually threaten another, completely ignore a culpable third and then contribute your own tepid humor! That's an abuse of your position. See WP:GBU. X4n6 (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(I've added a header to your complaint, since it isn't connected with the previous discussion; please feel free to change it if you don't like it.) I didn't call you a troll, I called your posts at User talk:EEng, such as this, trolling and personal attacks. I certainly stand by my warning: if you talk like that to other editors again (not just EEng, but anybody), you will be blocked. Your complaint here is a little vague: who was the "culpable third", and wherein were they culpable? Diffs please. I'm sorry if I seemed humorous in any part of my own posts, tepidly or not; it wasn't intentional. Bishonen | talk 11:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not making a formal complaint. I'm following procedure by bringing a concern about your behavior to your attention. But a header of some kind is appropriate, so I'm fine with yours. On both my talk page and anothers' you accused me of "trolling, personal attacks." So to now say you didn't call me a troll is to make a distinction without a difference. The words mean the same thing. You even wrote in the edit log "enough with the trolling." So your claim that you "didn't call you a troll" is disingenuous and provably false. And I don't appreciate it. As for the personal attacks, I'll invite you to go back and review the comments directed at me on that user's talk page. Condescending PAs are this individual's stock in trade. So he got a well-earned taste of his own medicine. So for you to "warn" me and say nothing re: what I had been subjected to, which caused my response? Is nonsense. I'm certainly not asking you to intercede on my behalf and frankly, I don't think that user needed your help either. Everyone there seems quite capable, hell, anxious, to defend themselves. I should also point out that I showed restraint, because that user had violated 3RR with myself and another editor and I elected to not report it.
So if you found concern with my comments and none with the comments which caused them - and which followed them - then, yes, I do indeed have a problem with that. Just as I have a problem with you repeating your threat here, when you're just singling me out for a "warning" for behavior that is commonplace with every other user on that page. That entire clique can say what they will with impunity, but when I respond, I'm at fault? No. I expect you to be even-handed, any biases notwithstanding. Your responses here about my "would-be witty sarcasm" are out of place on a page that revels in them. While your response here, for the same behavior, was an "ask" and not a warning. And ironically, you followed it with your own attempt at humor with: "There are ladies present." You lose credibility when the double-standard and favoritism is so glaring. So while it doesn't matter to me whether you apologize or not for your "warning" (even if I think you should) - I, likewise, make no apologies for asking that you be more even-handed and fair-minded in the future. If you'd ever like to talk to me, please do. I will always be receptive to that. But I won't be intimidated by threats. And definitely not unfair ones. X4n6 (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@X4n6: I advise you to drop this, as you are incorrect in much of what you say. For your information:
"Trolling" is a comment on your edits; "troll" is a comment on you as an editor. Bishonen did the former and not the latter, which is (a) appropriate on-wiki behaviour and (b) an accurate description of your posts. I note that your revert of EEng described him as an editor as obtuse and claimed it was deliberate, which is commenting on an editor instead of commenting on edits.
"He did it first" is an unimpressive excuse in a school playground, and I suggest it is no more impressive here.
Your "restraint" on not reporting a 3RR violation was not restraint, because (a) you commented four days later, so the report would have been stale, (b) EEng made a total of 3 reverts, so did not breach the bright line, and (c) the reverts were not all within a 24 hour period, so a report would have resulted in no action against EEng, and likely a reminder to you to go to the talk page rather than keeping reverting.
Bishonen warned you for actions that violate the civility policy. You would look a lot better if you accepted that you crossed a line and tried to learn from your mistake. A warning is not a big thing, unless you intend to continue to cast aspersions .
Your sarcastic remarks did not come across as clever, and "would-be witty" is a polite description from Bishonen. The approach you chose was never likely to result in any positive outcome or meeting of the minds, I encourage you to reflect on what strategy might have had a chance to achieve your goal.
"There are ladies present" was not humour, it was a statement of fact as Bishonen is a lady, and a well-respected one here on Wikipedia. She was noting that the descent into adolescent humour was neither necessary nor appropriate, something that is sadly common on the male-dominated Wikipedia.
As for Bishonen's alleged double standard in asking for restraint, that is an example of judgement as to what was appropriate in each case. You had been edit warring with EEng, slapped him with a template, and then made snarky comments. One puerile comment from a talk page stalker who is well-known to EEng is not comparable to your actions, and this much milder action was dealt with in a simple request.
Bishonen has not threatened you, she has warned you. You would be wise to heed that warning, especially as the edit summary you used in removing Bishonen's post accuses her of administrator abuse.
Your user page shows more than 10 years of editing (totalling about 4000 edits) and your talk page has no archives and only displays barnstars. Its history reveals warnings about edit warring [33][34][35][36] and personal attacks [37], all since the middle of last year. Coupled with your actions in this case and comments to Bishonen, it is my view that you are heading towards a serious sanction if you don't reflect on your experiences and modify your approach. Your block log shows three blocks for 3RR / edit warring, the most recent in October last year, and you have been edit warring since then. I am not an admin, I have no ability to do anything to you, I am simply offering some friendly advice based on what I see. Please, stop and reconsider. EdChem (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@EdChem: Your interjection into this conversation was neither wanted, nor warranted. But since you've now escalated this to a tempest in a teapot, I'm now compelled to respond.
1) As a would-be grammarian you would, or should, understand that "troll" and "trolling" share the same root. To call someone a troll, is by definition to accuse them of engaging in "trolling" behavior. I said it is a distinction without a difference, because it is. Your argument is simply a debate on semantics, and one which you lose on that basis. See WP:TROLL? to understand my position and my response. But it must also be said, that your imposing yourself into a conversation that did not involve you and was essentially ended, just to further "stir the pot" - is itself a form of trolling. Even if you felt that your contribution was valuable, sometimes it's wisest to just WP:LETITGO.
2) "He did it first" was never my argument. My argument was "cause and effect." Your intentional mischaracterization simply reveals your own bias and exposes your intent to come here to pursue your own narrative. And that neuters any effectiveness of your complaint.
3) You've also reliably mischaracterized my restraint. Had I chosen to file a complaint, it would have been timely. I had every opportunity to do so, as I was on the project during that period. I deliberately chose not and stayed away from that article altogether for a few days and worked elsewhere on the project. That's called a cooling off period. It's also just further evidence that you came here to present your own biased narrative - not to contribute either constructively or objectively. There is certainly no evidence of your good-faith assumption.
4) Civility is a two-way street. The End. And admins are expected to responsibly - and equitably - utilize the tools they've been given.
5) If you have a problem with sarcasm, then you need to take your concerns to that talk page owner. But before you do, I strongly suggest you review that person's user page and it's long-standing policy. Perhaps you can get him to rewrite it. And yes, that was sarcasm. Regarding any likely result, as you can see here - which was the response to this; there was clearly no long-term, or frankly, any damage done whatsoever. So your complaint comes off as more than a little WP:POINTy. Which is itself disruptive.
6) Regarding Bishonen's "ladies are present" comment, that really has nothing to do with me as I made no such comments. Had I, I probably would have invoked WP:CENSOR. But it doesn't happen to be my brand of humor, simply because I find it obvious. But I pointed out in context that, if she was as genuinely offended as her subsequent comments here indicate, I note that those comments only earned a mild rebuke. Contrast that with my alleged "attack," which garnered a warning. And while we're on the topic, I don't concede that I attacked anyone. I asked a pointed question in response to a provable falsehood, in one instance; and commented on behavior from an established editor who knew better and who appeared to be contemptuous of the rules and practices of this project, as though those rules didn't apply to him, in another. Neither instance rose to the level of an "attack." In that regard, what I said was weak sauce. I've seen real and serious attacks on this project. Those didn't even come close. I think you diminish those real cases by painting every minor incident with the same broad brush. Also, by that standard, any spirited disagreement could be called an "attack." No. What's really happening, is that uninvolved users are becoming entirely too thin-skinned and overzealous in rushing to "defend" their buddies.
7) Need proof? Your own words: "One puerile comment from a talk page stalker who is well-known to EEng..." What the hell difference does it make if the user is "well-known?" If a comment is inappropriate, then it's inappropriate. Your defense of the double-standard is weak. It's a weak argument, made weaker still when used in defense of an admin's actions. If policies and practices are not uniformly meted out, then credibility suffers. I said so, because it's true. If justice is truly blind - then she doesn't get to wink, nod and smile at her friends.
8) A "threat" and a "warning" are contextually synonymous. Again, it's cause and effect. You are individually enjoined from common behavior, or this will result. No. Just as my edit summary reference was not an accusation. An accusation would have followed with a formal noticeboard complaint. Again, if you're going to debate semantics, then you're going to have to use more precision in your own characterizations.
Finally, while I'm both flattered and troubled by you wiki-stalking of my traceable history on this project, it's equally instructive that you have, again, reliably elected to misconstrue it. Are you seriously counting every single time a disgruntled user has vandalized my talk page under the guise of a "warning?" That's your standard? Also, while you were sleuthing - and did notice my over ten years on this project, which is longer than yours - you very sloppily assumed the 4,000 edits under this username were the sum total of my contributions here. Perhaps your own relatively modest 12,000 edits in that same period caused your error. But once again, you would be wrong. As this notice on my user page clearly notes, I was an IP editor for years. Additionally, I routinely edited without signing in for several years after I opened this account. And I was a far more prolific IP editor then, easily close to, if not over the 100,000 mark, simply because I had more time; and didn't need to be bothered with people like you stalking my edit history looking for dirt. It was a much easier, simpler time. But once again, as with all your complaints, you made assumptions based on your own predetermined narrative, not any real facts. You assumed. And we all know where that leaves you. But now I'll leave you to have the WP:LASTWORD, as I suspect that's important to you. But feel free to prove me wrong. I've said my say and see no need to continue this any further. Which, frankly, I had already done - and is all you've claimed you wanted all along anyway, right? WP:JDI? So there you go. But now, because of you, I've had to walk away twice. But feel free to say what you will in retort. You won't goad me into a three-peat. Done. X4n6 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Use soft soap and exude this exciting bouquet!
You don't seem to have any objection to wasting your time and mine on my page, X4n6g, but I'm starting to object to seeing you here, especially at such length. I've answered you enough, for my part, and it looks to me like EdChem has, too — I wouldn't advise him to respond. Please stop posting here. If you remain dissatisfied with EEng, me, EdChem, and/or anybody else you've encountered recently (what about MjolnirPants?), your next appropriate action would be to take some or all of us to WP:ANI and see what other people think. Especially me, of course, since you believe I've abused my admin position. Bishonen | talk 00:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you EdChem, very good points. As you suggest, I as a woman do indeed have a problem with the kind of, hmmm... masculine humour MjolnirPants evinced on EEng's page. I've seen many women editors complaining that it doesn't make for a welcoming environment for them. (Cue 300 of my own stalkers to protest indignantly that they're men, and they don't think it's funny either.) It's not something I'd joke about. On the other hand, it may not be a big problem on EEng's page — I notice Mjolnir doesn't make those kinds of jokes here on my page, which shows good judgment. And indeed, on any page, puerile jokes can't be mentioned on the same day as attacks such as those X4n6 perpetrated, which richly deserved a warning and not an "ask". The diff I gave above was only one example, and I believe some admins might have blocked directly, without warning. Of course if we do block directly, we get flak for not warning, and if we do warn, we get flak for so-called "threats", but that goes with the territory. It doesn't hurt my feelings. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
If you look at my track record of potentially offensive humor, you'll notice it tends to pop up abruptly in discussions which seems to be destined to result in sanctions for one or more parties. You might also notice that said discussions tend to quickly shift focus. Not to pat myself on the back too much because I'll be the first to admit that my social graces might generously be referred to as "lacking", but I'd rather make an ass out of myself than sit back and watch talk page drama turn into ANI drama when I can clearly see the gears and happen to have a monkey wrench in my hands. I will, however, chalk this one down as a failure, given this thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 16:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, so you do that stuff to "diffuse" conflict? Bishonen | talk 16:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Well, if some of it spreads onto me, that's fine. I can handle complaints and personal attacks. Plus it gets thinned out, anyways. But no, mostly I'm aiming for "HA! That's funny, what were we talking about again?" but I'll settle for "What the hell did this fool just say? " ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 17:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[on cue:] I'd like to protest indignantly that I'm a man and I don't don't think it's funny either. Except I don't do indignation very well (although the rest is accurate). Anyway, I'll just note here that, once again, "Soft Soap 'Shonen" failed to use the admin tools that the community has given her to wreak havoc with. FFS, even a mere peon like me can do warnings. Time to ditch the Hooded Vulture and get a fluffy bunny picture. --RexxS (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, dear RexxS! Always lovely to read your insightful comments. I'm the sweet side of Bishonen, and I have already been indefinitely blocked as not here to create an encyclopedia... a rather pleasing irony. [Slowly unclenches fists, takes deep breaths.] If that had happened to Bishzilla or Darwinbish, you can imagine the ruckus, but fortunately it was only me. And I don't mind at all. I think I'll go thank the administrator for his trouble. Anyway, I don't have admin tools, but I'd like to have them some day, if only in order to pointedly avoid using them, as an example to others. Enjoy the fluffy bunny picture! Soft Soap 'Shonen (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
and I don't don't think it's funny either. <sigh> True genius is never appreciated in its time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 13:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[melancholic:] Sadly, it's not real genius. I have to work hard to keep making cock-ups like that.. --RexxS (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it even recognized in its day... One day, when I'm gone, you'll tell your kids you knew the mysterious comedic genius who so deftly claimed the title of Captain Hammer (pants) that everone subsequently forgot that some other genius, (Josh Wheaton?) once made a web serial. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 18:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vembu-Technologies page deleted
Bishonen,
I recently contributed to the page Vembu-Technologies. Today I was surprised to find that the page has been deleted. Seems like the page has been deleted after my edit. May I know the reason behind the deletion? Santhosh993 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Santhosh993 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. You had contributed to the page? I don't see any contributions, as such — only moves. Unless you had contributed to the article under one or more other account names. The article name Vembu-Technologies was an obvious misspelling, which had presumably been created in order to evade the creation protection on Vembu Technologies (an article deleted as obvious advertising per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vembu Technologies). You moved Vembu-Technologies to the strangely named Wikipedia:Vembu Technologies. Perhaps, again, because Vembu Technologies was creation protected? And then you immediately moved it back. See the section [38] above for my opinion of these actions and those of the (perhaps) other people who have been involved in the recreations and moves. You seem to be here purely for the purpose of promoting your company, which is against Wikipedia's policies, see WP:NOTADVERTISING. Please don't recreate the article again, under any name, and please don't create any more accounts. One person is supposed to have one account. Bishonen | talk 16:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Contributed - I meant I tried to correct the spelling (hyphen) of the title although I failed. I work in the company as a junior software engineer. I have been an active Wikipedia editor for sometime now. I do not have any other user account. I had no idea of the history of the title 'Vembu Technologies' being creation protected which seems to have happened way before I joined the organization. After reading [39], I came to know that some user who probably was an ex-employee of the company indulged in some activities violating Wikipedia’s policies leading to the title being creation protected.
Ideally, the user who created the article ‘Vembu-Technologies’ must have requested the adminstrator who “Create Protected” the name ‘Vembu Technologies’ when he had more appropriate content, prepared a draft of the article and upon approval - it should have been published as mentioned in Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Creation_protection, but instead chose to use the name ‘Vembu-Technologies’ without understanding Wikipedia’s policies.
But I believe, the organization deserves an article in Wikipedia (referred Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations#Why_doesn.27t_Wikipedia_have_an_article_on_my_organization.3F). And I believe that the content of the article Vembu-Technologies was appropriate and it was approved to be there for almost a year. So I feel you should consider removing the creation protection of the title ‘Vembu Technologies’ and move the article Vembu-Technologies to Vembu Technologies. That is because I feel a deserving organization which has been around for 15 years is being penalized for some novice users’ mistakes. In case if you feel the article content was not found to be appropriate, it can be discussed upon separately. Santhosh993 (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Santhosh993 (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Santhosh993. I'm afraid for a company to be notable per Wikipedia's policies, it needs to be mentioned in reliable sources, which are independent of the subject — in other words, Vembu's own pages, or user-generated content such as Glassdoor, don't count. I know the AfD, which found no evidence of notability, was several years ago, but the sources look just as meagre today, as far as I can see after a google search. Compare also Wikipedia:B2B.
The article remaining for over a year doesn't mean it was approved, just that it went under the radar, with its inventive new spelling. I'm sorry I suggested previous accounts might have been you; but they were all obviously single purpose accounts trying to promote the company. Your idea that they might have included "an ex-employee" — trying to harm the company, you mean? — doesn't hold water. So, no, for my part I won't remove the creation protection. (It was added by User:RHaworth, by the way, in case that's useful for you to know.) You can ask for more eyes on this. Indeed I'd recommend you to, because I'm no expert in the field. You can either take it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, or use the deletion review process; see WP:SALT for more advice. Bishonen | talk 11:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Bishonen, Thank you very much for the insights. And I didn't mean "an ex-employee" tried to harm the company, they probably were inexperienced and had no understanding of Wikipedia and its policies. In a rush to create an article for the company, made too many mistakes. Will look into your recommendations. Cheers!!! Santhosh993 (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have mail
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Got it and will reply as soon as I can, Jbhunley, but I'm kind of fully extended today. Please note, anybody else who has e-mailed me — I have by no means forgotten you, either. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. No rush at all. Jbh Talk 11:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:GODWIN. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:GODWIN redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but thanks. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The situation is strange. The reverting editor is listed as performing only this edit. The Talk page of the editor was active only on 12 Sept 2014. And when I previewed this, the article is still blanked. Let me know what turns up. I'm curious. (-:Tapered (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) That wasn’t the deletion that was undone, just the closing of the AfD (which was restored shortly afterward). Perhaps the user wanted to keep the discussion open (obviously not the proper way to go about that), or it may have just been a futile gesture of protest … but regardless of what happens on the AfD page, only a sysop can undo the deletion of an article.—Odysseus1479 08:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tapered and Odysseus. Indeed, as Odysseus says, the actual deletion wasn't undone. It was an odd action, to revert my close of the AfD, and I've asked the user nicely about it on their page — perhaps they were trying to do something else. As you say, they're not an experienced editor. Though they did create a company article in September 2014, which was deleted for lack of notability. Deleted contributions don't show up in the contribs list. Wow, did you see MONGO's storm in my edit notice? That's amazing. @MONGO: why is the cloud making that swirly shape? Is that the beginning of a tornado? Bishonen | talk 09:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: Before I file a formal protest to the deletion of the Dupree article I am required to first contact you under WP guidelines. Let me introduce myself, I created the article, and a major contributor. I am self-reporting I may not be neutral as the creator. There were 3 Deletes, 1 - redirect and 2 Keeps (me and another contributor) yet you said the result was "delete". ?? You just deleted the page of a black conservative who was just named a top 50 African American Republican, (that new article/reference was noted as "Important:Update" at bottom of discussion page). Dupree was honored/named this week in the same company as Dr. Ben Carson, Supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas and Martin Luther King's niece Alveda King.. The optics of Wikipedia deleting Dupree's page AFTER that article was listed in WP is horrible. It reeks of political censorship.(...odd this article was nominated for deletion the week before CPAC, the largest, annual conference for conservative politics that Dupree is a keynote speaker.) My question to you is did you take the time to read the discussion board and see the Newsmax article was added or did you just visually quick sweep it after seeing a few delete opinions and delete it? Please advise. I also ask that Tapered stay out of my exchange with you for the moment for reasons Tapered knows. Cllgbksr (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did I take the time to read the discussion board? No, I just deleted on a whim. No, I'm kidding, to make the point that your question "did you just visually quick sweep it after seeing a few delete opinions" is a little offensive, and so is your talk of "political censorship". I looked carefully at the discussion and decided the "delete" opinions were more substantially founded. Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments, see WP:CLOSEAFD. Your weighing in after every "Delete" vote to argue passionately that your article be kept didn't as such add any weight to the Keep side. As Tapered pointed out, the only "Keep" votes were from you and a person you had canvassed. On another note, I think it's outrageous that you accuse editors who question the notability of Dupree of "a racist, bigoted and politically motivated response from WP editors who do not approve of black conservatives"[40]. Those are very serious accusations, especially that of racism. You should read WP:NPA. And you say (in the same diff) that your credibility as a neutral WP contributor is being called into question? Bishonen | talk 16:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: For the record, please clarify the following: Were you aware the delete votes were cast before the "Newsmax's 50 Most Influential African-American Republicans" [41] article was added to Dupree's page? Yes or no? Cllgbksr (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(You don't have to ping me on my own page, Cllgbksr.) Yes, I was, but I didn't think it was a gamechanger. Newsmax is an opinion site, and also "Dupree was honored/named this week in the same company as Dr. Ben Carson, Supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas and Martin Luther King's niece Alveda King" is a little... it kind of sounds better than it is, you know. Carson, Thomas and King were number one, two, and three of fifty, Dupree was number 48. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, you left out the news part of Newsmax, "is an American news and opinion website" and "The website has been described as influential in American conservative[2] circles.[3] In 2015, Newsmax was ranked the 3rd most trafficked political news website in the United States by comScore.[4]" The author Frances Rice wrote "A poll by the Joint Center for Policy and Economic Studies reveals that 10 percent of African-Americans, or 2.94 million, voted Republican in the 2014 congressional elections — proving they are more than a “statistical rarity.” "The people who made Newsmax’s 50 Most Influential African-American Republicans [42] list this year went beyond just being recognized personalities. They actively promote the Republican Party’s rich civil rights legacy and agenda for delivering prosperity, security, and freedom for every neighborhood in America, thereby, enhancing the party’s image. Is it your view, of the 2.94M black conservatives in America, and the 50 that were honored by Newsmax for their contributions to the Republican party - Dupree was less recognizable or notable for having only placed 48th on the list?Cllgbksr (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) You may want to rethink your above statements and take some time to reduce the temperature of your rhetoric if you wish to continue engaging in civil discussion. You just put racist words into Bishonen's mouth that I'm quite certain they have never even thought of uttering. Closing a deletion discussion does not reflect any personal opinion about the article subject and your imputation of such motives is both entirely unwarranted and extremely offensive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Don't talk to me like that. In my opinion Dupree is a "mediocre negro", really? I don't care who fucking coined it, don't put it into my mouth. You seem to be calling pretty much everybody a racist. That's taken seriously here. Cut it out before you're blocked for personal attacks. By all means take my close to Wikipedia:Deletion review, which is the proper venue, but get lost from my page. You may or may not be "required to first contact me under WP guidelines" before you file a formal review request, but you're not required to hang around here and insult me. Shoo. Thank you, NBSB. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen before I leave your page I would like to apologize for how that was worded and was not trying to impugn your character. Using CNN Hill's words to make a point was not necessary and I should have used better judgment. I have edited out those words and restructured the reply. Again I apologize. Cllgbksr (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Blythwood. I can understand the Japanese thing, but it's incorrect. My username comes from my teenage son going through a manga phase just about the time I signed up on Wikipedia, and he also used to play Momus's song "Bishounen" a lot. I should probably have given more thought to choosing a name, but I wasn't actually planning to stay long. And now the name is the basis of an entire sockfarm — haha — how did that happen? — so I guess I'm stuck with it. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Ha, I'm sure your correction will cheer them up a bit. Will alert them (or maybe not, they seem a bit uncouth). Blythwood (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The oddity of a long absent user suddenly doing a counterproductive edit to the archive of a contentious debate raised the possibility that some tech-savvy user with an ax to grind had used the account as a proxy/sock. Kingshowman, who 'contributed' to the discussion as "Supervoter," comes to mind. If it's not too time-consuming, it might be worth a look-see for someone with the tools and skills. Tapered (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have another notion about it, Tapered. We shall see if it comes to anything. Bishonen | talk 00:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Glad you're 'on it' Bishonen. Please excuse my language. (-; Tapered (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Twitter Batman!!! Bishonen, you're listed as a serial deleter of right-wing articles by one of the commentariat @ Eric Bolling's twitter feed. Check this page history to see how I came by this info. Tapered (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find what you mention, Tapered — I mean, I don't see my own name. I don't do Twitter, and I look at it a bit uncomprehendingly. But never mind, I can't say I care. Thank you very much for the fine word commentariat, though. :-) Hadn't seen it before! Bishonen | talk 11:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Tapered, our notions about Zgilbert26 have eventually come to nothing. It appears they're simply an individual who created an article several years ago, had it promptly deleted, and then logged in once in February 2017 to make an enigmatic revert. Strange but true. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Given edits like this and this, can anyone tell me why the user still seems to have talk page access? Even Soft Soap 'Shonen wouldn't put up with that. --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Soap is busy! Just give me a minute to respond to the complaint above, please. Bishonen | talk 16:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Sure. I see Widr just blocked the single IP for a month. I've taken my cue from them and blocked the 2600:8800:4481:5b00::/64 range for a month, too. Though I feel that next time, we can start going to three months, because this is getting quite boring. What do you think, Widr? Bishonen | talk 21:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Agreed. They are obviously not planning to stop. Widr (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a little help
I could use a little help trying to get through to RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom. This fairly new editor is displaying a troubling battleground mentality over at Christ myth theory, engaging in a slow edit war because they disagree with the inclusion of content that's otherwise unremarkable. I thought the disruption was a one time thing, but as of today, it has resumed, with two reverts and the addition of editorializing commentary to the article page. Normally, I'd just try to deal with this myself, but this editor has displayed a decidedly confrontational tone whenever anyone has reached out to them. I don't think this rises to the level of an ANI thread, where I need to either ask for specific sanctions or be lambasted for not doing so, but a warning from an actual admin might get through where I've failed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 20:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, that's so not the kind of article I'm interested in... but who said I'm here to have fun? (I did! I always say WP is a hobby, and you should stop doing it if you longer enjoy it!) Hmm. I'll look. Removing L. Ron Hubbard and his "implants" from the article isn't on the face of it a bad thing for me. But it's how it's done, no doubt. Looking. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Hmm. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, I started to type some advice to the new editor, but I see s/he has actually just come to the talkpage. As long as they're discussing there, it doesn't really matter that they remove everything from their talk, though of course it looks confrontational. I'll hold off for now; please nudge me again if I miss continued problems. Incidentally, nobody, AFAICS, has warned the user strongly and clearly about adding that comment and told them that kind of thing needs to go on talk, if anywhere. (Just you in an edit summary.) Bishonen | talk 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, both I and Doug Weller have warned him about the edit warring already. Since there's an admin taking an interest already, I can't really ask for more. They're still being rather ridiculous on the talk page, but I suppose that's better than their participation on their own talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 21:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I told them not to do that on the talk page after I reverted. I've already reverted the article twice, and I prefer not to hit my third for today (Yes, I understand there may be mitigating circumstances here, but still). I've asked Doug to take another look at their latest addition (adding a hatnote to the middle of the section questioning the factual accuracy) and the edit summaries they use when blanking their talk page. Sorry to bother you with this, but I suspect Doug will find a way to settle this editor down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 22:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you did, sorry I missed it. They seem to be sort of floundering about in good faith. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, I'm sure they mean well. But they're very combative and not listening to anything. There's a small consensus to keep this info in the section just above, and they've been reverted now by at least 4 editors. I've also noticed they have a history of slow edit warring and posting off-topic talk page comments at Alternative facts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 22:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the misused template and left a note on the user's talk page explaining how it is meant to be used. --RexxS (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS I saw, and appreciate that. They've responded at their talk with more of the same. Good on you for finally getting a response on their talk page, though. Until now, they've just reverted with a mini-diatribe in the edit summary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 00:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yer, well, a little progress is better than no progress, I suppose. But user talk pages are mainly for discussing the user (normally their behaviour), or for us peons to be begging favours from admins. Their response about Hubbard's relevance to the Christ myth article really, really belongs on the article talk page, so everybody can discuss it properly. Oh well. I've made a few points on the talk page anyway. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Deletion of Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok
Hi User:Bishonen, May I ask why did you delete the above page without confirming that the unambiguous infringement had been fixed based on the COPYVIOS? see COPYVIOS results of less than 24% and I had posted a notice on to contest the infringement based on the changes? Avataron (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the COPYVIO results are not showing because the page had been deleted. Thankfully I had archived that page using screenshots. Let me know if you need that for verifications. Avataron (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was marked as a copyright violation by Diannaa, one of our most experienced admins with regard to copyright. I've pinged her in the hope that she'll take a look at your complaint. Meanwhile, do you really not understand how disruptive it is to promptly recreate the article under a slightly different name, Media Allegations, Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok, just three minutes after you posted here, without waiting for a response? That's simply a trick, and I don't see how you can have thought it was a proper or honest thing to do. You are creating a lot of work for a lot of people. I have blocked you to slow you down. Bishonen | talk 14:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
,_Kruger_National_Park.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
From the Tex-pack to the Bish-pack. Tex (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
That's what I was thinking and not only in geographic templates even in music and biographic related templates too. I have replaced that symbol on few stub templates and still doing on others. I have not yet requested G2 on the first one but there are some more which fall under G2 so am working on those at the moment. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Obituaries
_spreading_wings.jpg)
.jpg)
De728631 (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
Just what you need. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC).
.jpg)
Done. X4n6 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
_(14763349834).jpg)
" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
