User talk:Bishonen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


We Can Do It!.jpg
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

Peeta Singh[edit]

Hello Bish. FYI Peeta Singh is violating his topic ban, see this, this, this and this. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 06:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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)
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).
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).
@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)
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).
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)
Heheh, I bet you are. Here it is. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
@SpacemanSpiff: thanks for the block. I was in a content dispute for him so was loathe to do it myself. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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).
      • Grrrr...I got a weird looking bird. MONGO slow.--MONGO 21:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


Could you please also block (talk · contribs · WHOIS). You blocked one of the old IPs but not this most recent one? Thanks. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Celia Homeford! I've blocked the range 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).

New Violations of Sanctions[edit]

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)

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).

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Edit conflict? with moi? It would be our first conflict ever...

Drmies (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

[Darwinbish herds off the little critter to join her hitman training camp and eventually her lifeguard.] darwinbish BITE 19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC).

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).

Article needing a DS tag?[edit]

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)

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)
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).
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)
(wrinkles his nose) Not my brand (says Lucy), MelanieN, but chacun a son gout.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
:) SashiRolls (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
I know MelanieN, I'm really just venting here, shortly before I burn out.- MrX 22:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
@Sir Joseph: The procedure for placing page restrictions under discretionary sanctions is outlined at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions #Page restrictions. The procedure and obligation on admins for logging is outlined at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions #Logging and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions #Role of administrators. The Arbcom decision on discretionary sanctions for American Politics is at WP:ARBAPDS. The current log for WP:ARBAPDS is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2016 #American politics 2. Perhaps the non-existent documentation for Template:2016 US Election AE should contain advice and relevant links, but unfortunately Coffee has unilaterally decided that I'm not allowed to edit the template to include such documentation. Somebody else's problem now. --RexxS (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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)

Russia-US relations and WP:ARBAPDS[edit]

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)

Well, I guess the discussion occurred on your own talk page! -Darouet (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 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).
  • @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)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions :D Writ Keeper  22:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
@MelanieN: Thank you! Clarification always helpful. I should probably know these things by now. -Darouet (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)

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)

Talk page protection[edit]

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)

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).
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)

Star + snack[edit]

Barnstar of Humour3.png 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.
Banana bread loaf, October 2008.jpg
(Don't give 'zilla; 'frigeration not required.) RivertorchFIREWATER 02:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 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).

BIGFOOT article is fine just needs a update[edit]

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)

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).

Sorry won't happen again P.I.M.S. (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, then. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC).

I promis it will never happen again and I will try to on make it up to you and McGedden P.I.M.S. (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


Will you topic ban Terabar for the same reason as you topic banned Barthateslisa? --Marvellous Spider-Man 17:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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).
But, Vanamonde93 made the request on your talk page against Barthateslisa, instead of WP:AE? --Marvellous Spider-Man 01:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
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).

Please don't block me!!!!!!!!!!!!p.s. see my talk page.[edit]

Don't block me!!!!!!!!!!! I love Wikipedia p.s. see my home page. Wordsighn (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

Don't panic. I've answered on your page. Bishonen | talk 11:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC).

Thank you!!! Wordsighn (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

User page design center[edit]

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)

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).
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)

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)


[7] (already reverted) [8] (already reverted). --JustBerry (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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).
Not a problem, and thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message


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)

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).
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)
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).
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)

Merry Merry[edit]

500px-Xmas tree animated.gif 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)
Candy stick icon.png
🎄, MarnetteD! Bishonen | talk 17:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC).

Thank you[edit]

That is all. I wish I had your gentleness and patience. Guy (Help!) 01:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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).

The annual Panettone[edit]

Whole panettone.jpg

May you have very Happy Holidays, Bish

and a New Year filled with peace, joy, and panettone!

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The panettone! 🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄, little Tenor! Bishonen | talk 15:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC).

My Christmas tree HINT HINT[edit]

And finally, there's a passel under the tree! Thank you, little Gloquenspiel! 🎁🎁🎁🎁🎁 Bishonen | talk 20:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC).

You're welcome Jolly Old Saint Bish! --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I've added another carefully wrapped pressie for you. You'll never guess what it is. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
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).
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)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Happy Christmas[edit]

Darwinbish santa.png From the Tex-pack to the Bish-pack. Tex (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

  • OMG, that's a big Darwinbish! Look at those teeth! [Runs.] Bishonen | talk 16:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC).

From me, too. God Jul. Thank you for your lovely greeting. I smiled broadly. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday card[edit]

Russell Xmas 1926.jpg
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
"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![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

It's a wonderful time of the year![edit]

Merry Christmas tree worm.jpg

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. Face-grin.svg
Atsme📞📧 15:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet another[edit]


--RexxS (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Christmas tree sxc hu.jpg
Merry Christmas Bishonen!!
Hi Bishonen, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! Face-smile.svg

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 15:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2016[edit]

--Tito Dutta (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Buon Natale![edit]

Hallo Bish, Merry Christmas from the Eternal City, and thanks for your work! Alex2006 (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC) AngelsBridgeAndBasilicaDiSanPietroAtNight.jpg

Happy Holidays[edit]

Christmas Lisbon 2005 b.JPG

The 12 Days of Wikipedia
On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me
12 BLPs
11 RFAs
10 New Users
9 Barn Stars
8 Admins Blocking
7 Socks Socking
6 Clerks Clerking
5. Check Users Checking
4 Over Sighters Hiding
3 GAs
2. Did You Knows
and an ARB in a pear tree.

-May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --DougWeller

UTRS Request #17193[edit]

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)

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).
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)
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).
Thanks. I have unblocked/restored with comprehensive COI warnings. Just Chilling (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Just Chilling. I've now attempted to un-volunteer through the medium of an e-mail to 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).

Soham321 sanctions[edit]

@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)

@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).


I'm new here and just wanted to say hello. Where do I start? --BotCreat0r (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Reforming AE[edit]

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?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

  • 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).
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)
I don't know if you've noticed there's some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement now. Bishonen | talk 02:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC).
Thanks, I hadn't picked up on the talk page yet over there yet NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @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)

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)
  • 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).
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)
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)
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).
@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)


Have a happy new year!☺ Wordsighn (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Wordsighn, same to you! Bishonen | talk 21:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC).

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)[edit]

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?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

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)

Questionable IP actions[edit]

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)

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)
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).
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).
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)

Happy New Year ...[edit]

... 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)? ---Sluzzelin talk 18:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
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).
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)

Happy New Year![edit]

Año nuevo en Concepción.jpg Happy New Year!
Wishing you a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2017. Thanks for your friendship! -- WV 00:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Winkelvi, I appreciate it. Nice to hear from you! Bishonen | talk 16:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC).

New year[edit]

Half an hour till 2017!!!!!! Wordsighn (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bishonen![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Same to you, Davey! Bishonen | talk 16:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC).

Happy New Year, Bishonen![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

A moment of your time please[edit]

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)

PS As I was typing this note, MVBW also posted to my talk page, but its little more than a pointer to the essay talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • 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).
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)

Happy New Year, Bishonen![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

An user you blocked[edit]

Hello Bishonen, There is a list of some unnecessary/useless templates (e.g. Template:PartofWPPUNJAB, Template:Quote Guru Granth Sahib translation and more) created by a user you blocked Peeta Singh so can you please take a look and delete which are not needed. Thank you and wish you a very Happy New Year. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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).
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)
@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)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 😂 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)

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)
I have filled the TfD for Template:PartofWPPUNJAB becaue I don't believe this is useful and finaly replaced the image on many other stub templates as SpacemanSpiff also pointed out above but am a little bit confused whether this template is usful or not, It just includes a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Punjabi cinema task force and Template:WPFILM Announcements/Punjabi cinema so can someone please take a look at this one. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)

Purple flowers/weeds or whatever[edit]

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)
Liatris according to Mrs. A. Acroterion (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • 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).
    • 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)
    • I think they're Liatris spicata, and Bishonen need not travel so very far to see them: (see file description). RivertorchFIREWATER 18:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Very fine Rivertorch...see master of Bishzilla, they might have these Jurassic looking flowers somewhat nearby afterall.--MONGO 18:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
  • 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).

Are these weeds smokable? Roxy the dog. bark 13:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Naughty puppy! Probably, but its your guess what the results would be.--MONGO 20:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald lede[edit]

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).

Usernamen1 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  • 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).


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.

2. I did not knowing about break the rules you cite. It is a very technical rule that is not clear. You sanctioned me for lack of discussion. See here... and and, to a lesser extent There is absolutely no talk page discussion that anyone favors the redundant sentence of putting politician and President-elect in the same sentence.

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)

Usernamen1 (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@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).

Kind request[edit]

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)

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).
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).
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)
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)
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).
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)
(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)
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)
(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)
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).
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)
Blocked for a week. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
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).
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)
That'll be all them cookies, that is... ;) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 12:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


Per your suggestion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ms Sarah Welch, see diff I directly ask you for

  • measurements against User: 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)

PS: also pinging User:RegentsPark for an eventual second opinion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
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).
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Educational question please? Why are Tbans of IPs a rarity? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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)
Thank you, IP, that's it exactly. I'm afraid I thought it was obvious. Bishonen | talk 18:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC).
EEEEK IP Sock alert! Grab the knives and axes!! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
We do them though, see WP:PERUNBAN, and that one works fairly well. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

<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>MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Range block / range contribs[edit]

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)

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).
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)
Thank you both, I should have known this. —SpacemanSpiff 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


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)

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).

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)

Wait!!!!!!it's gone now sorry for wasting your time . . Wordsighn (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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).
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)

Political Positions of Donald Trump[edit]

Hello Bishonen,

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)

(talk page stalker) Good edits which violate a topic ban still violate a topic ban. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
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).
Looks good now... <slips noiselessly back into the bushes.> MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for formatting it, MPants at work. It looked worse than it was, apparently! Bishonen | talk 21:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC).
Another fucking warning? Honestly, you're getting softer than Famously Mild. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
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).
I'm just gonna leave this here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)

Personal attacks and condescending attitude[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 20:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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).
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)
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)
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)
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)

When somebody says something like that, they hurt their own cause. Don't take the bait. Jehochman Talk 15:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
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)

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)

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).
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)


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)

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).
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)
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)
The user has been blocked by a Checkuser as a sock of CrazyAces. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC).

Disruptive IP[edit]

The disruptive IP is back at Arab Jews.Jonney2000 (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jonney2000. Casliber has put indefinite extended confirmed protection on the article. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC).
(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)
Upon further reading, it appears Jonney2000 is the disruptive one. The IP was adding valuable additions to the article and you erroneously claimed that Arab Jews only applies to modern Jews and not Jews from Arab lands. If you would read the article, you would see that is incorrect. The article itself mentions Arab Jews as being from Arabia and mentions that it's not modern. It does seem that you are pushing an agenda for some reason. See ARBCOM decision for more info: Sir Joseph (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
  • 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).

John de Ruiter Article[edit]

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)

  • 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).

Socks of TTAC[edit]

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. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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).
SPECIFICO , take a look here. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC).

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
This fits you perfectly. MONGO 15:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • [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).
    • Ah, well, your skills are still with us, thou your motivation may be less than it was.--MONGO 12:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)