User talk:Bishonen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wynter is y-melten oot!

Tweeting[edit]

Tell me Mrs Bishonen, do you tweet? I have been inundated with requests to do so, but having opened an account, can't understand the mechanics of of all! How does one begin to share one's opinion and then follow the many who will doubtless agree with me? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand it either, I had to give up. The mystery is that editing Wikipedia, pretty much the only thing on the Internet that I can manage, is supposed to be quite baffling, while everybody except you and me can handle these modern inventions such as facebook and twitter. Could there be something about being wellbred ladies that prevents us? Would a kind talkpage stalker like to link us to some very basic instructions? Bishonen | talk 21:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC).
I'm a wellbred gentleman, and I can't figure it out, either. Of course, I may differ slightly in the sense that I don't want to figure it out. Notwithstanding, I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Lady Catherine, for your posts to Bishonen's Talk page lately. They are a pleasure to read and often are the only thing that brightens up my Wikipedia days. Also, many congratulations on your article!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The secret to Twitter is that it is all about who you follow. Follow interesting people in fields you are curious about like museum curators, scientists, musicians, journalists, comedians, etc. If you find someone who has similar interests to yours, go to see who they follow to see if there are other interesting individuals that you never knew about. And some of these folk might follow you back.
Many new users use Twitter to broadcast their opinions to the world and are disappointed when no one pays attention to them. But unless you have something to offer the world (often, it's humor, news or insights about life), no one is going to seek you out. Find people who interest you, respond to their Tweets that you find amusing and it's likely, if they aren't some huge celebrity, that they will respond back. And that's how connections are made. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC) (been on Twitter for 8 years now)
My dear Liz (surely not just "Liz" but Dame Liz or Countess Liz -- do give us the means to properly address you), it is concerning that you question whether Lady Catherine indeed has "something to offer the world." And the idea that she should "follow" disreputable sorts such as comedians and journalists is not on. I trust that in future you shall choose your words more carefully. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I am just "Liz" and I don't defer to the aristocracy (even faux aristocrats). They can adapt to the modern world or stay in their estates, clutching their pearls and ranting about how democracy has destroyed the world. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it's pretty simple—you just click the box promising your firstborn and all privacy rights (ha ha, this is the internet! privacy!), then plan what to say. Johnuniq (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Well it's all quite extraordinary. My dear nephew signed me in and three people immediately requested that I follow them - one Erik Moeller and someone else called Philippe Beaudette all Wikipedians; now isn't that interesting - how did they know I was there? Anyway, I had a look at what they were tweeting, and it was frightfully dull, so I don't think I will bother to follow them. Now there's somebody called Holly Willoughby begging me to follow her - poor dear, looks like she's lost the three bears. I must say this doesn't look to be the brightest place. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Your nephew seems to have provided your Wikipedia username (I would never let them have mine), so it's no wonder they found you. Now my own Twitter account, long dormant and very secret, has finally found something brighter to do: follow you! Though I really don't know how that works. I mean, I believe I am following Barack Obama, and have been for some time, but what has come of it..? Nothing much. And one keeps having to log in, which is very boring. As soon as one has been absent for a few years, one is again logged out. Yawn. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC).
  • I'm sorry, are we being judged on the quality of our posts to Bishonen's talk page? Must they be "a pleasure to read"? Must one first present one's calling card to Bishonen's footman? I'm dreadfully sorry that I so ignobly stumbled into this venue without observing the proper protocol. I will immediately forthwith retire to my winter residence and await the proper amount of time, and proper invitation, before venturing into these premises anytime soon. Yours, etc., Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid this place does tend to be a little exclusive, at least when Lady Catherine is visiting. But all walks of society are welcome in Bishzilla's pocket! Bishonen | talk 00:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC).
These talkpages are a pleasure to follow. What else do we need, except from daily hugs from our loved ones? But alas, I don't even have a smartphone. When my phone falls down and is broken, I go to a shop and ask for the cheapest phone they've got - and I mean really cheapest. Ah, what a nice quiet life! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well I don't know at all! It all seems very complicated, how will Mr Cameron know I'm advising him if no one tells him. I need to know how to post on his page. As for that young man above - you young people today spend far too much time fiddling about with these wretched phones. My grandchildren constantly have them to hand, even daring to look at them when they are being address by me! Then, when I call them, they never answer. "Oh it's on silent Granny" - Oh is it indeed! For a generation in a constant state of communication, there seems to be precious little dialogue. Now back to Mr Cameron how do I to get his attention - some one has to tell the poor man where he's going wrong - and then there's that dreadful American Trump man, I don't care for him at all. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Mr Cameron cares about what you, me or anyone else thinks. Like all elected place office holders he's only interested in the power his position gives him, and will do anything, and promise anything, to get re-elected. Thomas.W talk 11:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I took a close look at Twitter a year or so ago and found it to be a total waste of time. Everyone has an opinion about just about everything, but very few have an opinion that matters to me, so the signal to noise ratio is about 0.001:99.999. And finding the very few tweets that matter is near impossible, making Twitter totally unusable. Thomas.W talk 11:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

I move protected your user and user talk pages. If you prefer it different, I'm sure you can fix it! Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I was just thinking I should do that, after I revdel'd those moves. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 03:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC).

Rick Ross article - again[edit]

(I originally placed thin on your Uset page by mistake. Moving it here. Sorry. JbhTalk 13:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that SFarny is likely not there to genuinely work to improve the article or the related Scientology/CAN articles. I recognize I may be being over sensitive to a different POV but their aggregate edits and behavior make me think that is less likely than not. Is this something blatant enough that you can handle under DS, should it go to AE or an I simply being over sensitive? JbhTalk 13:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The current bit that a 501(c)(3) corporation is not an "educational nonprofit corporation" just because SFarney says that is a lie is getting past the Monty Python level, to be sure. Collect (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I have warned Sfarney twice on his page, stating the second time that if there's another transparent attempt to make Ross look bad, I'll topic ban him. I will, too. While I agree with you about the "chicken shit tactic", Jbhunley, it hardly rises to such an attempt. I also agree that there's a cumulative effect of ill will, but that's a bit subtle, and I doubt such an argument would fare well on AE. Take it there if you disagree, of course (I won't be offended or anything). Bishonen | talk 15:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for the input. I will not go to AE now, you seem to have a good eye on the situation. They lost my AGF but it is true they have not done anything egregous since your last warning. Cheers. JbhTalk 16:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That attack you removed today[edit]

That edit summary might draw unnecessary attention to what you removed. Just a thought ¯\_(ツ)_/¯-- John Reaves 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got a point. Still, if nobody has noticed it for four years, why would they care now? Hmmm. Do you think I should revdel it? It's easily done. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC).
Certainly wouldn't hurt. -- John Reaves 21:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed in the result. I have faith in you. Bishonen | talk 17:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC).

Hi[edit]

Everytime I happen to stumble upon user Libstar and user James500 edits they are at kindergarten level, attacking each other and baiting each other to continue bickering. It takes one glance at their talk pages to see how they are disrupting each others Wiki-lives :) Especially Libstar who has been an editor here for years should know better. Anyway, just letting you know. Regards,BabbaQ (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Channar revolt[edit]

Hey Bishonen. I am here to talk about the recent edits made by Rabtman to the Channar revolt article. He has added refs to support his claims. However I doubt the validity of these refs. Rabtman is primarily here to glorify Nair relevant articles(please go through his history). He has inlcuded lines like the nadars were untouchacbles etc. Now this is a very complicated topic. According to Hardgrave and Templeman, leading anthropologists on this topic, the nadars were not untouchables. Some nadars were historically land lords. So the term Nadar today refers to all these different Nadars subcastes. The former status of all these Nadar subcastes were different from each other. So this is something we have to discuss. Most of the lines seem to glorify the Nair community(most of his edits to). I didnt revert his edits. I didnt do anything. Because I am tired of all this. My account is currently used by wife as I am very busy nowadays. Admins do not usually intervene to edit nadar pages. But I have done my best to keep the page as neutral as possible. I actually started editing because a long time ago the page was heavily attacked anti-nadar groups. I think that trend is coming back now. Please go through the recent made by rabtman to the chanar revolt article. He claims that the Nair women were allowed to cover their upper body. This topic has always baffled me. According to the Nair wiki article, the nairs didnt cover their upper bodies(men and women). I would be obliged if you would go through the recent edits made by rabtman to the chanar revolt article. Most of the lines he included do not make sense. I am pretty thorough with this topic. I am willing to help you by providing you whatever info I can(I have the Hardgrave and Templeman book with me). And since Sitush(one of the few who can understand this topic) away, I dont have many options. If you are busy please recommend me some other editor who might be interested to edit these pages. I just want these articles to be maintained by neutral editors(Like the Nair article). Thank you for your time.Mayan302 (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sounding the alert, Mayan302. My impression is that Rabt man's additions are too detailed and also unacceptably close to Channa's wording. But yes, it's a very complicated topic — too complicated for me, I'm afraid. We all miss Sitush indeed. Perhaps you could appeal to Joshua Jonathan? Note, please ask your wife to create an account of her own, as one account is for one person. See WP:ROLE. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC).
So, my role as a mediator seems to be growing. It's a mixed blessing... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually I just instruct to do things. She just follows my orders and her opinion is actually mine. I will talk to Mr. Johnathan.Mayan302 (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Joshua Jonathan, please don't feel it's necessarily your duty to mediate. Try, by all means, but if somebody's actually disruptive (whether with good intentions or not), call on an admin and explain the situation. For instance me. Bishonen | talk 17:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC).
P.S. to Mayan302 and Joshua Jonathan: I have alerted Rabt man to the existence of discretionary sanctions for India-, Pakistan-, and Afghanistan-related pages. Nobody has done that before (somewhat to my surprise) as far as I can see, and he should be aware of them. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC).

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Of course I'll look into it. May take some time, though. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!Mayan302 (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Before you all begin to gang up on me, I would encourage you to look at Mayan302's revision history (all of it).Rabt man (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This was all obviously very well co-ordinated, and I must commend Mayan302 for that. Very well done. I am getting tired of being hounded by all of you, and I am sure you are all happy to revert every single edit I made. When I had tried to remove blatant POV from the Nair article, I was constantly attacked or when I had actually begun to have more experience in this wiki and say why, I was ignored. When I tried to edit these other articles and expand upon them, this SPA goes to almost every editor I have had trouble with in the past and tell them to revert me. Although the neutral editors (Sitush, Bishonen, Joshua Johnathan?) may not be the most willing to hear, I have one last thing to say to you all. There are many different types of people who are working with you that have added horrible POV statements which reflected far from the truth, or have used this as a medium to glorify their caste. The sources itself were terrible (there are syrian christian glorification authors in the Nair article, saying various statements brought about by various editors). The most stupid reasons were given to harass the Nair article, and there was even a legend which said that the Nairs are descended from Dogs. This was later disproved, and recognized as complete nonsense but many more stupid things exist in these caste based articles. Some of you have even exceeded 3RR, and put false edit summaries without even reading the diffs. And this is supposedly ok.
You have enforced this POV unknowingly. My examples of editors include Mayan302, Cartick, the sockpuppets of Kondotty Sultan, Achayan, etc. Look at their revision history. What you say is glorification of the Nair caste was given through citations, and what you think of as glorification is the truth. A ton of statements which were the truth (truth reflected by citations, not only by common knowledge), but yet supposedly offensive to others does not mean glorification. People will resort to sock-puppeting etc as they will not know how to prove their point which they see as obvious.
As being some of the so-called neutral editors of caste-based articles you have to realize that you could stop all the other SPA's, socks,etc if you all stop claiming ownership of the articles, listen to what the common IP's and editors have to say, and stop bullying others. I understand you are more experienced with wikipedia than I am, but you are unknowingly screwing it up as much as the vandals are by supporting the ones who are truly out to destroy the identities of other castes. I am not one of them. I am not here for a pro-Nair glorification agenda. I had removed obvious nonsense (or at least proposed to), and added reliable citations for those statements which were the truth.
I am tired of you all taking sides and harassing those you do not agree with. Reflect upon what you have done as well, before attacking other editors. Realize that you are being manipulated into attacking other castes, or possibly doing it so on purpose. I don't know, I do not care, but you are enforcing wrongs, and letting them slip in. Rabt man (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I have responded on your page. Bishonen | talk 16:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC).

It appears you have blocked TMobile customers[edit]

Hi Bishonen Today when I was out I tried to check my watchlist on my phone, not something I normally do. Up came a message that says you have blocked the 172.56.32.xxx ip range. This is a range belonging to TMobile a major cell phone carrier. When will this block end? AlbinoFerret 02:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it, AlbinoFerret. I didn't block a very big part of TMobile, though! I blocked the 172.56.32.0/22 range, theoretically 1024 IPs, for one month, on 29 January 2016. There was a lot of disruptive block evasion by an indeffed user coming from it. I've had to do that several times over the past few years wrt the same individual, and this is actually the first time anybody has complained. (Well, excepting the individual, they have been pretty annoyed.) I do realize that new users, who don't know how to complain, may also have been affected. Still, it's been some pretty bad disruption. If I leave the block in place, it'll expire on 29 February. What do you say, how much does the range block incommode you? If a lot, I'll lift it. Bishonen | talk 14:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC).
I was more interested in finding when it was going to end. Leave it be if its going to expire in a month. I dont normally edit from my phone, and I was just checking my watchlist because I was bored where I was at. Its a minor inconvenience for me and if it stops disruption that inconveniences more people its worth it. I figured it had to be for something bad to block a major cell phone provider. AlbinoFerret 16:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Interesting -- I regularly block part of the same range. Different troublemaker, I believe, but a particularly nasty one. I only remember one complaint, at least from that part of the range (half the size of the /22). Antandrus (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't you think it's the same, Antandrus? Mine is, uh, known as TE. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC).
I just looked up the history of TE -- did not previously know this person -- so that's a strong negative, very different malefactor indeed. Mine is the guy who does this. He's such a magnificent comedian it's almost a shame to shut him down. Antandrus (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, right, that edit was followed by one of my faster reverts. I did hesitate; I like the "antbrain" theme. :-) Bishonen | talk 17:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC).

Profile101 appears to be socking[edit]

Hi Bishonen. I think User Eeditflyover is a sock of Profile101. The user edits exactly like him. Can you please take a look at this. I would open an SPI, however I don't have much time to do this nowadays. Thanks. Class455fan1 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Right. I guess it's harder for Profile to disguise themselves than for most editors. Blocked per WP:DUCK. Good catch, Class455fan1, thanks. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC).
Hi Bish, I left a message on his page explaining to him not to block evade again, but he doesnt want to listen to me. Can you please explain it to him. Thanks. Class455fan1 (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for trying, Class455fan1, but you see how it is. He doesn't understand — he's so far from understanding that it's pointless to try any more explaining. Now I see the sock says he's not "the main user from" Profile101, because he has a different e-mail... so he should be unblocked... Now come on, please stop editing Wikipedia till after your exams! If you want another self-requested block, just let me know. Bishonen | talk 09:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC).
My exams start from May 17. The ones which I have just done were mock exams (and three real ones), so I will ask for a three month block on April 1 maybe. Till then, I'll edit. Its funny how he still claims he is not a sock when it's pretty obvious he is! Class455fan1 (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
He doesn't understand the meaning of the word. How would he be able to give the e-mail addy of Profile101 if they weren't the same person? Bishonen | talk 10:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
YOU BETTER UNBLOCK BOTH EEDITFLOYER AND PROFILE101 NOW FOR I WILL BE BLOCK YOU AND I WILL BASH YOUR MOUTH NOW! THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE.

Vandal Protection[edit]

Hello, how are you? Sorry to disturb, but there seems to be an edit war going on at Sallekhana. It was subject to protection as well some months earlier as IP's were vandalising it spamming with the word Suicide. Please see [1] and Talk:Sallekhana. Can you please help? Thanks! -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Bernie Sanders, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Even if you're an admin. You still can't change someone's comments just because you don't find it respectful. Many people call him Bernie.It's not like he's posting that in the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe you just sent me that template. I've seen you be unreasonable before, but this is something special. Are you trying to make me "involved" w r t you, and thereby unable to topic ban you, by being ridiculous on my page? It's not going to work. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC).
not at all, I just reverted your edit. Are you saying that an admin is above getting warned? Your revert deserved it. I would have done it for anyone. You're not above the rules. Why are you threatening to topic ban me?Sir Joseph (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Of course I'm not threatening to topic ban you. I wouldn't dream of topic banning you over being offensive on my page, or over reverting me. Admins are used to nonsense. But I did warn you recently that I would topic ban you from the Arab-Israeli pages if you persisted in your uncollegial editing habits.[2][3] That warning stands. And it's the only possible reason I can think of for you to come to my page and make such a fool of yourself. Not only admins, but all experienced users, are "above" being welcomed to Wikipedia and told how they can learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia, as I have already told you. I warned you just a week ago about abuse of warning templates.[4] And here you are with with Template:uw-tpv1. Amazing. Now do yourself a favour, go away. Don't post again. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC).
Sir Joseph's post is complete nonsense. If someone starts a talk page discussion with an inappropriate heading, it is perfectly reasonable for another editor to fix it. Other editors may disagree about what heading should be used, but no competent editor would post a ridiculous warning regarding such a disagreement. My suggestion would be to actually read WP:TPO which includes "no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate...". Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)