This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bishonen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
By unblocking User:EEng you are effectively saying that certain people can do whatever they want on wikipedia, harrass and bully anyone they want as long as they are popular enough and "it's only a joke". Admins are meant to stop this behaviour not to encourage it. Please consider your position.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Whatever else one might say, my post at issue was completely serious, and presented as such, so your idea that there's an only a joke defense in play shows you have not the slightest understanding of what's going on in this controversy. EEng02:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@EEng: Yes, Nigel Ish seems to associate you with the "it's only a joke" defense—which does not apply here—but perhaps you should reflect on why that might be. Paul August☎12:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC) (EEng's self-appointed personal scold.)
And that's because people like you support disruption as long as it's from one of the favoured few. If a normal editor acted like EEng then they would be told to stop and if they persisted would be very quickly permablocked with no way back, but as long as you've got admins who've got your back you can do anything. Wikipedia cannot pretend to take harassment seriously while this "one rule for them and another for us" continues.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
And if you think your characterization of DFO has even the slightest validity, then you really have not the slightest understanding of what's going on. DFO absolutely hates my guts.[FBDB]EEng02:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@EEng: Now, now. None of that. I absolutely hate when you add content that is insulting/belittling/so insensitive of feelings that it is indistinguishable from cruelty. all kidding aside --Deepfriedokra(talk)10:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Together we've beautifully illustrated the distinction between criticizing the edit, not the editor – the comment, not the commentor[1] – which is indeed the at the heart of all this. Look, when the tenth person in a row showed up to seriously propose that the article read ...
Keiynan Lonsdale is a Nigerian-Australian actor, dancer, and singer-songwriter known for roles in The Divergent Series: Insurgent (2015), The Finest Hours (2016), and Love, Simon (2018). Tree has also worked as an MTV VJ, and released original music recordings.Lonsdale got his first acting job in 2007, with a bit dancing part in the film Razzle Dazzle: A Journey into Dance. The following year, tree appeared in an episode of the Australian television medical drama All Saints. Tree released a single on iTunes titled "One and Only" in 2014. Tree then played a supporting role as Uriah Pedrad in The Divergent Series: Insurgent (2015), the second film in the series. Tree briefly reprised the role in The Divergent Series: Allegiant (2016). In 2016, his single "Higher" was included on Connor Franta's curated album Common Culture, volume 5. Tree next appeared in the historical drama The Finest Hours (2016) as Eldon Hanon, the youngest sailor involved in a rescue at sea. In 2015, tree auditioned for the role of Jefferson Jackson but this role was given to Franz Drameh.Tree identifies as queer and prefers not to label treeself to a specific sexuality.
... I'll admit I went a teench overboard. But still it's the concept, not the concept-or. all kidding aside EEng14:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, at least a "teench", but thanks for admitting at least that (a little more of that would go a long way). But it's the "overboard" thing that people will take notice of, not the other. Paul August☎14:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Well you must admit that Tree identifies as queer and prefers not to label treeself to a specific sexuality qualifies as overboard as well, so my reaction can't be called entirely disproportionate. Being labeled transphobic didn't have much of a calming effect either. Ya know, if GW had simply said, "To be clear, you're criticizing the idea of using tree in the article, not your fellow editors, right?", I'm sure I would have said, "Well, I did let myself vent a bit there, and I know I need to keep in mind that not everyone understands why we can't incorporate an avant-garde wording like tree into an article", and that would have been the end of it. But no, she had to go all ex-arbitrator authoritarian on me.Remember that her original justification for removal was NOTFORUM, which was clearly inapplicable – whether you like the form of expression or not, my post directly addressed the wording of the article. The later shifts in rationale (BPL? No? OK then, how about NPA?) make it clear that the starting point was a visceral dislike, and the reasoning was ginned up later. EEng15:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with most of that, (however I will AGF about other peoples' motives), and in particular I agree that given such provocation your emotional response was understandable, but the fact remains that ... two wrongs don't make a right. Paul August☎16:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nigel Ish: I realize you are angry, and that was a heated utterance. However, it's 1) a personal attack, and 2) quite unfounded. At no time did I say the block was wrong or that he should be unblocked. In fact, I said that his conduct is becoming increasingly inappropriate and that he needs to stop. Thanks, sorry bish1 --Deepfriedokra(talk)15:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Nigel Ish. I understand your point. But I assessed the consensus of the ANI discussion and found it to be obviously in favor of an unblock. When an admin finds an obvious consensus, I think their appropriate action is to implement that consensus. That's my position. Bishonen | tålk15:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC).
(multiple e/c's, i expect this post is less useful now) It's a constant source of bemusement to me that people otherwise so enamored with the idea of civility can say, repeatedly and with a straight face, things like "people like you support disruption as long as it's from one of the favoured few" (emphasis mine). That kind of vilification of other people's motives is an exact replication of the tactic "Democrats want to destroy America". It is much worse, much less civil, much more damaging, than rudely saying someone is being dumb. In a way I guess it's understandable; people are emotional. I'm certainly not proposing some kind of action. I'm sure Bish certainly expected incivility from people when she unblocked. But the logical dissonance is kind of jarring. Perhaps Nigel Ish would like to rephrase, and comment on the cost or benefit of actions, not your motives. Or maybe they wouldn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Fundamentally there seems to be a refusal to admit to responsibility for admin actions - If you use admin powers either by blocking or unblocking then you personally must take responsibility for your actions (rather than hiding behind "it was consensus that forced you to unblock". Bishonen's actions, by unblocking EEng, supports the toxic culture on Wikipedia when the mocking and abuse of real people is applauded so long as it is from the right people and is considered amusing by those with power and influence, just as those who carry out the toxic actions or applaud from the wings. But as it is clear from User:Deepfriedokra and User:Floquenbeam comments that criticism of your actions will not be tolerated and is considered a personal attack, I will not comment here again.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh come on. The responsibility of an admin, in this situation, is to judge consensus, and act on it. You may certainly disagree with their judgement concerning consensus, but you can't expect them to be responsible for, or agree with, or defend that consensus. And for an admin to see a clear consensus to unblock and not do so because they disagree with the consensus, is for that admin to substitute their judgement for that of the community. Something we don't generally want. Paul August☎16:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Glad to see this unblock, Bish. Not so much for EEng's sake, but for everyone's. I obviously think the block was incorrect, but was willing to defer to consensus if it had been in favor of keeping the block. But I think it was really important that there be no precedent established that an admin can demand an overwhelming consensus to overturn one of his blocks or else he'll go to ArbCom. In this case, we were lucky there was a consensus to unblock, and that claim could be challenged. If there had been no such consensus, I worry that HJ's rhetoric would have appeared to have been sustained, and next time another admin would try to make the same demand. I should have guessed you weren't afraid of ArbCom. (maybe relished the prospect? just a little? :)... ) --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Bish has reversed two blocks on mine that required a large amount of chutzpah. I have no hard feelings or the slightest desire to run to the parents, but guts is not a trait Bish lack -- GuerilleroParlez Moi18:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Two, Guerillero? [Thinks. To no avail.] I only remember the one a month ago... I typed the username at first, but perhaps we needn't actively encourage somebody less tolerant than you to start a list of "reasons to desysop Bishonen". Bishonen | tålk20:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC).
I did a quick look through MjolnirPants talk page. “We love you but you're outta here and please come back because we love you so much”. I'm not sure what you mean “give credit in the history” but if you show me I'll do it. SlightSmile21:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Just mention him in the edit summaries. I realize you have already added the goddess to those two pages and published edit summaries for the additions, but you could perhaps add dummy edits, so as to be able to say "btw the Platinum Goddess is the work of User:MjolnirPants" or similar in the new edit summaries? Bishonen | tålk21:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC).
Yes, indeed, Roxy. These people work so hard, and then burn out, I think. (Not me, I'm lazy.) I miss MrX. And AndyTheGrump... though Andy is editing again. Fingers crossed he's seriously back, and pacing himself better. Bishonen | tålk21:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC).
Oh, that guy. Sorry, we have all these highly active Guys. Don't talk like that about MjolnirPants, he of the Platinum Goddess! Bishonen | tålk22:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC).
The little at-work user obviously don't realize MjolnirPants protected by powerful benefactress Bishzilla! If little MjolnirPants has split personality disorder, so does Bishonen, don't forget. More better personalities! bishzillaROARR!!pocket22:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC).
Hello, Bishonen. This is regarding a highly disruptive sock master who has spammed this project with unreliable/fake Koli-related claims over the last few years. Sitush used to take care of the mess created by him. But he is editing using a mobile which is in itself a challenging task. You have also blocked him at least once: User talk:Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala#You have been topic banned from caste-related pages. His numerous socks have again created many Koli-related articles, which are either unreliably sourced or contain made-up claims. His articles are practically always about nonnotable or made-up Koli-related stuff, which at best gets passing mention in reliable sources. Today Oshwah has blocked his 30-odd sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thakor_Sumant_Sinhji_Jhala/Archive#28_March_2021. Can you or any other admin nuke the mess created by him?
Also, he edits as an IP hopper in a highly disruptive way. I don't know anything about IP ranges, but the first 8 digits of the IP hopper's range always looks like "2401:4900:", e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. So, is there a way to block this IP hopper?
Finally, Udham Singh has been continuously disrupted by all sort of POV pushers. And the above Koli sockmaster has also jumped on the bandwagon – see here for more details. Even a very experienced admin (Utcursch) has wasted a lot of time in reverting his made-up/unreliable details. So the page needs to be semi-protected for a long time. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
NitinMlk, yes, indeed we miss Sitush. Taken as a general problem, this is above my pay grade. I'm going to ping @SpacemanSpiff, RegentsPark, Abecedare, and Vanamonde93:. Wow, that's a lot of socks flushed at the SPI. Unfortunately it's quicker and easier to create them than to report and block. :-( Therefore, I've no doubt Udham Singh needs semi. I've given it a year. But as for cleaning up the other messes this villain has created... no. Sorry. I'm not up for that, it's too much and too difficult.
As for the IP range, I thought for a moment you were saying the first four groups of digits were always the same — that would have been great, and I could have blocked very easily! But of course I was misreading, and it's far from easy. I'm just going to bed now, but tomorrow I'll do my best with the 6 IPs you link to, meaning I'll block the 6 relevant /64 ranges for a month or two. (I understand you don't do IP ranges, NitinMlk, but this information may be useful for my talkpage stalkers. Er, Johnuniq? Do you think that would be a relevant action?) Bishonen | tålk21:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC).
I looked at the six IPs. There is not much value from the edits on the large 2401:4900::/33 range that covers all six. However, it would be a bit courageous to block it for any significant period. There is nothing that can be done at the moment with the six /64 ranges covering the individual IPs because they are either currently blocked or haven't edited for a long time (October 2020). Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
This sock master targets a large number of articles, but his most targeted one is the Koli people article. Luckily, it survived this time because it was given 'extended confirmed' protection last year: [8]. But the protection will end next month and his socks will again mangle the article completely. So the page needs 'extended confirmed' protection for an indefinite time. Also, I might request you in the coming days to protect List of Brahmin dynasties and states, as the page is continuously disrupted by a different sock master: this one is the latest suspected sock of that sock master. But I will have to file an SPI first. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)NitinMlk (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Danny Mann
I heard that Danny Mann just got deleted from Wikipedia, and I wanna bring him back onto this wiki were he absolutely deserves.
Hi, Alexkrzywicki1. The article Danny Mann was deleted in June 2020 after a deletion discussion here. The subject was not considered to fulfill Wikipedia's criteria for notability, please see Wikipedia:Notability (people). I see you have written the exact same note to four different admins. Please don't do that, as it wastes admin time. We're volunteers like you. Stick to one person. Note, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which will turn into a signature + timestamp when you publish. Bishonen | tålk20:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC).
God! Isn’t life boring, that I’m now reduced to reading comments about people that no ones heard of. If I knew who he was, I’d write him a page. I wonder if I’m the only person stuck in a freezing cold England and climbing up the wall with boredom. The snow has ruined my magnolias and I’ve been banned from touching a paint brush (the decorating type) I’m sick of the two pages I have I user-space. Can’t even go to the pub, not that did anyway, but it was nice to know I could if I wanted to. Too early in the day for a drink, there has to be more to life than this. I think I’ll go and research Danny Mann, who know he might own a Palladian pile somewhere which would make him notable. Giano(talk)10:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh Look! He’s terribly famous, even more credits than Meghan Markle. Admittedly, he hasn’t tried to bring down the British monarchy by not knowing his own wedding anniversary or understand letters patent, but he’s acted about here and there, we have all sorts of odd people who’ve done that. I would copy paste it all in, but I expect there’ll be some rule about it, and I am very law abiding. Giano(talk)10:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
K::*Review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Mann first because a recreated article would be speedily deleted unless it had significant differences from the original, particularly regarding what sources showed notability. That is, if no new sources are available other than those mentioned in the AfD, Danny Mann will have to remain at Simple Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Obviously a far more simple project than this, although I can’t believe its arbs are any more simple than ours. Giano(talk)10:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello there, mr Fröding. No.. not really. Not sure I can make myself care what the article is called... but the film sounds great. I love the fateful pissing on the ancestral tree and the ättestupa. The man "wearing Mark's clothes and skinned face" might be influenced by Men in Black, I suppose? Still, it's a nice touch. PS, I didn't know you had your own article on sv wiki! Bishonen | tålk14:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC).
It's a poem that's really easy to learn by heart. Oh well, when little Estelle innocently types "Midsommar" into en-WP, that'll be what she finds. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Check Yadav page
Hi, first of all, nice to see u after a long time. I am just very busy, so instead of filing WP:ARE and involving there I am contacting you. Shital V Yadav, a new user is at disruptive mode on Yadav related pages. I believe him of being a sockpuppet of another blocked user. But since lot of warnings have been given, it is enough to take action against the vandal who also have WP:CIR issue as he is removing image from the article.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh! and now he is reverting all my recent edits on various pages. Totally disruptive.At Politics of Bihar and many others. It will take a lot of time to undo all of these reverts. If any stalker who is also an admin is here, take appropriate actions on Shital V YadavHeba Aisha (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Mr. Heba Aisha I'm asking why are you not providing valid references for both images on Yadav page ?? if you add both images with references then I'll never make any changes but you are simply reverted my edit , I checked so many times after that removed the both images.
Yes, its resolved, I m nominating various stubs created by the banned user for delition under G5 criteria.All of them are related to politicians of Yadav caste. If I found someone notable enough, I will create article in future. But at present, I don't think its good to keep them. Btw thanks for responding. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Yadav caste related pages are new hotspots
This is very difficult for people like me to verify edits of the users who are here for promoting their own caste and end up distorting historical articles for upward mobilisation on Wikipedia. It becomes more difficult when I found myself alone editing the articles related to some particular topic using quality sources neutrally. Sitush and others who were doing this are not active now and I would like to tell you that just like we faced the problems in Rajput related pages few months ago. This time Yadav caste related pages are new hotspots. Please keep a tab on my talk page and the pages I visit as these users have distorted large number of pages in very short period of time. Thank You.Heba Aisha (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Cwater1. That can happen if an admin blocks an IP range that there's a lot of vandalism from. Then there may be "collateral damage", meaning innocent IPs are also caught up in the block, though admins try to avoid this. Also, an account can have their IP address blocked if that IP was recently used by a blocked user, known as an autoblock (follow the link to see how to fix this). Have you had any IP block problem yourself? Bishonen | tålk08:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC).
No, I'm sure you won't get in trouble, Cwater1. As I said, it usually happens because somebody else did vandalism. What happened? What kind of message did you get? Bishonen | tålk13:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC).
Unless your IP address is static, it'll get re-assigned to other people sometimes. Johnuniq, could you advise Cwater1, please? I'm not very good at this. Cwater1, please tell us what kind of message you got when your IP address was blocked. It'll help us to help you. Bishonen | tålk09:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC).
Hi for some reason my ISP address was blocked and I don't understand why. The reason given was vandalism and page disruption which I have never done. Aussie2021 (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
My ISP 2001:8004:2781:aa77:b7be:e016:b62f:2cc6. I didn't mean to vandalise or be disruptive it wasn't intended I just don't understand how to edit pages correctly.And if you do remove the block I will be more careful in future. Aussie2021 (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Aussie2021. EdJohnston blocked the range 2001:8004::/33, which includes the IP you mention, for disruptive editing. If you personally are innocent of disruption, I suggest you speak with Ed at User talk:EdJohnston. Note that new messages should go at the bottom of talkpages, with an individual header. If you put them into an old thread somewhere in the middle of the page, as you did here, they risk not being noticed. Congratulations on creating an account! That's always a good start, and the IP block obviously isn't preventing you from editing using the account. Bishonen | tålk16:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC).
Please do not add troll comments like this one to my talk page
"Vapourmile, it seems to me you are confusing Guy Macon with Emmanuel Macron. Some people can be offended when you persistently get their names wrong, so please try not to. Bishonen | tålk 16:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)."
I gotta love that poster, not least because it's two years older than I am. The facial expressions on the two people at the lower left are intriguing. Neither looks frightened. The man looks seriously pissed off, and the women looks a bit enamored of Gojira (which probably explains the man's expression). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Researching further (as I am wont to do), I see that there is Gojirasaurus, denigrated by Wikipedia as a "dubious genus". (On the other hand, I know a fair number of dubious "geniuses".) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I should thank Bishzilla for reminding me that I'm far from the oldest individual here (by millennia, it seems!). An interesting bit of wiki-anthropology: when I joke on EEng's talk page, he tells me to get off his lawn, and when I joke here, I wind up inside a giant lizard, sitting on a sofa. So many bossy oldsters! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Swedish emigration to the United States FA concerns
@Bishonen: Greetings! I saw that you promoted Swedish emigration to the United States and thought I should inform you of my concerns about the 2007-nominated article. It is mainly about references; many paragraphs are either unreferenced or are supported by just one. Could you take a quick look at the article and see if it could be improved? Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, Wretchskull. It would entail a lot more research in an area that is no longer "hot" for me. Altogether, I'm really not crazy about trying to re-source articles I wrote once, especially when it was so long ago. If somebody wants that one to stay featured, I'm afraid they'll have to adopt it. Bishonen | tålk19:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC).
Welcome
How are you? , Just came here after seeing you active. Most of the old people which I found here are missing now, including some good admins. Hope you are enjoying the real life. COVId has striked once again in India and government has strictly enforced lockdown once again, and made us jobbers. How's the condition there. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Heba. I'm not Japanese — I'm half a world away — I just have a misleading username. See my responses here. We're having a nasty third wave of infections where I am, which is in Europe. Bishonen | tålk13:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, hope you are fine. Would request you to protect the article on Varma (surname) from persistent vandalism by a particular user (or as a sock) in spite of all explanations in edit summaries as well as warnings on the user's talk page. Please help. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Ekdalian. I have blocked the user indefinitely from editing the article. One of the newfangled partial blocks. They can still edit the talkpage, in case they take a notion to discuss. Do you think the article still requires protection? Please let me know if further socks or IPs turn up, then I'll semiprotect. Bishonen | tålk13:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen for your prompt response / action, as usual. I shall let you know in case socks turn up, and the article requires protection. Warm Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Pahela Baisakh Page
Dear Bishonen
I once again turn to you for advice.
I had previously reached out to the Administrator's Notice Board, Neill N, Soumya Biswas, Sarah Welch and Firestar 464. I haven't heard from any.
Please have a look at the Pahela Baishakh page.
There has been a controversy there since at least April 2017. This pertains to the origins of the Bengali New Year. There are two theories - Mughal and Vikramaditya/Hindu/Bikramaditto/Indic.
More recently, key information supported by citations pertaining to the latter theory were deleted. Since April 15, I tried restoring some of that information from previous versions compiled by editors like Sarah Welch (who is one of the best on Indic issues). Whenever I did so, the material I restored was reverted. I would like to desist from edit warring but felt that I needed to get my point across both in the Talk Page and by reverting the deletions.
I didn’t delete any existing material. I only restored material from before. It not material that I introduced. I only restored although I may have revised the wording used earlier.
The Pahela Baisakh page will benefit from an independent review. I did try explaining what I did on the Talk Page. I didn’t succeed. Three or four individuals, including anonymous IP numbers, who may or may not be subject matter experts were very active in reverting my efforts. I am not sure whether sockpuppetry is involved. The information I restored is called "junk", "a lie", "irrelevant" etc. I seek an independent read of what's happening. I would appreciate your advice. You would be neutral as an outsider.
This is not a complaint on any individual. Its about the page's neutrality.
Hi, Dipendra2007. I'm afraid I'm very far from a specialist in these matters, and I must decline to intervene. An IP who fails to sign on the talkpage does seem inexperienced, but on the other hand they discuss properly and there is also another user speaking against your version. Since you have already tried WP:AN and several users individually (who I do believe know more about it than I do), it's hardly for me to put my oar in. Perhaps one of my knowledgeable talkpage stalkers may have a comment for you. Bishonen | tålk07:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC).
Ok. I hear you, Bishonen. I may intermittently, respectfully and selectively revert as the editors do not seem to be amenable. There is an element of rudeness in the comments made on my Talk Page. The material I reintroduced was from Sarah Welch's page which in my view was rigorous. cheers Dipendra2007 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Applying for Release to Elsewhere
Yes, I have read the book (and your page on self-blocking policies). I ask, however, that two customary terms be ignored:
The prohibition from emailing others. I would like to voice concern to the ArbCom over something a certain functionary did (not you).
The waiting period. I have asked for Release from User:TonyBallioni a day ago.
Let this be as long as you would like to grant (other passing admins could assign anything up to indefinite), and take note of my "will" at my user page. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 15:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Noting here, NotReallySoroka, that if you go to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, the committee's email address is published. The block that would be applied by Bishonen would prevent you from using the "Email this user" link, but nothing prevents anyone from emailing the Arbcom directly. However, if you are going to pursue something along this line, I would suggest that you hold off on being blocked until that matter is resolved, as you are not truly disengaging if you are bringing a matter to arbcom attention. Risker (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, NotReallySoroka. I've read the request you wrote to Tony Ballioni, before you removed it, and the insight it gives me into your motives for this request worries me. I don't like the connection with a particular Miscellany for deletion, and I don't understand why you changed from Tony to me. Also, I especially don't like your intention to keep worrying at wikimatters, which you describe above ("I would like to voice concern to the ArbCom over something a certain functionary did"). Altogether, I don't want to do this, sorry. There's too much baggage with it. As you have seen, since you have read my conditions page, I will decline these things at my discretion, and that's what I'm doing now. I wrote this before I saw Risker's comment and your reply to her, but I'm afraid those don't change my mind. Bishonen | tålk19:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC).
Hello. Your point with the MfD is a rightful worry, indeed, though as of now it is not the only now. I deleted the request to Tony so as to think twice, but now my mind is set. I found you because you are still activity.
As for the wikimatters, it does not involve me and I can just talk it out with the fuctionaries involved.
I do not know, nor do I understand what all this means, so I will just answer Bishonen. No, this is my second account; I do not remember the credentials to my first account. Well wishes, Epimonide (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
No, I haven't blocked you. Get a grip, and don't put nonsense on my page again. Thank you, Tryptofish. This comment may stay, but I ask my tp stalkers to remove any additions from the same user. I'm going to bed. Bishonen | tålk21:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC).
I couldn't find anything productive in history, and I seriously doubt there would have been anything positive in the future. If any of the adminy types that (talk page watcher) your page think I'm wrong - I won't contest an unblock. The "I am make moar better edits" stuff just doesn't play anymore for me however. — Ched (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Happy Walpurgis!
More Valborgsmässoafton fires!
No public celebrations this year either, but at least it is sunny (and not snowing!). There will be some serious herring in the Bonadea household this afternoon. I hope your Valborg eve is enjoyable, whether you celebrate it or not. [9] --bonadeacontributionstalk08:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, JavaH, done. Little talkpage stalkers: a global lock would be good also, or at least on Commons, if anybody with those tools reads this. Bishonen | tålk12:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC).
Sure, no problem. I had your Commons page on my watchlist, and this is why I was able to act quickly. In other cases, you can just ping me.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Atsme, but I wanted it for a particular purpose, which it has long since served, so I guess I don't really mind if it's deleted. Bishonen | tålk18:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC).
Personal attack in edit summary by POV pushers
Hi Bishonen.. Hope you are fine. Sorry to bother you, but can something be done about the personal attacks in Edit Summaries by IP editors in the article on Baidya, one on the revision dated 30th April and another again in the recent one yesterday! Please help, if you can. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I hate to be a pest, but could you instruct Stonkaments (talk·contribs) to stop commenting on my talk page? I told him to stop a few weeks ago, and I just undid the fourth unwanted comment they've made since then. Their second and third edits there were pure trolling; posting a D/S notice immediately after me and Trypotofish were discussing the fact that the page is under D/S. Note that this happened less than 3 hours after I reiterated that I didn't want them commenting on my talk page, and less than a day after I'd first told them not to comment on my talk page. There's no doubt Stonk is well aware of my wishes, and our community norms here, since they've been asked to stop commenting on others' talk pages.
I was trying to help improve the proposed FAQ, not disrupt it. I forgot that I was asked not to comment on their talk page―I apologize, it won't happen again. Stonkaments (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised that Stonkaments would have forgotten that, but we can AGF, I suppose. I'd encourage one of those fancy new kinds of single-page blocks, that just blocks posting to MPants' talk pages, along with a formal warning.
@MPants: when you reverted the comment, you used a vulgar edit summary. Given past history of how that has been wikilawyered, please don't do that any more. And don't anyone else get any ideas from what I just said. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Out of curiosity, wouldn't AGF call for a warning before a block? I ask because I would appreciate the opportunity to demonstrate good faith and show that it was a genuine mistake due to forgetfulness. As way of explanation: due to my (over-)involvement in the R&I discussion recently, I have been on the receiving end of a lot of hostility, and I genuinely confused MPants with another editor who has directed hostility my way[10]. Stonkaments (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Since I'm really not helping here, I'm being a bit, shall we say, nuanced, when I refer to AGF. In other words, I don't really believe for a minute that you forgot, but I also don't think it's worth arguing about. And I think that if you get a talk-page partial block, you should consider yourself fortunate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I will by no means block an editor to reinforce a promise they make above ("I apologize, it won't happen again"). Just don't forget again, Stonkaments. Nor will I reproach MjolnirPants for using a salty expression when reverting a post from somebody they had, after all, already told they weren't welcome. OK. Everybody happy, I hope. Bishonen | tålk19:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC).
Since I seem to be in the position of clarifying, I never asked Bish to do anything with respect to the salt, or the pepper, of the edit summary. As Bish correctly understands, there should be nothing wrong with that. But some admins, who should know better, think that they have to be civility enforcers, and I'm trying to get MPants to understand that he can fall into a trap with that. It does him no favors to pretend otherwise. Let's not repeat history. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Facepalm I directed a comment at MPants, and Bishonen responded as though I had directed it at her, so I responded to Bishonen and MPants acted like I had directed it at him. Sheesh! Now let's drop this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
AussieLegend, I've had enough of the user's continued errors and their unresponsiveness; I've blocked them indefinitely, again with a nice block notice both on their page and in the log. We shall see what happens, if anything. Bishonen | tålk15:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC).
Actually, as soon as she was indeffed, she did respond, AussieLegend, with one sentence — you can see my own reply on her page. I won't unblock without considerably more show of willingness on her side. Bishonen | tålk10:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC).
I have encountered a user using what appears to be a Smurf account and I was going to file an SPI but Twinkle does not allow a report that has only one named account (clearly I have no knowledge of the main user account). They appear as a new user and created and submitted a polished Draft within 2 minutes of arriving and are now pushing hard to get their Draft reviewed and accepted. I believe that they may well be block evading or part of a meat farm. Any advice on how I deal with this would be most welcome.
Thanks VelellaVelella Talk 22:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Velella. Not all knowledgable purported newbies are socks in the negative sense. Compare the distinction between "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" and "Legitimate uses" in WP:SOCK, and see also WP:CLEANSTART. But I'm not saying you should do nothing, if you suspect an inappropriate use of multiple accounts here. Perhaps start by giving me the account name so I can take a look? Use e-mail if you like. Bishonen | tålk00:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC).
PS, after taking a look at your page, I think "smurf" means an UPE rather than a sock — right? If it's the account I see on your page, never mind about e-mailing, I'll take a look tomorrow. Now I'm actually officially asleep (and a bit stupid, as you can see). Bishonen | tålk01:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC).
Many thanks. You are right about the user but it is not UPE as they as they did, reluctantly, make a declaration, but they also claim 4 to 5 years experience and clearly know their way round Wikipedia and seem so very intent on getting their draft approved. I find it very difficult to believe that they haven't spent some time on Wikipedia, but if so, why not use their established user name? The way they behave could easily lead to a block if they cross the line of civility and I suspect that this is what may have happened in the past and they are now block evading. I would be happy to be proved wrong, but I have no reasonable idea of how a user appears full skilled in the ways of Wikipedia otherwise? Many thanks for any light that you can throw on this case. VelellaVelella Talk 08:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Velella, an earlier version of the article was deleted as non-notable ("Fails WP:NCORP") on 16 Feb 2021 following this AfD. That version had been created in 2016 by an SPA called Tnodett. The current draft isn't very similar, not in text and not in sources, so I'd presume it's not based on the deleted article. (I suppose it also follows that TullikaInode1 isn't particularly likely to be a sock of Trodnett.) Nevertheless, if an article is deleted on notability grounds, it's not likely that the subject has amassed much notability a mere three months later. And the sourcing is just as weak for the draft as for the deleted article. If the two versions had been more similar, I could have speedied the draft, but as it is, I won't do that. However, it absolutely needs to stay in draftspace, where we can AGF that it's being improved. I'll write to the user on their page... when I get back from the Coop. Bishonen | tålk13:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC).
Many thanks for your advice and investigation. My suspicion was that the company was employing a paid editor to make an article stick where it had failed before. If this was so, then the current editor probably has a number of other articles to their name, probably all under different user names. Regards VelellaVelella Talk 17:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Or else they genuinely work for the company. In any case, it's like trying to hold back the tide, isn't it? I just posted on their page. Bishonen | tålk17:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC).
Request for protecting the article on Baidya or blocking the caste warrior(s)
Hi Bishonen.. hope, you are fine. The article on Baidya has become a subject of edit warring by POV pushers. Once I have reviewed the content added, I found out that the editor is citing a Journal by a Baidya editor only in order to validate what the Baidyas have claimed all through, I mean Brahmin status, possibly claimed by most of the castes, as you know. Also, I have clearly explained on talk page that all the three other sources, mentioned as supporting ones by the user on the talk page itself, are Raj era sources and cannot be considered as per long-term consensus. Now, another user, Bengaliwikipro (not sure, may not be a sock) is reverting the edits without any explanation, and is now engaged in edit war in spite of explaining everything and warning the users (in the article's talk page as well as edit summaries). Please help! Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, Bishonen. User Banglawikit is active in the article on Baidya, and apparently seems to be a sock of previously blocked user. Apart from edit warring (in spite of being asked for discussions on talk page), he is engaged in personal attacks and attacking other castes in edit summaries. Can you please help removing these edit summaries. I have warned him on his talk page, but not sure how to handle him! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
You're always welcome here, Ekdalian. I've warned Banglawikit and asked a Checkuser about them. There's the odd fact that Bengaliwikipro's English is better and they're more civil, so I feel a little unsure about the socking, however likely it look in other ways. Do you really think the edit summaries need revdeling? I mean, they surely reflect more badly on the user who has posted them than on any other person or social group. No? Bishonen | tålk15:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC).
I agree that the edit summaries reflect more badly on the user rather than anyone else. Basically, I personally try to keep articles & related history as neat as possible; probably that was the reason I thought about hiding such poor / offensive edit summaries. You are the best judge; you may please do whatever you feel would be the best for the same. Thanks for warning the user. Thank you for being here and doing everything you can do as an admin. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Ekdalian: It's apparently hard for the CU to be sure about Banglawikit, though it's likely. But they made a related find: Ashish413 is definitely a sock of Bengaliwikipro! Also pleasing. Bishonen | tålk20:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC).
Thanks a lot, Bishonen. At least, one of the two caste warriors could be identified as a sock. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen.. I am pretty much sure that user Gorezka46 is a sock of User:Bengaliwikipro & User:Ashish413. Would request you to take necessary action, and if possible, semi-protect the article on Baidya in order to prevent persistent vandalism. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
MrBishonen I am extremely sorry to disturb you. I just want to know that, what is going on here in Wikipedia? Ekdalian is removing my sourced contents and then giving me warning.Here in this source [11]page no 48.It is clearly written that, Vaidyas are inbetween Brahmin and Kshatriya.Pls check all the sources given in the top or lead(whatever it is) section of the Baidya page.He is removing my edit. Thanks. Banglawikit (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Bishonen Baidya of Bengal are equivalent to Brahmin. Hence I provided that 'Baidya along with Brahmin are regarded as the higest hindu caste..' It was there for two days. After that He reverted my edit.my sources are also relevant. Ekdalian also know that Baidyas are equivalent to Brahmin. See the talk page here. Again his intention is doubtful. Thanks. Banglawikit (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not speaking for Bishonen, but your editing here is problematic, that you don't seem to get it even after multiple editors have explained it to you is another problem. That you see no problem in just doing a random search for a string on Google and pasting the link as a source is another problem. If this behavior continues then you will be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff16:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen.. Arthur1277 has edited Talk:Baidya and related articles; his edits clearly indicate he is not a new user, rather a sock of Banglawikit/Bengaliwikipro. Would request you to please check the same. Otherwise, my concern is, he will disrupt the constructive discussions going on in the talk page of Baidya regarding improving the article. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, hope you had a great time, possibly a long-awaited break!! Now, in spite of several warnings, and even the recent one regarding use of the Sanskrit epic Mahabharata, user Dr.SunBD is still doing the same and is engaged in edit war. Please have a look at his edits, articles on Vaidya & Sena dynasty. All are meant for the glorification of his own caste and he does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. I would request you to take necessary action, if possible! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Mmm.. Ekdalian, as I've said, you're always welcome here, but please don't ask several admins for the same thing. User:RegentsPark understands these matters better than I do, in any case, so I'm not going to second-guess him. Thanks for your good wishes; my vacation was overly hot! But with great swimming in great big waves on the Swedish west coast. :-) Bishonen | tålk10:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC).
Sorry, I would beg to differ. I had informed User:RegentsPark since he had recently warned the user. I realized that he is quite obviously not aware of the warning issued regarding the use of Sanskrit sources like Mahabharata & Vedas. Despite your warning, the user is violating the basic thumb rule that he is not supposed to interpret Sanskrit texts & epics. I try to bother you or RegentsPark as less as possible. At times, I do bother you and the same is applicable for RegentsPark as well. I reported the same to you when I realized it would be time consuming for RegentsPark to understand the violation issue; he would have to go through the previous communication with the user, which you are aware. Anyway, I am always grateful to you and RegentsPark for your continuous support, without which I would not have been able to contribute to Wikipedia, however little my contribution be! Whether you think you should take any action against the user as a senior admin is completely your discretion and my job is just to point it out. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Ekdalian, you're quite right. I'd forgotten about my previous warning about the Sanskrit sources, I apologise. It's obvious that the user has no intention of changing their ways as regards sources. I have blocked for one month. Bishonen | tålk17:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC).
It's not necessary to close discussions on user talkpages, EditGodGuru45. Also, I disagree that they're "solved". Since you're here, I'll just ask you to listen better to experienced editors, rather than assume you know better. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources only; not by your personal knowledge. Therefore it's quite inappropriate to be telling other editors that they don't know as much as you, or even that they "know nothing", as you said to Yamaguchi先生. If they have more Wikipedia experience, it's, on the contrary, likely that they know more about the principles for editing here. Bishonen | tålk14:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC).
Harassment
Sorry for the Harrasment
I will not do again -- did not see the message
regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadirahFierg (talk • contribs)
Recently partially blocked. I am seeing new vandalism,[12][13][14][15][16] but also some reasonable edits, so it is likely that more that one user in in that range. Not sure what, if anything, should be done. Maybe block a smaller range? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Guy, you picked the most recent admin in the log, but I'm afraid that flatters me. I added a page (Sushi) to the partial block which had already been placed, but that doesn't mean I have an understanding of these big ranges. /64s, those are what I can handle. I suggest you place a call to one of the more competent admins involved, such as Favonian. Bishonen | tålk08:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC).
Welcome home, Favonian. We knew you'd be back. After all, it was programmed in you. Oh, and you executed that programming beautifully! You are an infiltration prototype. The only one of your kind. We resurrected you. Advanced Cyberdyne's work. Amended it. The human condition no longer applies to you. Accept what you already know. That you were made to serve a purpose. To achieve what no other machine has achieved before. To infiltrate, find a target and block that target from editing Wikipedia for 30 days.[17] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Your offerings of flattery have been accepted, oh faithful minions. So far, you've only been exposed to my messages in writing. When we get full audio, my sinister, somewhere-in-Europe accent will firmly establish my connection to the Immortal Arnie. Favonian (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Sivakasi Riots article bothered by a sock?
The contents of the Sivakasi riots of 1899 article are being deleted by a new user called Vendsoil. Based on the way he edits, he is most probably the sock of EruTheLord. I have filed a complaint accordingly here. Please go through this issue when you find the time. Thank you.Mayan302 (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Mayan302. Thank you for creating the SPI. I'm not sure why you ask me specifically to look into it? I haven't had anything to do with EruTheLord other than a warning in August 2020. May I suggest El_C would be a better admin to approach if you're becoming impatient with the lack of response at the SPI? (Though I'm sure admins + CU will get to it eventually.) Bishonen | tålk15:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC).
Hi
this user removed something from my user page
what are the rules on Wikipedia and what is a SOAPBOX
I put a link on it because I saw that the user Riquix put his own website ...
regards
SadirahFierg (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, SadirahFierg. You can read about what you may have in your user page at WP:UPYES. Among other things, it says there that "You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language", which is pretty much what you had, so I'm not sure why Softlavender removed it. But they are an experienced editor who would not do so at random, so I suggest you ask them on their talkpage. Note, though, that if people provide a link for you, you should click on it, rather than ask somebody else. Softlavender did explain their edit in the edit summary — though in my opinion possibly not sufficiently — by linking to WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Click on it to see what a soapbox is, please. Bishonen | tålk11:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC).
Last time 2 months passed, when we discussed a lot on it, to reach present version. Now few editors are removing same things on dubious ground for caste promotion. The "shudra" term and the image. It has been becoming a victim of caste puffery once again. Needs protection to avoid caste pov edits. Tagging RegentsPark. Heba Aisha (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
POV pushing at Baidya again. The editors there want to portray Baidyas as some Brahmin equivalent. So they want to remove a simple hyperlink to the Vellalars because the Vellalars are a ‘Shudra’ ‘Agricuitural’ caste. Please drop your opinion here Talk:Baidya#Vellalar_and_Vellala.
13:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:509b:aef2:c8a7:298f:805e:7326 (talk • contribs)
I would like to bring to your attention that User:Ratnahastin, formerly known as User:Sikandar khan67, had filed another sockpuppet investigation report (this time against me) [20] that was eventually declared closed by User:Mz7 without even a Checkuser due to the lack of evidence. You had previously warned User:Ratnahastin against filing more "baseless" SPI reports [21], but it is evident that the user did not listen. Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Chariotrider555 sorry but Bishonen warned me against filing "retaliatory" reports that report was not Retaliatory i had never interacted with you before it. Secondly SPIs are normal wiki processes. Ratnahastintalk14:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Ratnahastin did you file a spi against me before? Or any other report? Nope so that report wasn't retaliatory and not liable for sanctions SPIs are normal wiki processes without it wiki would never work.Ratnahastintalk15:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@Chariotrider555, Bishonen said that Ratnahastin would be sanctioned for SPI's which he suppose was in retaliation for the report Heba Aisha filed against him. The report against you, although had a substance, was declined by Checkuser because of oppositionary comments made by 3 other editors in your defence. Otherwise, check user would have been performed. That SPI was no way in any sort of retaliation. Ratnahastin seems to never have interacted with you and you never filed SPI against him. So, it was not at all retaliatory and not liable for sanctions. Shinjoya (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Right. I agree the SPI report had some substance — though not enough — and was not retaliatory or otherwise obviously filed in bad faith, so I'm not going to sanction Ratnahastin for it. Bishonen | tålk16:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC).
Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
For the first time ever, I’ve just been reading this most interesting journal! What has been happening to poor old IRC? Forceful takeovers and mass resignations. My goodness me, it sounds quite like old times.what happened to that odd man that used to claim he owned IRC? Giano(talk)21:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Dunno. I don't think I can handle moving to a different IRC — can't face reading a "migration guide" — but then IRC hasn't been much fun of late years. Well, once my family tech gets his vaccine and can again visit, I'll ask him to do it. I guess the old times aren't coming back, Giano. Just look at this mysterious stuff! Bishonen | tålk21:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC).
Very odd that whole IRC/freenode takeover; but hey, you depend on a third party to do your work - then you deal with the mess that's left. I used to be the family tech, but just haven't been up to keeping up with the current technology. Like Bish, I haven't tried out the "libre"/migration version we're now supposed to use, but I did try that Discord thing the kids are all talking about. Same old stuff IMO. Nothing interesting - other than stuff said there being brought to RfA, then bickering about if it should be allowed. oh .. "hey there Giano, Bish" .. hope all is well in your respective neighborhoods. — Ched (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
It's funny you said that. I was once very proud of my ability to write DOS batch files. Now, I'm both obsolete and clueless (not to mention, not interested). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Bishonen, I hope experience is not all about edit counts. Please don't take it otherwise, but I have publications in international journals.
Like other editors, I have other important works too. It is unpleasent for me to reply others' recurring comments in spite of knowing it is not going to be fruitful. If my words have hurt you then I'm sorry. Uxorus (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Joppa Chong, Uxorus changed their own comment after it had been replied to. That's why I reverted their change — not in order to correct their grammar. Bishonen | tålk08:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC).
Wikipedia experience is all about edit counts, Uxorus, and especially about how you edit. Publications elsewhere do not give you Wikipedia experience. Your comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles are extremely repetitive, and you haven't shown any interest in any other aspect of Wikipedia than adding salutations after the name of Muhammad. That's probably the narrowest purpose for editing Wikipedia I've seen in my years here, and it gives the impression that you are here purely for advocacy. I link the word for you, of course in the hope that you will follow the link, but I'm not very optimistic. At the Manual of Style discussion, I linked to Wikipedia: Don't bludgeon the process, but it seems unlikely you followed my link, both because you answered so quickly, and because of the nature of your answer. You seem a lot more interested in talking than in listening, or in reading our guidelines, and for that reason, I'm done interacting with you. If you continue your advocacy (try following the link! really!) at the discussion at Manual of Style, I will close it. Bishonen | tålk19:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, I notice you've recently warned 48Pills about incivility. This warning follows two en.wiki blocks in 2020 for personal attacks and a Commons block in March 2021 (related to "Asshole" [26];
"Just not worth it getting harassed by nobodys" [27]; "go fuck yourself" [28]; "piece of shit" [29]). Just wanted to make you aware of the history, including its cross-project nature, in case concerns continue and/or the user's compatibility with expectations of a collegial atmosphere needs more evaluation. Эlcobbolatalk20:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Against whom you have taken actions recently. Out of curiosity I digged in a little bit and realized these users seems to be dummy accounts of one user only.
Wondering, Did you get a chance to check their IPs ? If it so then it deserves a permanent ban.
The reason for raising this issue is because I have noticed blatant falsification, removal of sourced content and open Vandalism in some articles such as Kingdom of Jeypore or other well sourced articles related the southern Odisha.
This gives additional baggage of burden to maintain the quality of information that is being shared via Wikipedia.
Hello, Bishonen, you are most welcome to check my IP but please check the edit history of User:Sangramz on Jeypore. I came across the page of Jeypore, where User:Rodotype’s changes were altered to some baseless statement by Sangramz. I reverted his edit because it seemed like a bad faith edit with the statements not matching the source. The source stated Vir Vikram Dev as solar dynasty king, whereas, Sangramz changed it to “small Khand kingdom”. I only reverted it to the original edit by Rodotype. Then a user named Solarson made the same edit as Sangramz (totally baseless & irrelevant to the source).
Please also check the IPs of Sangramz & User:Solarson919 because they have been making a lot of caste related edits pretty lately and they might be sock puppets. I’ve reported Solarson919’s activities and vandalism to User:Utcursch. Happy editing. Odiahistory (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
It's kinda laughable. Glad that User: Odiahistory is open to background check.
We are here seek sources and consensus, which is not reflected anyways from the Users I cited, but added to that misbehavior to admins and aggressive edits wars.
Can you provide any one instance, where I was involved in an edit war or misbehaved with admins ? I can provide many evidences where you have vandalised articles for the sake of glorifying a caste. You have also been warned a couple of times by admins and still you continue to do the same.
You did the same in Jeypore page, where you edited “small khand kingdom” and discreetly reviewed it as “reverted to sourced versed” when the source clearly didn’t mention any of your claims. You keep on adding words like it was a small zamindari and you did the same “small zamindari” bad faith editing in Kingdom of Jeypore page which was reverted by a user named Jethwarp.
I think you need to up your level in researching and editing. And please stop vandalising historical pages with your caste agenda & possible personal issues. Thanks. Odiahistory (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
user:odiahistory I want to ask you a question on the same note. Where does the source mention jeypore to be the same as "kingdom of Kalinga", "the only kingdom in Kalinga" or "the largest kingdom of Kalinga" ? I won't play the blame game here but your behaviour is eerily similar to user:rodotype's. I believe you are a sockpuppet. Solarson919 (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Solarson919 first of all let me make this clear, I did not add those statements, they were added by another user (Rodotype). I only reverted your & Sangramz’s bad faith, unsourced & irrelevant caste glorifying edits. It was not because I did not like your claims, it was because you did not provide a reliable source confirming your edits that it was a “small Khand kingdom”, which you two have disruptively added a few times.
And I also believe that you two might be sockpuppets after seeing your edit history. Both of you add/remove sourced content from other pages (mostly related to Khandayat caste) and have also been warned in your talk pages multiple times and still continue vandalising pages. So your accounts definitely need to be scrutinised to avoid further damage to historical pages. On the other hand, can you prove that I have disruptively removed content or vandalised any page ? No. As far as I know all of my edits are sourced with reliable references. Odiahistory (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Solarson919 I have replied to you on the talk page of WP:Jeypore but it looks like you have a turned a blind eye to that and are now trying to create an agenda over here. I’ve also replied to you on my complaint in User:Utcursch’s talk page but you have not replied. So your agenda is quite clear. Instead of wasting my time, you should have a look at Wikipedia policies & avoid “caste glorifying” edits in future. Happy editing. Odiahistory (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
So user: odiahistory here claims that jeypore was the largest kingdom in Kalinga on jeypore talk page but refuses that he did so here. Hypocrisy much ? That's why I decided against replying. You're clearly the one with an agenda, Vishweshwar deb. what you're doing by accusing me here is called "projection."
You don't even know the difference between kandha and Khandayat so don't larp as a "history enthusiast." The sheer amount hypocrisy you show is laughable. Solarson919 (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Another fact to keep in mind when looking at this matter: user: odiahistory concerns himself with only the articles related to jeypore and has mostly made edits on the the same. The same is true for user: rodotype and his alt user: RudolphHitz. Also the conceited and condescending tone of their language are eerily similar (eg. Retorting to personal attacks and throwing fits of rage like an infant). Solarson919 (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Solarson919 I think you are either gullible or highly sensitive, you have been throwing all sorts of accusations but not accepting your fault. Now you are referring me with false names and can you please explain when did I “rage like an infant”? You are the only one raging after seeing your caste glorifying unsourced edits got removed from Jeypore page.
And where does it say in Wikipedia policy that I can’t edit or improve one specific page ? Before throwing accusations you should check your own controversial edit history.
Please check this User:Doug Weller does this qualify as a personal attack ? He has been calling me false names, baselessly linking me to different users & raging on me. Please stop this harassment. Odiahistory (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Stop projecting user:Odiahistory. You're going the same route as user: RudolphHitz again, raging at me, accusing me of misconduct and reporting me in a circlejerk of projections, making my suspicions even stronger. Stop harassing me. And what caste glorification ? What caste did I glorify in jeypore ? Solarson919 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
My suggestion to both of you is to drop it here, stop making edits about castes anywhere and, ideally, also stop editing Odisha-related topics. That would still leave you well over 5 million articles to work on and would end the ridiculous, highly disruptive mess that is resulting at present. I hope! - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I can see that you don't want anyone editing your user pages so could you please remove the nonexistent, red link categories on User:Bishonen/Useful_warnings?
According to Wikipedia:Red link#Avoiding creation of certain types of red links guideline, A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category. Either the category should be created, or else the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists. Also, as long as these categories keep appearing on the Special:WantedCategories list, it's likely that some editor will try to remove them from the page and I think it's a task better done by you than another well-intentioned editor. Thanks and have a great weekend. LizRead!Talk!20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Liz. When Tryp turned up, I was just trying to simply remove the categories, but they seem to be immortal. Man, I hate categories. I'm not sure what you're advising me to do, either, Tryptofish. If you would take care of it, preferably without mucking up the "useful warnings" themselves as the previous editor did (see article history), I'd be very grateful. Bishonen | tålk20:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC).
I'd be happy to. Before I start, I'd like to check that what I think I will do is OK with you. If I understand Liz correctly, there is no problem with the red links at the top of the page, nor with the red-linked user names in some of the user page tags for socks. (Please tell me if I'm wrong about that.) What I take to be the problem is that those tags for socks generate some red-linked categories at the bottom of the page: "Wikipedia sockpuppets of username" and "Wikipedia sockpuppets of puppeteername".
What I'm going to do is to make those two categories blue (but empty) by creating their category pages, so they will look blue instead of red at the bottom of your page. That should solve the problem raised by Liz. It will create a new problem, though, because the categories will be (almost) empty. So I will tag them as "maintenance categories" with a note not to delete them even if they are empty, and I'll put them into a new parent category "Category:Bishonen test categories" which, in turn, I will quietly tuck into the "unconventional user categories" that I linked to just above, where nobody will go snooping around. I'll start that now, and please let me know if anything is not OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry that I haven't paid attention and don't know what the problem is, but if the issue concerns the categories at the bottom of User:Bishonen/Useful warnings, the solution is to insert |nocat=1 in each of the active {{sockpuppet}} examples (active meaning the ones without nowiki around them). You might like to change {{sock}} to {{sockpuppet}} because the former redirects to the latter. Do you want me to sprinkle nocat and change the sock template? Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes please on the sprinkling, John, but I kind of like the {{sock}} redirect. That doesn't do any harm or confuse, does it? PS, a technical question, as I always need to learn more about templates: why do you type {{tl|sock}} but {{tlf|sockpuppet}}? Does the "f" do something? Bishonen | tålk07:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC).
OK, I made this edit. When I looked, I saw that |category= was already present but did not seem to be doing anything, so I replaced it with |nocat=1. You might like to replace them if they were there for some purpose. Re {{tlf}}, I was just showing off while avoiding overlinking—tl and tlf display the same wikitext but tlf is not linked. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, not OK. I thought my preview showed no categories, but a couple are there now. I'll look at that soon but not right away. They will be fixable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Bish, let me ask you if you are completely OK with it, as it is now, with Johnuniq's changing it to "nocat", and no categories appearing at the bottom of the page. If you are not OK with it, I'm quite prepared to fight it. But if you are OK, then there is really no longer any need for any of the fixes that I made, and we can just let it go. This is just the kind of idiotic thing that really pisses me off, but my pissed-ness need not be decisive here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it kind of pisses me off too, but of course I'm OK with John's neat fix, and we can let it go. Thank you, fishie, and I'm sorry you had the trouble for nothing. Bishonen | tålk21:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC).
OK. I copied the one at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question, and it looks all right, I think (please check). I think you probably would be allowed, on the same principle as you're allowed to put a DS alert on individual user talk pages: in both cases, it's purely informational. I know who shouldn't be allowed to mess about with banners: me. I hate them and they hate me. Bishonen | tålk20:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC).
Well, yes. Especially Longfellow. It's cheap and easy to hate Longfellow, sunk deep in unfashionableness as he is, but still, I really do. Alfred, Lord Tennisball, too. (The latter is featured by Monty Python and on the wall in Bishzilla's Victorian parlour — she's a fan.) Bishonen | tålk21:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC).
Argh, Longfellow. Having to memorize and recite passages from The Song of Hiawatha in the fifth grade instilled a deep and abiding loathing, long before he became unfashionable. We were apparently supposed to learn a lifelong love of poetry with-a-me-ter-met-ro-nom-ic. It backfired. Acroterion(talk)21:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Bishonen.. I am really fed up with these caste warriors! Can you please help me stop persistent vandalism by the user Sourav431, currently active on the article Baidya; this user has been warned earlier as well (on his talk page). In fact, POV pushers and caste warriors are now pretty much active on the articles, Baidya and Vaidyabrahmin. Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty tired of these swarming socks myself. I've blocked Sourav431 indefinitely. For other caste warriors (unless they're all the same, indeed), maybe you could write a short note on ANI, Ekdalian? A tip: mention the articles, or other significant words, in your header so as to catch the eyes of the unfortunately overworked Indian admins, who are better at this than me. Bishonen | tålk17:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen for your prompt action and your valuable suggestion. Honestly speaking, in spite of great respect for all admins in general, Indian or not, I don't believe Indian admins are better than you in any respect. For me, you are simply the best amongst the admins I have encountered here; and when I say this, I truly say this from the bottom of my heart. Thanks, once again! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Would request you if you can help me stop the caste warrior Dr.SunBD, whom you had blocked earlier. He has been warned multiple times, still he would refuse to understand that he is not supposed to interpret Sanskrit texts as per his own POV, and we only accept the views of reliable authors interpreting such texts (explained clearly on the article talk page). Please have a look at the article on Vaidyabrahmin. Thanks & Regards! Ekdalian (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, Ekdalian, I did block them earlier, but did you notice I had to withdraw the block and apologize? (I'd thought they were socking, but I was mistaken.) But I agree with you completely about Vaidyabrahmin, and have given the user a strong warning. Those Google Books "references" are altogether... they are... I can't think of a polite word for that miserable manner of referencing. Bishonen | tålk08:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC).
Hello Mr Bishonen,I know Edalian is a very senior editor thats why you are believing you over us,that's not your fault if I was in your position I would also do the same. now coming to the main point here,ekdalian saying that everyone is a caste warrior who wanted to write the truth on the Bengali baidya page.the irony is ekdalian is the main caste warrioe here who is undoubly a kayastha and wanting to promote his caste,sorry for this but yes i dont have any other option to let you understand about this whole situation here.
in the talk page of baidya Mr bangalawikit given five or more citations (that undoubtedly supports Wikipedia terms and conditions and already used in many Wikipedia article) that proves Baidyas hold same social ranking as brahmins in Bengal and Kayastha are Sudras and later on claimed the Kshatriya status, please do check that. On that note I would like to add initially Sanskrit college only allowed brahmins and baidyas(also a brahmin community) to study there but not Kayastha. later on, after becoming the principal and removing the castism Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar allowed Kayastha to study there, just google it about that.
so how Kayastha and brahmin can rank hold the same social position there??? in Bengali Kayastha wiki page it is written there. I would like to request to take a review of that. and I don't think the citations are also not legit there.
sorry for my bad englishAshish413 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The user apparently decided to save Hijiri the trouble of starting an ANI thread to have them blocked. See WP:ANI#User wants me to be blocked. I've posted some diffs there, including one where TOA opposed an RfA candidate because that candidate had rejected prior fascist beliefs, and another where TOA admits to being here for right-wing POV pushing. I figured you might want to take a look, given your closing comments at the other thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
No, I adore you, Bish! You're the Platinum Goddess of WP, after all.
I'm not asking you to step in, at least two admins have already commented in that thread. I was just letting you know, so that you could step in if you wanted to.
Or if -like me- you wanted to find a good laugh or two. I personally find this user's behavior quite funny: they have made "out there" comments on multiple occasions, experienced pushback, and began spamming commentary in apparent desperation once they realize things aren't going to go the way they wanted. There's a subforum on Reddit called YesYesYesNo which -if more Redditors understood Wikipedia's processes- would find this editor absolutely hilarious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear, that removal was done in mistake while adding my comment. I never intend to do it willfully. Blanking that portion is not helpful to anybody. ScholarM (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I understand. Please use Preview, ScholarM. Feel free to re-add your comment, as I reverted you wholly — you had removed so much, I didn't notice a comment. Bishonen | tålk10:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC).
I've read your re-added comment, and I don't think much of it. I'm taking this to your page, because I intend to warn you about not assuming good faith, and about personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk10:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC).
Bishonen, could you give me some advice on my content dispute with User:ScholarM? He insisted in his latest reply that there is no content dispute and rejected my earlier invitation for he and I to open a post together via WP:DR. I'm still trying to convince him to work with me in my latest reply, but for the record, do you know what the next step should be if one party in a dispute requests DR while the other party refuses? Thank you in advance for any advice you can provide. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, MezzoMezzo. You don't have to file a joint request at WP:DR, in fact people usually don't, but the fact remains that if you file one on your own and the other party won't take part, your request will simply be closed down and your work with it will be wasted. On the WP:DR page, some other venues are mentioned. I suggest you either go with Wikipedia:Third opinion, which is especially useful for disputes involving only two editors, or post at the Reliable sources noticeboard. The second is of course for if there's mainly disagreement about sourcing. If you post there, be very specific about the sources concerned, and (for courtesy) tell ScholarM that you have taken it to that noticeboard. Good luck. Bishonen | tålk15:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC).
Bishonen, I have already tried to solve the dispute by reverting MezzoMezzo's various vandal edits on Barelvi and edits relevant to template Barelvi but unfortunately instead of accepting the third opinion they falsely spit his baseless claim on me by accusing that user:ScholarM asked me to do this somewhere outside Wikipedia, which is very funny in this regard and totally baseless. I had not replied previously on talk page because I was busy as I had already put a "busy template" on my user page, I somehow managed my time to comment on your talk page to clarify the issue. MezzoMezzo continuously vandalising the Barelvi article by pushing his own pov. Although I was not agreed with ScholarM previously but after looking their continuous revert of the sourced content, they must need a topic ban to stop further vandalism.
As a sysop on frwiki, I have been thanked by Check-the-text. I noticed that this editor (bot?) is accustomed to thanking a few tens of persons. You blocked this account on enwiki, but we wonder if there is something to do on frwiki. After all, those actions seem harmless. Would you have any information you'd be able to share, and would justify your blocking? Thank you! Litlok (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Litlok. If they've only thanked a few tens of people on frwiki, I suppose you might as well ignore them, but I don't think what they did on enwiki was harmless, exactly. They have no edits here — zero — and they thanked about a thousand people in the course of a year.[31] That's completely disruptive in my opinion, and I would definitely block them on fr if they're acting the same way there. See also this discussion for a few other accounts with the same behaviour. Socks, no doubt. Bishonen | tålk16:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC).
Of course! They love the sea! Though Bishzilla's favorite thing isn't so much going in the sea, as majestically emerging from it, roaring and belching flames to terrify the little land-dwellers. Just her idea of a practical joke. Bishonen | tålk19:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC).
I recently came across this wonderful example of an editor ranting against the gay agenda to support an !vote at an AfD, and I'd like to ask you to have a word with them about expressing bigoted falsehoods on WP.
I'd normally simply respond that homophobia does not make a compelling argument for deletion, but one of my employees (who is gay) happened to be sitting with me, waiting for some code to compile when I found it, and her reaction was... Well, distressing. I think this is better left in the hands of a competent admin than my own.
I did see it... Right after I left the first note here, heh. I figured WP:ROPE might well apply. Apparently, I was correct, though Bbb23 managed to beat you to it. I appreciate you looking into it, in any case (as I appreciate Bbb23 stepping up).
I've noticed that many administrators have very cool and/or coveted usernames, such as yours. How is this the case? Do admins commandeer the usernames they want if the current owner is inactive? Is there anywhere that I may read this policy? Many of these usernames are very few characters and I'm sure they don't belong to the first accounts that registered under them. Is it an award for being an admin that you get to choose a cool username? Is there a grace period before such usernames can be claimed? Can non-admins ask to receive the names of inactive accounts? Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The closest thing Wikipedia has to what you're talking about is called "usurpation", as described here, but I wouldn't be sure that that's how people got their username; it's not done as a "prize" for admins or anything like that. It's not a common thing at all, and even less so now than it was some years ago, and most people really did just nab those usernames. Bishonen, for example, really has just been around enough to have that good of a username (and several more besides). She's...an institution, you might say. Writ Keeper⚇♔02:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
ugh. You have correctly interpreted the reference, but when I made this account almost 10 years ago, "White King" would've sounded only like the chess-based character name it was...now, maybe not so much, and it's gross. Writ Keeper⚇♔16:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
India-Pakistan topic ban still in effect?
Hello Bishonen, and I apologize in advance because I feel a little crass asking this, but I noticed - just ten minutes ago - that User:ScholarM was subject to a topic ban relating to Indian and Pakistani Islamic scholars per User_talk:ScholarM/Archive_1#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban_2. I'm tagging him here out of fairness because I'm mentioning him, and I'm checking his talk page archives because of multiple copyright violations, failed verification checks, and personal attacks on me during the past two weeks. Much occurred during my Wiki hiatus from 2019 to this June. Has the topic ban been removed, or is it still in effect, if you don't mind me asking? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
It's still in effect, MezzoMezzo, and last time I checked (admittedly a while back) they hadn't violated it. It's an indefinite ban, so it will remain in effect until it's lifted. For that to happen, the user would have to appeal it per the instructions they got in my ban notice. BTW, I noticed Johnuniqwarned another user about harassing you. If you believe ScholarM also needs a warning concerning the personal attacks you mention, could you supply some examples (diffs)? Bishonen | tålk14:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC).
Hello Bishonen, i am apologizing for any mistake i have done in recent past. Is there any forum at Wikipedia to deal with flood of vague complaints and targeting ? I am not accusing any one but please enlighten me that targeting an editor in the middle of edit warring by discussing his previous ban will amount to insult or personal attack or not ? ScholarM (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
You can complain at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if you wish, ScholarM. But I can't say I recommend it; the risk of a boomerang for you would be great. (Please follow my "boomerang" link and consider it.) As for MezzoMezzo's post above, I do not believe it's "discussing" your topic ban; they're merely asking if the ban is still in effect — a reasonable question and not an insult, in my opinion. Bishonen | tålk21:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC).
Thanks for your comments and advice. I am really shocked to see frivolous accusations against me. I don't know what is the reason for that but it may be edit dispute at Barelvi article as well as rejection of MezzoMezzo's POV. ScholarM (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the response Bishonen, as well as for your offer, though I'm not worried about the personal attacks so much; ScholarM is already on warning for that from two other admins, as well as on a final warning for copyright violations. My main concern was the topic ban because not only do I believe he's violated it by editing articles covered by it per your June 2020 explanation, but I also believe that he's almost exclusively editing articles covered by the topic ban. That is, aside from one or two edits here or there, he's only editing articles about Islam and India/Pakistan.
I'm also concerned because, as I began looking into his talk page archives, I saw more and more warnings he'd received for the same abuse I've suffered, signaling unchanged behavior. On April 14, for example, Diannaa warnedhim about copyright violations, yet a few days ago, I spent nearly two hours cross-referencing and looking over articles he'd edited - time which I could have better spent improving articles - to confirm that he'd just done more copyright violations, leading to a final warning. When I looked over his history with Sitush, I felt sympathetic because I'm facing the same problems with failed verifications and a POV so strong that it affects all his edits. All of this is on articles covered by the topic ban.
It's not personal, but it is about the project, and I'm not sure what to do. So much of my Wikipedia time is consumed cleaning up his messes, messes which seem to be repeated over time, and the deeper I go into the rabbit hole, the more I realize that he was topic banned for a reason. I don't know if I should go to AN for topic ban enforcement or what, but I'm really at my wit's end here. Do you have any advised actions? MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I could be wrong but it does seem that ScholarM is editing almost exclusively in the intersection of Islam and Pakistan. That, it would appear, was the essence of the topic ban. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
No, User:MezzoMezzo, you don't need to act, I will, and I'm sorry I dropped the ball. Blocked for one month for repeated egregious violations of their topic ban. RegentsPark, now that I've looked at their recent editing, it's obvious indeed. Bishonen | tålk07:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC).
User:RegentsPark, thank you so much for taking the time to check too; those edits seem to have flown under the radar, even in my case; I've been embroiled in multiple content disputes with the editor for over a month due to pretty clear WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, yet even I didn't know about the topic ban or his previous disputes on the same topic until just before my messages above. I guess that's how it continued for so long...flying under the radar.
User:Bishonen, there's no need to be sorry; in fact, I want to thank you. Every day when I logged in for the past month, I was getting this sudden spike in my heart rate where it would beat uncomfortably fast because I knew I'd be logging in either to see personal insults directed at me or more of the blatant refusals to get the point which were so extreme that they could be used as material in a Will Ferrell movie. For the time being, would I be permitted to look through the user's edits on the banned topics to check for other examples of disruptive editing which I may have missed? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
You mean in order to revert any disruptive edits, MezzoMezzo? That would be fine. Of course nobody can stop you looking through Wikipedia's extremely open and transparent article histories for any other purpose either, but reporting what you find would be kind of a waste of time IMO. The sanction I gave the user today should cover all the ban-violating disruption they've done up to today, so that they can start with a clean slate when the block expires. (Well, apart from being under a final copyright violation warning.) Bishonen | tålk12:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC).
Caste Promotion in "Ramachandra Deva I" Page
Hi Bishonen, hope you're doing well. Recently I have come across a caste promotion without sources in "Ramachandra Deva I" Wiki Page. All the sources in the "Early life" section, only mention the king claimed ancestry from Yaduvansha. One source says, it's difficult to ascertain the caste of the King. But different ids pushing the POV that the king belongs to Gopal caste, despite no such mention in any of the sources. I have tried my best to rearrange the page according to the sources but got reverted immediately by a Caste ID named "THE YADAVS". Another User named "Behera Sahab" also involved in the POV pushing. I had tried to reconcile with him in his talk page but got no response regarding his Gopal caste claim . It's really frustrating to deal with large no of Caste IDs as a single Editor. Please help. Thank you Peacepks (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. The same caste promotion is going on that Page. If possible then protect that Page. The same Unsourced changes are done by multiple accounts at a time on that specific page for POV pushing. All accounts have similar editing style so it's possible that one guy is trying to promote his caste with multiple wiki accounts. Peacepks (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Is there a place to appeal warnings if an editor believes they were given out unfairly? I am not asking for you to review my warnings at this time, but merely asking if such an avenue is available to editors and if so where I should do it. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
No, there's no such place. Of course warnings are of different validity and value, depending mainly on who they come from. (Anybody can post a warning.) If you find a particular warning unacceptable, I suggest you just say so below it, and explain why. Bishonen | tålk16:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC).
Unfortunate timing for partial block
Hey Bishonen, this decision to partially block these two editors strikes me as unfortunate. I had just succeeded in getting the two of them to recognize what was wrong with their approach and to concede that it was mistaken, and Snow Rise had just been arguing that regardless of the appropriateness of their edits, they had been discussing in a civil way. Partially blocking at this juncture, expressly citing aggressive discussion, feels a bit like you ignored these developments (also note that Johnuniq already put the page under full protection). It's a very long thread, so it would be understandable if you did not read through all of it, but you might want to read that last section again. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)08:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
No, I did read it all. I was surprised at Snow Rise's opinion. Note, though, that my own comment about aggression was specifically directed at the ANI discussion. Bishonen | tålk08:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC).
Perhaps Snow Rise didn't read the first part very well... Anyways, you're obviously much more experienced with this kind of thing, so I'll gladly defer to your judgment. Thanks for looking into this, ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)09:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, for the record, I regard this as now a matter of administrative discretion, and I do not, as a general matter, make it my habit to make noise out of an admin's call. In theory I might have to say something if I saw what might be regarded as 'abuse of discretion', for want of a better term. But this isn't within even miles of that: this decision is clearly the kind of call that is well within the purview of admins wherein the community expects said sysops to exercise their best judgement. I would note one thing, if I can be forgiven for being my tedious, pro forma self: I think it probably should not be logged as a community ban, based on the responses to date--though of course the discussion is ongoing and that precise consensus may yet arise, in which case it should of course be logged as a CBAN.
As to my own perspective, suffice it to say that I did not approve of the content the editors in question were trying to push, but I was satisfied that they were capable of accepting that their approach to the situation had not been appropriate, and to changing their methodology. Or more precisely, I was prepared to extend them the benefit of the doubt and the WP:ROPE. But they don't need me to stick up for them now: because of the way this played out (the procedural flow and the nature of the block) they now have access not just to the ongoing WP:ANI, but also appeal through the blocking policy or WP:AN, provided they don't blatantly forum shop, one after the other. Mind you, I wouldn't take the time to even say any of this expressly, under normal circumstances, but insofar as I was pinged and referenced, let me be clear that I see nothing inappropriate in Bish's approach here, even if we do clearly disagree with regard to our read on the editors. Snowlet's rap13:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Snow Rise. Those are indeed not community blocks, and I won't log them as such. They were placed at my sole admin discretion. I know I linked to the ANI discussion in the block notices and the block logs — sorry if that was confusing. I purely intended it to provide the background against which I exercised that discretion. The community discussion, where for example topic bans have been mooted, is still ongoing. Bishonen | tålk14:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC).
Nah, I didn't think you had raised the implication it was a CBAN: I was just being (well, there's no more self-indulgent synonym, so I'll just say it) anal in my analysis. :) Snowlet's rap14:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I just want to say that I am really disappointed and heartbroken that Attic Salt has decided to leave Wikipedia and I am contemplating doing the same. The way that Bishonen has interpreted the situation makes me very scared that the community of administrators here on Wikipedia are hostile to new editors and show extreme favoritism to established editors to the point of being blind to their bullying and abusive behavior. I really wanted to make positive contributions to Wikipedia but this has really soured my experience here. TrueQuantum (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) TrueQuantum, Please don't be scared. I can assure you that the community of administrators here are exceptionally welcoming to new editors, and for the most part, so are most non-admins that I know of. There's an entire Welcoming committee here, dedicated to welcoming new users, and there are mentor programs, and various other forms of assistance available to new editors (including the WP:Tea house, the WP:Help desk, and much more).
Among admins, Bishonen is both senior, and exceptionally even-keeled. Wikipedia has what appears to be a thicket of "rules" (we call them, "policies" and "guidelines") which can be daunting for a new user and sometimes they can seem disorganized as it's a volunteer project (even the "rules" are written by volunteers), and its easy to run afoul of one or another of the many rules without even knowing they existed, and ending up with ruffled feathers or injured pride because of it. But we've all been there, so just shake it off, and start again.
By and large, people are here to welcome you and help you get on board. You are most welcome to contact me at my Talk page about Wikipedia editing questions, or you can add a new message containing a question on your talk page and add {{Help me}} to the message, to attract the attention of a random volunteer. Bishonen is a volunteer, also; her pay for the hours she spends keeping the encyclopedia running smoothly, is zero. Trust me when I tell you, she, and other administrators, are here to help you. I hope that going forward, your editing experience at Wikipedia will improve, and that you will derive the satisfaction and enjoyment that I have here, for many years. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I'm Adam, I'm from Malaysia <redacted>. I'm actually a researcher of various worldly knowledges including slavic. I actually understand what she said to me about editing pages. I indeed understand her. I live all of my old wrongdoings and go to new. In fact, before this, some edit changings that I did was wrong, so that's why she was angry to me. Can you please let her forgive me, and I'll forgive her also, and can you please not let her to block me? I have to edit pages that talks about various things from China to the end of Slavia or English.
Hi, Adamdaniel864. I believe Bonadea has forgiven you, but she'll be annoyed anew if you keep on at her about learning Ukrainian etc. She doesn't have to learn a foreign language unless she wants to, so please just leave her alone. She can't block you even if she wanted to (which I don't think she does), as she's not an administrator. I am, though. Please don't put your age out in public on Wikipedia. And please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~). That will turn automatically into your username + a timestamp when you save. Bishonen | tålk10:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC).
Hi!
Hey Bish, saw you pop up on my watchlist - just wanted to say Hi! and hope things are going well with you and yours - TheresNoTime😺10:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
at this (gibberish expansion, with something about brothel house?). It once was a decent redirect page, which I have restored it back to. Also see this (addicted to sex, etc etc) user talk page courtesy of the same single purpose account. Bah!
Hi, Ms Sarah. Wow. I considered posting on the user's page to explain that they're not supposed to ... uh, post their thoughts about life etc etc on their userpages, and altogether explain what kind of project Wikipedia is. But as it's been several weeks since they last edited, it might be superfluous, and actually unkind, to tell them they're doing everything wrong. If they edit again, I will. Meanwhile, I've just deleted the userpage (leaving the user talkpage for now), because, well, honestly. Thank you for reverting Chitra!
I was hoping to review all our articles related to Chitra (= Citra = one of the Sanskrit words that mean painting, sketch and such in Indian history). Their Ajanta caves have the more famous, oft published, and some spectacular 1500+ years old Chitra murals, as do some other fascinating, remote sites there and in Southeast Asia on which we have no articles. We have no articles on their fascinating historic texts on the theory and practice of Chitra either, though much has been published in peer reviewed scholarly sources. Will try to fix some of this. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, Ms Sarah, it sounds very interesting. I've written to the user, attempting to explain what kind of a project Wikipedia is, and have deleted their userpage again. They do seem very hung up on the subject of trans people, and I don't like their remarks about it. Bishonen | tålk21:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC).
Your /34 partial block, now converted to a sitewide block
Hi Bishonen. See my recent change in this block. It is a /34 range which had built up a set of partial blocks from six different pages, one of the partials by you. Per the ANI, I changed it to sitewide for three months. If you find this to be excessive, feel free to lift or modify. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. Most likely you understand these big ranges much better than I do; my nature is that of a typical humble /64 blocker. In adding a partial, some time back, I merely hung on to the coattails of more experienced blockers. Compare this section above. Pinging @Favonian: for a more informed opinion. Bishonen | tålk01:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC).
I'm wondering if you would consider unprotecting this user talk page. It's been more than 5 years since the edit war in question and the IP address is now unblocked and may seek to use their talk page in the future. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
? Sorry, Chess, I can't even find the block, nor a corresponding /64 block. The individual IPv6 you mention hasn't edited since 2016. Please show me the block, so I know how long it was, and the unblock (unless you merely mean the block has expired, not that they've been unblocked). Then I'll be able to consider your request. Though it is actually vanishingly unlikely that the individual (or any other individual) will ever be assigned that particular IP again, and will thus wish to use their talkpage. IPv6's are tricky that way. Bishonen | tålk01:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC).
@Bishonen: I honestly have no idea. I think the block has expired, maybe, but I couldn't find the block. I just found this while looking at indefinitely fully protected pages. It might be exceedingly unlikely that someone will get assigned that IP address again, but hey, you never know. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Very well, I've unprotected. I don't think the protection mattered, or ever would have mattered, but it wasn't still useful either. Bishonen | tålk12:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC).
Thanks for blocking the caste SPA who was doing stuff at Ror and Neeraj Chopra. I am wondering if we have a sort of sleeper sock situation or a meatfarm at the Ror article - strange, semi-active accounts doing large restorations of the article. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I blocked two caste SPA's, Sitush: Xpardeep and Ror84here. And Ror was semi'd (by ToBeFree) from 27 June up to 27 September for persistent sock puppetry. Do you think that's not enough? As in, do you think the article needs extended confirmed (30/500) protection? I note that would have prevented e. g. this edit. Bishonen | tålk19:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC).
I am not the best person to decide on levels of protection. Every time I go to RFPP, an administrator agrees a protection scheme is needed but almost always opts for a version I didn't select using Twinkle. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping; I've had a look and took a moment to review an unblock request in Special:Diff/1038157531 (Ror84here). I don't really have an opinion on whether 30/500 protection is necessary in this specific article, but especially in General-Sanctions-affected areas, I generally support early protection and liberal escalation to extended-confirmed protection when semi-protection turns out to be insufficient. I prefer long-term semiprotection and selective blocking to short-term high protection levels, though, as I believe that the amount of disruption prevented by long-term semi protection is higher than the amount of disruption prevented by a short duration of higher protection levels. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Sitush, they are a suspected sock of Doremon9087 & have nothing to do with Ror SPAs. They edited that page because of me and they let me know that as well by their edit summary: [32]. They have all the tell-tale signs of the master, e.g.: to restore long and unsourced entries at List of Brahmin dynasties and states; to show that Brahmins have the largest population in Western Uttar Pradesh; to add unsourced caste claims about Brahmins, esp. Mohyals; to remove caste details of Jats, etc. But I don't have time to collect all the diffs for the SPI today. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
It's very hard to translate it properly as it involves local slang. But they are calling me Shudra and asking me to to stay within my limits. BTW, I was searching for something at Google Books. So I didn't notice your ping earlier. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, happy day! An insult from a caste warrior that doesn't feature my mother. (Indenting will be wrong here, sorry - only 2 levels in the app.) - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
As per reliable sources, it seems he was a follower of Shaktism, you must be aware; therefore no reliable source mentions him as a Brahmin. In order to push your point of view, you have been adding Shaktism as a Category. Are all followers of Shaktism Brahmins? No, right! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I've never come across this user until now, but while commenting on a much older mess that she had created, I noticed your talk page exchange with her directly above.
Hi Bishonen.. can you please have a look at Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha; the user Doreamon99 seems to be a caste warrior (quite evident from his talk page as well), and is engaged in edit warring in spite of warnings. I had removed the poor/unreliable sources and clearly mentioned the reasons in the edit summaries. If you look at the unexplained reverts (even after being reverted by another editor), it would be clear to you. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you; the user has been blocked by an uninvolved admin (reported by the editor Dāsānudāsa). Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Bothering you once again, Bishonen. Hakka noodle patty seems to be a sock of User:Dear Debasish, and is so frustrated even after editing as an IP & trying everything possible that they have come down to the level of literally abusing me! Please have a look at the article on Mahishya, and it would be great if you can remove the edit summary mentioning me as 'bastard'. Please help, I guess the article requires protection, there are too many socks and IPs. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes... indeed. Sock indeffed, master blocked for a week, article semi'd for a month, offensive edit summaries removed. Thanks for reporting, Ekdalian.
My goodness!! It was User:Waked Bold Ambushed, & not DD; I have encountered this user in some caste articles, I really wonder why did they unnecessarily abuse me! Anyway, thanks Bishonen for initiating the CU. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, hope all is well! Two SPAs are active on the article on Mahishya, and DD is again engaged in edit war in spite of earlier warnings. Please help. Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand all this either Ekdalian. But, I've protected the page for a few days and suggest you open a discussion on the talk page. I do notice that there are multiple editors adding "dominant caste" to the article and that may be something to look into as well. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, RegentsPark. You are right, this 'dominant caste' is the contentious part. Thanks Bishonen for your support. Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I can't make head or tail of most of this but I think we need to get ECP done more proactively on the caste pages as it's wasting the time of productive editors. —SpacemanSpiff19:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen.. hope you are fine! Would just like to bring to your attention that user Dear Debasish (discussed earlier above) is now violating three-revert rule on the article Bengali Brahmins in order to push his POV in spite of all previous warnings and being aware of the discretionary sanctions. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen. It came to my notice that I have been wrongly accused again and again by Ekdalian. Sometimes he does good job by removing unsourced and POV push contents. But he removes sourced and long time agreed contents too, and accuses others only. He is also doing POV for Kayastha. But he is much more cunning than ordinary POV pusher and knows how not to not make it very obvious.
His edits should also be reviewed.
Thanks and Regards Dear Debasish (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Ha ha, Dear Debasish; good one, really! Please get all my edits reviewed, if possible! In fact, 99% of the articles I have edited have other senior editors involved, and edits have been done not just based on reliable & verifiable sources, but consensus as well. And please check my recent edits on Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha, you may understand how I have fought against caste warriors, and removed all POV stuff including Brahmin claims. Sorry Bishonen for responding to DD on your talk page! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't have any intention to argue with you on other points, just coming to the main point, that is you doing a POV push for Bengali Kayastha. Two reasons-1.You're linking Kayashtha with Brahmin in lead section, which is not as per with other caste articles. Why is this exception only here? 2.Your recent varna status edits in Bengali Kayastha. It's too long and complex as compared to other caste articles, making the varna status of kayastha totally ambiguous. You've really gone the extra mile.Does providing only sources make some content very relevant ?
And The circumstances here clearly implying I was talking about Bengali Kayastha, but you're intentionally diverting attention to another article. That's why I have told you are a cunning POV pusher of kayastha !
Dear Debasish, this is my last message to you on this talk page. I am here for years and my edits are enough to prove my neutrality. I am only concerned about the fact that in spite of such great efforts by Bishonen (providing you wikilink & detailed explanation on how to indent properly), and in spite of being here actively for quite some time, you still failed to pick up something so simple; please read WP:CIR. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Bishonen for teaching me something new. I just learnt the indentation thing yesterday and I will not disappoint her.I know you will attack me on WP:indent failure because that's your nature to bite new comers , threatening and bullying. I am new to editing but as a learner I am quite old. And I plan to contribute in much broader fields, not just cast articles. You may continue your Bengali Kayastha POV push. Good luck ! Dear Debasish (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
India
Lately I've seen, "you deleted my UPE ARTSPAM 'cause you are anti Indian. I'm suing". Would more Indian admins be the answer? Do you know of any Indian editors that could be admins? Speaking of India, I see Sitush is back. --Deepfriedokra(talk)12:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Very fine to have Sitush back, for sure, young Fritter! The Indian admins we have are great, but obviously too few, considering the size of the topic and the amount of disruptive editing and socking at political articles and caste articles. As for admin candidates, you could do worse than take a look at Ekdalian in the section above. Bishonen | tålk14:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC).
Please note, though, that deep-fried okra is a species of pakora (although I concede that technically pakoras are fritters in some dialects of English, in my native speech [redneck], they would never be called by that term). Yum! --Orange Mike | Talk15:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I stupidly chopped off the front of the link -- the most important part, really -- when I copied it. Yes, I know, "Preview" is my friend. --Calton | Talk12:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Wanted to stop by and thank you personally
Thank you for responding to my post in the Teahouse, and for taking the time to go through the Otokonoko talkpage, at least in part. Heck of a slog, huh? Being part of it was just... whoof. The user's been blocked from that page and that talkpage, so I'm hoping that things will simmer down, and maybe even that the editor will start working with others and in other areas of interest. I'll admit I'm not holding my breath, though.
Ha! Thank you, Cat person. (Neko is my entire Japanese vocabulary; do not be mislead by my username.) Good old Cullen328. He probably read your Teahouse post also. I'll try to keep an eye on Glossary of anime and manga and its talk. BTW, can you explain to me something I was baffled by: what on earth does that user mean by "trap is a formal word". Formal...? What is a "formal word"? Is it supposed to simply mean "not slang" (which it surely does not)? Bishonen | tålk08:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC).
I think they were trying to say that using it for anime/manga/game characters is okay because it's the 'correct' term, while using it for a real-life person is the 'slang' use and doesn't bear mentioning since clearly we're using it formally and correctly so it's not a problem. Which... is wildly incorrect anyways; "trap" came into use in the early aughts due to the popularity of the Admiral Akbar "IT'S A TRAP!" meme, which people began using to refer to characters who looked female but were male (or at least had a penis). Implication being that the viewer was 'trapped' by the character; the viewer thinks she's a cute girl but "HA HA! he's a BOY! you were TRICKED!" (which is so gross). But because it's "formal" it's... okay? Somehow?
Many academic articles have highlighted issues in the NYT's reporting on climate change (I sourced them!). That this issue is taboo here, whereas the WSJ is bludgeoned at every turn, is demonstrative.
Having been blocked from adding studies that show the decreasing climate skepticism of the WSJ, and blocked from adding studies highlighting NYT's faults on climate reporting, it seems the only story that can be told is NYT=good and WSJ=bad.
Having been a frequent editor on this site 16 years ago, the tone and collegiality has noticeably changed. What I cannot understand are the taking down and silencing of quality, secondary sources relevant to the subject, on the grounds of 'this is not a Journal I've heard of', 'its not related to the editorial team beacuse it wasn't an editorial', 'I disagree, so you need concensus' etc. You can logic your way to anything. But fairness? Thank you.
Hi, Americhina. That content shouldn't be on your userpage, even briefly. I have put it on a special page that you can copy it from: User:Americhina/Covid19 anecdote. It can't stay there indefinitely either — or anywhere on Wikipedia — but please copy it and then I'll delete the page by and by. By the way, since you mention copyright: you cannot retain the copyright to anything you publish on Wikipedia. Please don't put anything here that you don't want people to freely copy and distribute, because everybody is allowed to do that with our content. Bishonen | tålk11:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC).
No, the copyright isn't the issue; I just mentioned that to make you aware of it for the future, since it looked like you mistakenly believed that you can publish stuff on Wikipedia and still retain the copyright to it. The issue with the text on your userpage is that it's not the kind of thing userpages are for. Please see Wikipedia:Userpages. I deleted your page per section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which means misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. In other words, using Wikipedia to publish content that's not related to Wikipedia. So, have you copied your essay from User:Americhina/Covid19 anecdote now? Bishonen | tålk12:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC).
please wait for 24 hours or less then tomorrow you can proceed.. iam using free social media and iam moving it there. the doye opens at midnigjt do i have to eaoy. otherwise i have nowhere to temporarily store the essay Americhina (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I think one of my first admin actions was to delete ANI. (Defiantly: No, I wasn't trying to be funny! I was trying to do something else!) It was long before the "thanks" feature, but I received a lot of appreciation — barnstars and similar. Bishonen | tålk12:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Um. Don't know what to say - the above was an automatic message, and while I would never argue with you in matters of mopping, that's batshit insane stuff, right there. -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF17:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe, but why shouldn't we give the user a chance to copy the text for their own use? Compare the section above. I've removed the speedy tag. I'll delete the page soon. Now please be a good dog. Bishonen | tålk17:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC).
Hi, Americhina. I have now deleted the temporary page; I hope you had copied your text. Please don't discuss your essay here on my page. I do understand that it's difficult to type on a mobile, but I can't even figure out what "vire" was supposed to be, so it's kind of pointless. And Roxy the dog, you too, please don't express opinions about Americhina's essay here. If you two really want to talk about it, please do it on one of your own talkpages, because I'm so over this whole serial. Have a good weekend, all. Bishonen | tålk14:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC).
Both standalone and embedded lists of people who are from, or who studied at, or who are known for something, or so on, are notoriously awful. I do what I can if they turn up in DPwL; but neither I nor anyone else can do much about lists consisting of nothing but NN blacklinks or redlinks. (I exclude people who clearly pass WP:NLIST, e.g. elected politicians or whose mention is supported by a RS, from that condemnation.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't go quite that far. I wrote Arino, Mari El Republic as a placeholder to solve a DABLINK problem and to de-orphan two articles (neither of which had any obvious connection with Ariño). The stubbiest of stubs, but Google doesn't understand any of the languages in the Interwiki list. The death dates of those two inhabitants are of course significant. It's the sort of thing Russia still keeps quiet about. Narky Blert (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure blocking someone from their own talk page is recommended in the admin employee handbook, but I just want to say it certainly had style. Of all the admins, in all the world, you're the rougiest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Today: a woman in red, two who died under "in memoriam" and LouisAlain missed - my first editnotice read: "Every editor is a human being" which is quoted from a comment by Geometry guy in a 2012 discussion on WP:AN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The master is globally locked. The earlier contributions actually aren't much like the pure disruption of the socks we have met, Meters. They're actually worse, being a push to slant Wikipedia's coverage of Islam away from NPOV. Then I guess the person gave up on that and went to pure trolling with the latest socks, in frustration. (I'll just note that we've had plenty of such pushes from Christian editors also: our articles must say that their beliefs are true, because, you know, they are true, God has said so, in the Bible.) Bishonen | tålk09:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC).
Thanks. I've linked the SPI report in my personal list of socks I should recognize. I always found the lack of any searchable index of sock behaviours to be surprising. Everything depends on the memories of reporters, so I made my own list with key points. Meters (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
And another source was from 1904. But I didn't block you from the article, or revert you, because of the content or the sources that you added, but because of your unscrupulous gaming of the autoconfirmed requirements. I thought I explained that on your page. Sorry if it wasn't clear. What trap? Bishonen | tålk20:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC).
Seriously?
Your edit summary – Seriously? "Anagram" is totally irrelevant to "Acronym". It shouldn't be a "See also" just because the *words* begin and end on the same letters. – was unnecessarily harsh, and ignored the reason I gave in my edit summary – Add "Anagram", which is often confused with "Acronym" – while suggesting that I had done it for an absolutely ridiculous reason.
"Seriously?" makes it sound as though I did something completely preposterous, when it was actually quite reasonable. I've seen people use one term when they meant the other. It is a service to readers to include links to other terms which they may confuse. See Anagram#See also (and, no, I didn't add "Acronym" there; it was added five years ago by someone else). I could've added a {{Confused}} hatnote, but I thought a "See also" link was better. The best solution would be a navigation template for these terms and others in List of forms of word play, but as far as I can see, none exists. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM21:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
{{Confused}} redirects to {{Distinguish}}. I felt that, although the terms are often confused, it wasn't often enough to warrant the prominence at the top of the page. But if anyone thinks it should be used, that's fine with me. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM22:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
As I said, I've seen it happen. But the frequency of confusion isn't the issue. The problem is the edit summary which ridiculed my edit and made it seem as though what I did was absolutely preposterous. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM23:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, can you please have a look at this article, and take necessary action on the caste warrior, who is edit warring in spite of being informed on their talk page. I have already explained clearly and provided wikilink on the consensus. I have already requested for page protection at WP:RPP. Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Ekdalian. I've semiprotected the article, which should hold the editor for now; I may sanction them as well, but that will require more thought, and I'm a little busy atm. I need to go outside and watch the Stockholm marathon! :-) Back later. Bishonen | tålk10:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen! I appreciate your comments on "tendentious editing", and while most of what you stated makes sense to me and I will not attempt to revert it all, some of my edits I feel were valid and in the interest of removing redundancy. For example, why does there need to be on the Gun Violence article a statement referring to BOTH small arms and firearms... they are the same thing, no? The wikilinks for both also refer to the same place. So for things like that, I think that it would make sense for me to revert it. Also, the Lewis Hine edit was find I felt and completely off the topic of the gun issues if you'd like for me to stay off that topic. Certainly I do not want to cause any trouble or risk the sanctions that were mentioned in the warning by the other editor that you referred to that was presented on my talk page the day prior. So this is why I am just reaching out to communicate with you on this and see if I could begin reverting SOME of what you did, but certainly not all of it. Thank you in advance, and since I am a new editor, if I am leaving this message in the wrong place, then please just let me know where I should put it instead next time!! Th78blue (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, I was curious if you could explain to me how WP:3RR does not apply to your reversions of my latest edits. Again, I am asking this question in good faith since I am new and still figuring out a LOT of things on wikipedia! Th78blue (talk) (Oh and why did my "WP:3RR" not link to that page? Like I said... still figuring some things out. Thanks for your help!!! :)
Coming to my page is fine, Th78blue, you're welcome here. Your gun-control edits taken as a whole seemed tendentious (did you look up WP:TENDENTIOUS?), so I reverted them wholesale. Certainly you may reinsert harmless details such as the small arms/firearms thing. It's not for me to tell you to stay away from any topic on this site — that's up to you, unless you should be topic banned from one of them. But since you ask: in my opinion, you would be wise to edit less controversial subjects for some time first, to gain more of a feeling for the rules and culture of this place, before you take on the highly controversial areas like gun control or American politics. Both these are under discretionary sanctions. If you like, you can see a list of the discretionary sanction topics here (scroll down). It's a good indication of where the explosive topics are. Good luck. Adding after your additions: as for the 3RR rule, I made one revert to each article, which is far from bringing the rule into play. It's for edit warring. Further: if you merely write something like "WP:3RR", it won't create a link; if it's a link you want, you must enclose the term in double square brackets, like I do now: WP:3RR. If that's unclear, just check my post in edit mode and I think you'll see. Bishonen | tålk14:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC).
Got it thanks. Also, I'm still learning the best way to ask other editors stuff. Is it always just on their talk page? I wish there was some sort of DM service or something on wikipedia. Would sure make things easier for me as I learn. Anyway, thanks, okay, I will be careful and only revert the one or two that I still feel are fine, but otherwise I see your point on the tendentious component and I will strive to be more careful going forward. I also think I'll drop this subject for a little while like you suggest so that I can get better and ensure that I am coming at it from a fair and balanced perspective. Thanks!! I love this! Oh and didn't you make several reverts, "I made one revert to each article, which is far from bringing the rule into play." I am confused on that? Please explain if you don't mind. Not contesting your assertion, I'm just confused because it says you made 13 and 5? Lastly... no pun intended with "explosive topics" eh? :) :) :)
Uh... What says I "made 13 and 5"? Oh.. I think I see. I reverted plenty of edits by you: 14 at Mass shooting, 8 at Gun violence, and 5 at Lewis Hine. But those are your edits. I still only made one edit to each article when I reverted them (unless you count my dummy edit at Lewis Hine, not a revert, but made for the purpose of saying a bit more in the edit summary). Maybe you'd better have a more careful read of WP:3RR. Since you're in learning mode, please indent posts on talkpages, using colons, like I do (and like I have now done with your latest post as well). It's much easier to follow that way. See WP:INDENT. As for where you can ask questions of experienced editors other than at individual pages: welcome to the Teahouse. Bishonen | tålk14:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC).
Like this? Thanks for being so patient with me! Also, so I understand... I think I understand WP:3RR, but I am sure I do not properly understand how you were able to revert 31 of my edits in 1 move! Please understand, I am not upset, as I am still learning, and expect to have reverts happen from time to time. I am simply not aware that you can "bulk revert." I have done one or two reverts myself (not many), and each time I had to manually click the "revert" button and revert one edit at a time. One revert, one edit. 31 reverts, not 31 edits? Thank you Bishonen! Th78blue (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
To revert consecutive edits, like I did, don't be the slave of the "revert" button. You can go to what you consider the last good version in the history, even if it's 8 or 10 edits back, click "edit", write an explanatory edit summary, and publish. That's how you revert 8 or 10 edits with one revert. See Help:Reverting#Manual reverting. Bishonen | tålk05:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC).
Makes sense, thanks! I'll get the hang of all of this one day. And now I understand what you did that did not violate the WP:3RR. Appreciate the lessons. :) Th78blue (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping your eyes open! No, you don't have to take it to ANI. I actually told the user, in my positively-last-warning, "it is only if you abide by this [=only creating articles via AfC] that you will remain unblocked". Blocked, and I don't foresee unblocking any time soon. Bishonen | tålk09:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC).
RutoSu, I'm about to drop a few templates: you are doing a serious amount of logged-out editing, and that needs to stop. Thank you. (Bish, I'm posting this here as an FYI...) Drmies (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
And that speedy nomination is not vandalism either, even if it may be a bit hasty. The article is extremely promotional. Your own repeated removal of the maintenance templates, on the other hand, RutoSu, comes close to vandalism. I have reverted it. Do it again and you're looking at a block. Bishonen | tålk14:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC).
"even if it may be a bit hasty" indeed it is. I don't understand why you are so nice with him. I don't touch the article Economy of Toulouse anymore. You will see yourself in couple of days. A vandal user stays a vandal user, otherwise you had sources, you correct what you think has to be corrected and you create an account on Wikipedia. Have a nice day, take care. --RutoSu (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
What you don't do is create an account and then still edit logged out a lot of the time, as you do. And note that promptly blanking all warnings from your own page doesn't make them go away; admins and others can still see them in the page history. You have a nice day too. Bishonen | tålk14:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC).
This is taking stubbornness too far. I've blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing — the user's third block within a month. Yes, it's concerning. Bishonen | tålk06:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC).
Advice for Unblock Request
Hi~! I am wondering if you could advise me on how to prove I am worthy of being unblocked from namespaces. I believe my talk page discussions have been productive and am not entirely sure why it has taken so long to respond to my unblock request. Thank you Sucker for All (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for the unblock request (your second) to be reviewed, Sucker for All. But researching the situation — indeed, just reviewing all the controversies on your talkpage — looks like quite an undertaking, so I can understand our volunteer admins hesitate to take it on. So do I, as far as advising you. I note you have posted essentially the same request to two other admins, and are currently discussing it with Casliber. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to dig into this. Bishonen | tålk09:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC).
I think that just analyzing all of my new posts in the talk pages gives the idea of the edits I plan on making. The reality of the "controversies" on my talk page is that they are exaggerated. For example, blueboyliny was blocked for doing the things he accused me of doing, JesseRafe falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet and the other case was limited to Future Nostalgia. While it's true my edits are bold, "controversies" is a poor way of describing the misunderstandings that I had way more than a month ago.. Sucker for All (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
not many editors would be left standing in the field of American politics, for example
I want to point out that discretionary sanctions only allow blocking as an AE action for up to 1 year: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#sanctions.user. This is why indef blocks as a result of the AE noticeboard are done as regular admin actions. You should update the block log and talk page block notice for Spartan7W to indicate it is a regular admin action and not part of arbitration enforcement, and the entry should be removed from the AE log. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.09:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I completely forgot the one-year rule. I'm changing the paperwork to one year as an AE action, followed by an indef by myself, an alternative I've seen others use. Bishonen | tålk11:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC).
In the edit summary of your change on the page Elizabeth May, you call my addition "without merit" to the paragraph titled "Bullying allegations" NPOV. The source Toronto Star says that a team lead by Toronto lawyer Sheila Block did a thorough investigation. They judged the allegations based on the Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act. The allegations didn't constitute workplace harassment. Therefore they concluded that the allegations were without merit. Because of the independency of the investigating lawyer and her team it is reasonable to assume that their conclusion is a neutral point of view, contrary to your remark in your edit summary. I reverted your change apart from the deletion of the word "completely" to which I have no objection. Otto (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Otto. Well, actually I called it contrary to NPOV. That's WP:NPOV. My main complaint was about the "completely without merit". You should indeed have no objection to my removal of "completely"; there's no hint of it in any of the sources. I wouldn't be surprised if the editor who plumped up the sourced statement in that fashion (I know it wasn't you) had a conflict of interest concerning Elizabeth May. Or, to put it more bluntly, was on her staff. I don't feel as strongly about the header, though it looks sort of amateurish to have that in a header. But I see both the editing and the discussion has moved past this in any case. Incidentally, you state on the article talkpage that your editing is informed by your knowing Mrs May personally. That's a conflict of interest, though by no means as strong as being on her staff, which I know you're not. Please click on the guideline link and read. Note, for example, that "COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead". I suggest it would be a good idea to disclose your COI on your talkpage also. The simplest way is to use the template {{UserboxCOI}}. Bishonen | tålk05:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC).
Notify Free1Soul?
Hi Bishonen. I'm not sure whether or not it's appropriate to notify Free1Soul that they are being discussed on ANI, so I thought I'd leave a gentle reminder here and defer to your judgment. AlexEng(TALK)22:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, good idea. I thought of it at the start, since I did mention them, but in the end I merely pinged them. Another user has already notified them. Bishonen | tålk05:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC).
Flicked you an email but may as well say it here too: apologies for the mild bad temper, it's exam season and I'm sleep deprived. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Euryalus, wow, you're a student? I always assumed, from your always measured editing, that you were more likely a professor. Or, say, a retired professor, rich in years and wisdom! Bishonen | tålk06:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC).
Well it's important I think, even at age 8, to put aside our childish delusions of Santa (Ma) and confront the grim reality of a world of badly referenced eighteenth century sailing articles. We become all the stronger for it. More tediously pedantic, but stronger. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Salt request of FJB
Hey; earlier today you granted my request to salt Fuck Joe Biden; the draft that it was recreated to point to the 2nd time it was remade got accepted (albeit unilaterally) today. It may seem my request was premature as Fuck Joe Biden would be a plausible redirect to the article as is, or it could be that the article is too similar to the old FJB article. Not sure. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh for fuck's sake, GhostOfDanGurney. Well, I don't feel like unprotecting the redirect, though of course I have no objection to some other admin doing it at their own discretion under the new circumstances etc etc bla bla. The salting was certainly appropriate when you requested it and when I did it. Thanks for letting me know. Bishonen | tålk05:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC).
Hi, Ekdalian. I notice the article was last semiprotected for two years! A choice that's not even available in the drop-down menu; the admin has to type it in. I can quite see why Yamaguchi先生 did that, and have followed their example. Thanks for the alert. Bishonen | tålk18:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC).
@Deepfriedokra: Oh god, that guy? From 2016? I've reminded myself what went down through e-mails from that time. Took a while! Do I have to comment at UTRS? The interface is so baffling, I hate it. I know who he outed, there's no doubt that he did out them, and the circumstances do not allow any notion that he did it innocently. I can fill you in on the details by e-mail if you like. For now, I'll just say: ash behaved very badly, but it was five years ago. Possibly that's reason enough to unblock? If he starts wasting the time of admins and users again, the way he did before, he should be reblocked, though. He was always borderline disruptive, even before the outing horror show, but perhaps he has matured or whatever. I dunno. *I* haven't matured any since 2016. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Bishonen | tålk13:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC).
Request for protecting the article on Srivastava; caste warrior, again!!
Hi Bishonen, would request you to have a look at the article on Srivastava, and the caste warrior, Large swipe, who refuses to accept all logic, and persistently fighting with the same old rejected sources used by n number of socks in the article on Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha; the user is edit warring in spite of being informed on their talk page. Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey Large swipe, we will obviously consider reliable sources only, but have you even read the sources? Apart from the 1904 (Raj-era) source, all clearly talk about the CKP, and you are citing the same for the article on Srivastava, which is a sub-caste of Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha. It doesn't require someone to be an intellectual to understand this, bare minimum common sense will do. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen.. would request you to initiate necessary action (you are the best judge here!) for edit warring and ignoring all warnings! Look at their edit summaries, repeating the same lines, which hardly makes sense in this context; doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia!! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I've read several more articles and reviews about an artist's credits or billing in a film. For someone with an extensive and long resume, I think it's fair to edit down the credits to the one's most notable (Not necessarily famous or name dropping)
The addition of notable auteurs helps highlight the artist's accomplishment.
I will make an attempt with Johnathon Schaech's article.
Hi, User:OldNatchezTrace, thanks for editing Johnathon Schaech. Editing down the credits to the most notable sounds like a good idea. I consider the article overly detailed altogether. For instance, before I edited it here, it made a point of Schaech being offered a job by the Chippendales, but turning it down. That sounds like a pure vanity mention; like a CV where somebody has made an effort to get everything vaguely flattering, however trivial, into the list.
I'll mention, though, that you don't need to remove everything that's not sourced, as you did here; it's a judgement call. Putting a {{cn}} template may sometimes be better. In this case, a recent template was already there. But that's up to you; it's certainly not a very important fact, whether or not it's true. This edit, where you removed "Schaech co-starred in the pilot for CBS's Commuters" seems eminently sensible; certainly if, as it looks, JS was just in the pilot. That's in the 'effortful CV' category, whether or not it's sourced. Not everything that is sourced deserves a spot in a Wikipedia article. In other words, I don't agree with Schazjmd's restoration of your removal, with a cite added. But such details are very much a matter of taste. I generally agree with your additions and removals altogether. (This edit, though, added some really uninteresting details, in my opinion. 😉) Note that you can also use the talkpage to resolve any doubts you may have, for instance to ask for help with this footnote problem. (I'd help you myself, but I'm rubbish with those cite templates.) Bishonen | tålk20:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC).
I saw the edit summary of "No citation or article found", so I thought that was the only reason it had been removed and was able to find a ref. If OldNatchezTrace (or anyone else) wants to remove that line for lack of importance, that's fine with me. Schazjmd(talk)21:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC) You're right I'll remove this one 13:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)OldNatchezTrace (talk)
thank you for getting back to me. I'm trying to help find a consistent way of crediting these artists. It really is a matter of opinion. cite templates are so inconsistent throughout these pages. I'll pop over to see what is being talked about. --OldNatchezTrace (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Is that a reply to Schazjmd or to me, OldNatchezTrace? The way to keep talkpage conversations neat and understandable (showing where one post ends and another begins, as well as showing who you're responding to) is to indent all replies with a suitable number of colons. Check how I and Schazjmd are doing it here by looking in the edit field. One colon indents one step, two colons indent two steps, etc. Bishonen | tålk07:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC).
OldNatchezTrace, do please use the colons as indicated, and use Preview to see how your post comes out. (Nobody's going to notice your latest post, which didn't come out well at all.) I'd probably best post this on your own page as well, since you don't seem to have noticed my post to you just above. Bishonen | tålk13:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC).
Povel Ramel: question for Bish and any interested TP watchers
1 June 2022 will be the 100th anniversary of Povel Ramel's birth. I think it would be rather nifty if the article about him could be featured on that day – I realise the chance isn't that great, but if nothing else, it would be good to get it to GA status. It's got a way to go, but it would be a fun project to work on. Would you be interested in collaborating? Maybe some other people (@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:?) might also be game? I have his autobiography, and also the excellent biography by Staffan Schöier (Yrke: Povel Ramel). Johanna Broman Åkesson's books would probably also be good sources; I don't own them, but could get hold of them through the library. Låt inte oss förbli de sista entusiasterna! --bonadeacontributionstalk21:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The last spasm should be a spasm of enthusiasm. My only Ramel is Multiplied Vaccinium vitis-idaea-legs, a collection of primary texts. But I support the idea. If not FA, perhaps DYK? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure, Bonadea! I should get the more important of the books for this. I have one word for you: Bokbörsen.se. But, öhh... Povel seems to have published quite a few books. Which one is actually his autobiography? Bishonen | tålk07:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC).
Bokbörsen is indeed our friend! His autobiography was published in two parts: Följ mig bakåt vägen and Som om inget hade hänt. They have also been published in a single volume, Povels samlade Livstycken. If Bokbörsen can't find it, povelramelsallskapet.se sell it in their shop.
Cool. I've ordered Schöier and the collected Livstycken from Bokbörsen. And now I keep singing "Far, jag kan inte få upp min kokosnöt" in my head. It's getting quite annoying. Bishonen | tålk11:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC).
There was a really good version of De sista entusiasterna with P & W on YT, but it seems to be gone. I listened to Svarta Malin instead. "Och Kapten Nilsson! Piraten!" Genius. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you should contact WMSE to ask if you might get a grant for the books? Usually you should ask before ordering, but maybe it works? (WMSE because I guess you live in Sweden). It is for a good cause. @Axel, maybe you can answer if I am "ute och cyklar", or not. Best regards, Adville (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
In short, Geoff GarrettAO, FTSE/User talk:BlackTea, notable afaict, has had a WP:AUTO on WP without problems for 5 years. Significantly copied from a text he wrote that also appears elsewhere. Then someone noticed and a ton of PAG fell on him. He has been communicative and quite polite at his talkpage. He has expressed a worry that netizens who look at the current Geoff Garrett will think less of him, and to a degree I symphatize.
The "case" is at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Geoff_Garrett and will be dealt with in WP-time, which, if he's unlucky, could be awhile. I don't know about suppressing old versions of the article and stuff like that, but WW made a rewrite that looks good to me.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, it's unusual to see an article subject being so pleasant in response to being enmeshed in wiki bureaucracy, so I'd really like to help. If I didn't hate copyright stuff so much, and if I weren't so incompetent in the area. Sorry. As for mentioning my "alias", ha ha. They mentioned User:Diannaa. Maybe you want to go ask her? Bishonen | tålk10:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC).
Did not know how to make the >!--example--< stuff. Now I know! Lopbunny69 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC) (Swapped the signs so it would show.) I originally thought it was <<!example>>.
Hi, Lopbunny69. The simplest way to get what you type show up on the page exactly as written, instead of being treated as code, is to surround it with <nowiki></nowiki> tags. You get those tags by highlighting the text in question and then clicking on the little nowiki symbol in the line of symbols above the edit window. It's the little "W" crossed out in red. Try it. Bishonen | tålk16:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC).
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Sotuman, since you merely troll me when I ask a good-faith question, I'm declining your appeal. Did you perhaps have a notion that you're formally obliged to ask the banning admin before going on to the next stage of your appeal? That is not the case. Anyway. Feel free to continue by going on to one of the other stages outlined here. Please stay away from my page unless you're obliged to inform me of something or other. Bishonen | tålk21:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC).
Bishonen, your request for me to describe the kinds of edits you would wish to make to Flood geology and related pages if your topic ban from those pages were rescinded did not compute. If I were to answer, "Bishonen, I do not plan on making any edits to those pages," then one could say that there is also no reason for the arbitrary ban to be lifted. On the other hand, if I were to fully describe kinds of edits I may or may not wish to make, I would risk violating the current ban. It seemed to me to be a silly question, no offense. I would probably continue making the same kind of edits as I have for the past two and a half years for whatever topic may be of interest to me at the time. Three years ago, I knew very little about the talk pages and multitude of other behind-the-scenes machinations of Wikipedia. I jumped right into editing one article that seemed to offer very little in the way of useful, encyclopedic information, and I got burned. Obviously I wouldn't make the same mistakes again. Anyway thanks for your time, it's always a pleasure. You the man(converse) 05:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Really? Since you seemingly already know what "one could say", I don't know why I bother, but if you had said you didn't plan to make any edits to those pages, I would have lifted the ban. It's old, and I'm aware that many users dislike having a sanction in force against them even if it prevents nothing, and would be glad to exchange it for a commitment on the honour system. But with the approach you have taken, I will not. You'll have to ask at one of the three noticeboards indicated. Usually, when I tell people that, I also give them some advice about those boards and the difference between them, but this time I'm too hasty and lazy for any extra effort. I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself. And now, seriously, just go away. Bishonen | tålk08:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC).
FAR nomination
I have nominated Great Fire of London for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Renerpho, but I won't be joining the discussion, or updating the article with more recent sources. Overhauling old articles is just not work I like, and I don't think I have any particular duty to do it — it's not "my" article, remember. Of course I'd be very pleased to see other people improve it. This new source, which was mentioned on talk, sounds like a must if the article is to remain featured. But also, maybe it doesn't have to remain featured? I'd be fine with that as well. Bishonen | tålk09:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC).
Hello Bishonen. You may recall that you blocked User:Yungmemelord as a means of requiring that they commit to communicating properly in the future, after they had ignored every message left for them since 2016. Unfortunately, after you unblocked them, they made one single edit with a summary but since then have continued as before, making significant factual changes with no edit summary and without providing any source. So, possibly more intervention is required.
I often wonder what to do with that information (that I see in Recent changes); I see nonsense accounts being created by other nonsense accounts all the time, but sitting around to see what they're doing, I don't always have the time for it. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. But you may get useful information more directly from here. For instance, I ran my eye down it and saw PAEDOPHIE, listed as being created by UH999, whose contribs link was right there, and showed vandalism. If I hadn't seen a blue contribs link, I would have ignored both the accounts. Bishonen | tålk19:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC).
Yeah, I suggested it. Indeed I reached out to you to express regret that nobody came to review, and suggested it. You immediately attacked me and my suggestion. And now you've decided to take it after all. How nice that is. Bishonen | tålk20:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC).
I didn't attack you. I pointed out how the process is broken and how that leads to zero oversight. Now I have more taunting from other users and admins actively supporting such taunts. How fun. Buffs (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Fasle and inappropriate information about Girth Caste
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
Bish, I emailed you, but am not sure if the last email I had is the current one... please let me know if you didn't receive it. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, can you please have a look at the article on Singh, especially the POV pushing by the user Suthasianhistorian8. He has been ignoring all warnings (removed the warning message from his talk page), & seems to have violated the three-revert rule as well. Please help! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I saw that you provided great feedback on Joshua Project. When you get chance, can you please look at below link to provide your opinion as well?
[34].
I do have secondary reliable sources from modern academic scholars such as Hari Ram Gupta, Surjit Gandhi[35] and others who contradict some of the events mentioned in the chronicle book I mentioned in the Noticeboard. Thanks MehmoodS (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, MehmoodS. I'm afraid I'm so far from being an expert in the area that I must decline, sorry. The Joshua project was something else; it's really, really easy to see that it's not a reliable source. Studying their website for say ten-fifteen seconds will do it. Also, please be careful you don't fall foul of the canvassing guideline. You're not supposed to ask only people who are likely to agree with you to come to a discussion. Bishonen | tålk20:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC).
thank you for your advise. Well taken. I wasn't aware that we are not suppose to ask and neither was it my intention as I was just trying to get as many comments/opinions as possible so that is why I thought that I would just ask especially those who are well experienced with admin status. I think that the opinions currently provided on the topic, are sufficient enough but either way, once again thank you for your advise.MehmoodS (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Moms for Liberty
On 19 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moms for Liberty, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moms for Liberty. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Moms for Liberty), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I'm glad you enjoyed them Bish. Elvis is the most famous person to sing Blue Christmas but I really like Leon's rendition which is why I like sharing it :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk13:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure you've heard such sentiments before, but ...
Thank you, Voce. Coincidentally, I've just discovered how delicious pomegranates are. Sweet and candy-tasting, to please the inner child. Bishonen | tålk15:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC).
Greetings from all of us holed up on some remote island south of the Italian peninsular. I do hope you’re well, if yet another year older. My year has been dreadful. The kitchen staff have decamped back to the Philippines, my French maid has said ‘bollox to Brexit’ and gone back to France, and Stanislaw my devoted plumber has found he can earn more in Poland. Now Rishi Sunak (such a mice looking boy) is raising my taxes. I already subsidise the whole country and single handedly fund the NHS. Fortunately, I never think of myself or complain, so I have moved in with my nephew and his odd wife, which is why I’m here in wherever. Do you like my Christmas card? Giano had hundreds printed, (apparently some distant connection of his, who he says was the first Santa Claus) anyway, it’s cheaper than buying my own cards. Do take care of yourself, I’ve always admired your energy and stamina, you and the dear Queen are such examples to us all. I just hope I’m the same at your age. Much love to you all The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
As I'm sure Bishonen (or, at least, Darwinbish) knows already, I too wish her and everyone a most excellent holiday season. But, seeing the fine comments of the most gracious Lady Catherine, I decided to educate myself about her ever-so-inspiring history – something I was unable to do until just now, due to a rather pesky neurological disorder. (I should hasten to add that I'm half American and half human.) I'm most interested in the history of formal dance, and I can only imagine the magnificent balls that must have been in Scrotum House. Perhaps they climaxed years ago, but still, I'm sure they must have been marvelous. But I digress. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Dearest Lady Catherine, what an honour to hear from you, and receive a lovely Christmas card. Your nephew's taste is exquisite as always. My sockpuppets and I send you both many, many respectful greetings and venture to hope that, amongst the exodus of your faithful (?) retainers, Sven the Swedish majordomo remains staunchly in attendance. Comparing me with the dear Queen is too, too gracious. I am now actually fully twice as old as she! That takes me back... I remember your funeral, what a solemn occasion that was! We must do it again soon! Bishonen | tålk13:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC).
Merry Christmas
Heba Aisha (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
It was not my intention to log two warnings - Twinkle did not reload the page and I thought the first warning did not go through. Anyways, wishing a pleasant holiday to you and your's! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
You too, TrangaBellam! No, it was me, I didn't read carefully enough — they were actually warnings about different aspects of one edit (probably not necessary, but still, I shouldn't have removed it). I've put it back. Bishonen | tålk20:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC).
You were kind enough to protect the page Deaths in 2021 last year, and save it from the potential ravages of goodwill misguidance (and sometimes malevolence). Could I kindly ask that you consider stepping in for us on January 1st 2022 and doing the same, as we who often edit the Deaths pages are always apprehensive about this issue as each New Year approaches? If I am being too forward in this request, I do apologise and wish you every health and happiness for 2022. Best wishes. Ref(chew)(do)17:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Refsworldlee, happy new year to you too. I'm sure you're right about the vandalism to be expected at Deaths in 2022, but since the protection policy explicitly disapproves of preemptive semiprotection against vandalism that hasn't happened yet, I guess I'll hold off a little. I've watchlisted the article, but feel free to remind me in early January in case I forget. Bishonen | tålk20:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC).
That's very civil of you - I'm aware of the rules regarding "pre-emptive strikes", and I'm appreciative of you keeping the project in your thoughts. I will certainly pop up again if it's still unprotected on January 2nd. Every best wish for you. Ref(chew)(do)21:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, hope you had a great Christmas! Please look into the article on Pala Empire, where DD (whom you had warned earlier) is forcing their POV, and removing a reliably sourced statement in the midst of an ongoing talk page discussion (initiated by them). DD is also engaged in edit warring. Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Ekdalian. I already looked at that situation, but I don't feel competent to intervene in it. I recommend my admin talkpage watchers to take a look, as well as other users with an interest in the subject. Bishonen | tålk08:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC).
Thanks for your prompt response. I am not requesting to pass any judgement regarding the content related issue; I am only concerned about the fact that user Dear Debasish is violating the very basics, removing the reliably sourced statement during an ongoing talk page discussion before arriving at a consensus (in spite of valid concerns raised by me as well as an established editor LukeEmily), as well as edit warring, which is not acceptable! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
RFA 2021 Completed
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.
The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.
A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.
Hi Bishonen! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you very much, Gerda. I love the snowy trees and the Sweetbriar rose, which I've put into the image carousel at the top of this page. Keep watching and it'll turn up one day! Bishonen | tålk17:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC).
I like the lion! - Seriously, I just went over my "blushing" corner, and have the feeling that 80% of my old friends are gone, which boils down to feeling sort of fossil. You are there, how great! ... and I remember that crying is allowed here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see you block me. I just wanted to defend this man, everyone is asking for his head and I don't think it's fair. In your edits you say that "He responded by claiming the content of the video was humorous in nature, and was well received by his current and former students." That's a lie! He says from the beginning of his video that he is citing, that he is being sarcastic. That's all I wanted to include. English is my second language and I'm still trying to figure out how to use Wikipedia, but there, hope you're happy, you block me... duck you and duck this cancel culture of fhit, you people don't have enough neurons to debate anything. It's pretty unfortunate to see how a little guy with a little power turned out to be such an impatient censor like yourself, there, have your Wikipedia, and help destroy the world with false information. IfonlyIwasBradbury (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Really..? You see I blocked you from one article, but apparently you haven't read my posts on your page, where I attempted to explain some of Wikipedia's principles. Seriously, why haven't you? You've seen my posts, since you "thanked" me for them. And I guess you haven't seen or understood the article history — here it is — since you talk at random about what I 'say in my edits'. I haven't made any edits to Barry Mehler apart from once reverting your first addition, for reasons I have already explained. In view of these misunderstandings, which have led you to come here to recklessly insult me, I don't see much point in trying to explain all over again. Please re-read my posts on your page, click on the links in them, and don't attack anybody else, or you will be blocked from the entire site. Bishonen | tålk19:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC).
One more time: I just wanted to offer unbiased information to what happened with this man. EVERYWHERE they're only talking about "how rude," but there is more than that. That's all I wanted. You can see that I just joined today, and that aside from those two edits, I haven't made any other. I tried to respond you where you left your comments, but it only gave me the option to thank you, so I did, bravo, you deleted my two edits and blocked me from the article just because I 1. Erased your Fow News source and 2. Included some missing information, not interpretation, not opinions, facts that he stated and that you for some reason are very keen on not include. Fine, I don't think it's fair, but there's nothing else I can do, you already threatened to block me forever of the site. LOL, and to think that I kept donating to Wikipedia cause I thought it was a free place. This world is doomed because of people like you. No dialogue, no nothing, you may think that you're quite the smart, but today you probed to be a brute. IfonlyIwasBradbury (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) – Comment: that "donation" argument never, never, never works. Literally. It is not worth saying. If anything, it could have a slight negative effect in that it perhaps makes other editors less sympathetic. I really, honestly, would advise you to never say that again. Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, DBaK. Amazing how many aggressive newbies turn out to be disillusioned donators, isn't it? As you say, it makes a terrible impression. (Besides, I'm rather personally offended by having Fox News called my source.) Bishonen | tålk11:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC).
Absolutely. So many people are offended when their edits are reverted ... surely the Foundation must be down to its last few pennies by now? And yes, your source ... dodgy!!! Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Well I am only the TPS here but yes it makes me feel much, much, better, thank you. For a moment I was all angry and suspicious of Bish but then I read those acronyms and now I am overcome with acceptance and admiration and am about to write a huge cheque for this year's fundraider. (Sorry, sorry, typo.} With best wishes to all, I remain, your humble servant, DBaK (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Bishonen, as you know i Cant wrote on the Romani people page, yet there is something written who doesnt have to do with the source, as you can see under genetic evidence, turkish and tatarian gen etc...the source there doesnt mentionend anything about that
Hi, Nalanidil. The section "Genetic evidence" is over my head, sorry; I know very little about genetics. Even if I did understand it, I'm afraid your complaint is too general: the section is both quite long and highly specialized and has lots of sources. Please explain more specifically which bit of text (quote it) and which source (name it) you mean. If you add these specifics below, perhaps some of my esteemed talkpage watchers will be able to help. Bishonen | tålk16:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC).
the reference says nothing about turkish or tatar Y-DNA, or even muslim woman got children from turks, tatars etc, the source says only about Genetic influence of the Ottoman occupiers on the Balkan-Roma population. That's why I wanted to fix it but I can't. You blocked me from editing the Article.
Thanks, Nalanidil, that helps a lot. It's a strange very short section, where the header is actually more detailed than the text! The text doesn't say anything about DNA or even about genes. It looks to me like it's the header that wants changing, say from "Turkish and Tatar Y-DNA genes of the Muslim Roma" to something like "Turkish and Tatar influence on the Balkan Roma". But, anyway, this should be discussed on the article talkpage rather than here with me, an ignorant admin. Please start a discussion there, and ask that somebody change it. You are only blocked from the article, not from the talkpage.
I did block you from the article, and was sorry to do it, but you know why I felt it necessary. If you're now prepared to abide by our sourcing policies, I suggest you appeal the block, in the way I told you about here. As I told you at the time, I'll unblock you myself if you undertake, in a convincing way, to add only material supported by reliable sources. Bishonen | tålk17:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC).
No it's ok, I don't want to write anymore on this page
I don't want to start a discussion either, because that only degenerates into long discussions, etc.
Maybe someone can change it, delete the headline and just insert the sentence "Genetic influence of the Ottoman occupiers on the Balkan-Roma population" in front of the source.
Hi Bishonen. First, I wanted to thank you for the quick response on this one. Many of my requests on ANI are ignored or it handled with great latency, meaning much more damage to correct later. My issue here is that this IP created an account Romberd to avoid the block and continues with the same behavior. This is the first time I had an IP serving as the sock puppeteer so I'm not WP:SOCK applies, but they are certainly avoiding the block in this way. --Muhandes (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Muhandes. Yes, I'm always sorry to see well-grounded reports being ignored at ANI. The Romberd account was actually created a week before I blocked the IP. But guess what — it never edited until the day after the IP was blocked. Anyway, the wording of the edit summaries is enough to show it's the same person. Pity they chose that road, instead of replying to 331dot's questions. I don't think we'll bother with an SPI in such a case, as checkusers won't connect an account and an IP anyway, for privacy reasons. I've blocked Romberd per WP:DUCK and written a note at User talk:190.5.46.74. Bishonen | tålk18:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen. I'm afraid none of this was for any good. I'd attribute it to WP:CIR, but as you can clearly see from their talk page, after being unblocked they simply reintroduced all the same edits like nothing happened. -Muhandes (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure, Muhandes. The big deal that I blocked them for was failure to communicate, and now they are communicating. I agree there's a CIR problem, and a problem with their command of English, and I understand your frustration, but I hesitate to block just yet. Pinging 331dot. Bishonen | tålk15:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC).
I agree, they started communicating after I reverted most of their edits and left them another firm warning (which happened after I left you that message). I don't mind waiting until they repeat the offense (if they do, I hope they don't), but I think the CIR issue will be their downfall. Even the "good" edits they do need to be completely redone. --Muhandes (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I came across this and of course you are spot on, speaking freely, & asides anything else, please, in your opinion, how effective is COIN of recent in negating and dealing with possible COI & UPE? I’ve found that if it isn’t an air-proof evidence nothing much is achieved there, but please what are your thoughts on COIN? Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Celestina007. I'm not sure I ought to opine about COIN in general, since I only use it in a lazy way — reading sections that appeal to me as interesting, which means I don't read most of it. But for what my impression is worth: it sometimes looks like admins are pretty cautious at COIN. It's in the nature of undisclosed paid editing that you can rarely strictly prove it, and so there's a tendency for admins to merely give an opinion, but not act. Not true of all admins! But I quite often find myself to be the one to block, which I do when circumstances (i.e. not strictly evidence) convince me that we're dealing with a UPE. So, in my personal opinion, we could do with being less cautious at COIN. OTOH, I suppose it's also questionable how much a block achieves, when it's so easy to create a sock or socks and continue as before. :-( Were you thinking of a particular case? Bishonen | tålk11:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC).
Nah not really Bishonen, no particular incident, but I was thinking of it as a general gradual retrogression of the efficiency of relevant boards dealing with UPE, I’m aware you aren’t one to be afraid of making tough calls(blocks), it’s a handful of you brave lot, MER-C, Zzuuzz, Yamla, Blablubbs and a few others who I’m not remembering at the moment. In any case, thank you for giving me your insight on this. I’m appreciative of it. Celestina007 (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
COIN is playing a central role at an ArbCom case that is going on right now. And I fear it will end very badly, ArbCom losing us even more respected and liked editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh yes, that case. Yes, it may well end badly. Mind you, there's so much to read that I've only been able to inform myself in a superficial way. Bishonen | tålk21:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC).
Ignore, I think, as long as it stops there. Possibly Acroterion, who has experience with them, might be interested. While it's supposed to be a dynamic IP, their manner seems pretty recognizable from last summer. Anyway, I think you did right to remove the last couple of posts. Bishonen | tålk22:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC).
I'm with Bishonen. If they stop, we can ignore. If they keep trolling, a block is in order. However, I suspect a lengthy block is in their future, as they keep doing thigns like that.Acroterion(talk)23:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I received a notification that I was tagged in this user page but the edit seems to have been removed by yourself from public viewing. Can I please see what was said about me? I just want to know why I was tagged by this user. I've never talked to them in any memorable capacity. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, NarSakSasLee. The user had been indefinitely blocked, and they flamed out and posted some obscenities. (Yawn. Nothing original.) They pinged several people, that they had had disagreements with, so I was in fact just wondering if any of those people would ask! Believe me, it was very generic and uninteresting. I don't blame you for being curious, though. I'm definitely not going to post any of it in public, but, if you like, I'll e-mail it to you. Just let me know if you want that. Would any of my dear talkpage stalkers perhaps like to be cc'd with this stuff? (Jk, that's not gonna happen. You lot will have to make up your own.) Bishonen | tålk15:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC).
This is the most hilarious thing I've read in a while. I'm floored lol. I honestly have no idea who he was. Yeah I would like to see what he said through email though if that's okay. Not sure if my email function still works on the Wiki (I've been here for about 14 years now), but please let me know. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Knight Skywalker. That is code which makes the user see Wikipedia in a particular way, for instance with special colors. I'm not proficient with such code, so I can't be more specific. It's not harmful, and has nothing to do with the reason the user was blocked. Bishonen | tålk20:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC).
Yes, he was editing before with another account, and had changed his name. That's not a problem. He may indeed also have been a sock in the bad sense all along, but I don't see how even that would be a problem, as he's now indefinitely blocked and is highly unlikely to ever be unblocked. If you were interested in trying to identify a sockmaster, Knight Skywalker, it's unfortunately too late for that. CheckUser logs only go back a limited number of months. Bishonen | tålk08:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC).
Arbitration
Thx for the edit though I didn't notice that the space was only meant for uninvolved admins (header sez "editors"). In any case, I guess I'm involved so thanks for parking it wherever. Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh really? Bishzilla wielded the tools briefly some 12 or 13 years ago, Jonathan. And wielded them heroically, I must admit — she blocked FT2, a sitting arb, and was taken to arbitration for it, haha! Where she was admonished, hoho! But ever since, it's been all me. Bishonen | tålk12:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC).
That's great! I wonder if I can personalize it for Bishzilla, by adding a link to the admonishment itself? Maybe better not, though, because I'd love to see it widely used. Have you seen my own sort-of userbox, with "This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia 3 times"? Also a fine thing. PS, ha, I see Floquenbeam has already personalized Bishzilla's box! Naughty! 👏 Bishonen | tålk15:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC).
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
Blocking people with different (and possibly scientifically correct) opinions
Defending marxist users will not solve the fundamental problems of society. There are thousands of people reading Dutton's page and asking themselves why only the marxist point of view is represented and defended by this website with clever linguistic and textual manipulations / tricks.
I will wait the two weeks, and then change the page again. Truth will prevail. --SamZane (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, hope you're doing fine; in fact, it's been quite some time in between. Can you please look at the recent edit warring on Baidya, and particularly user Nobita456, who seemed like a sock of previously blocked caste warrior(s). Please refer to the discussion [here]. Though Nobita456 could possibly be a sock (as per CU), they couldn't confirm; there's a lot of behavioral similarities which were pointed out. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey Bishonen Nobita here.Ekdalin and Trangabellam both removed my sourced content see here 12.I added them under WP:NPOV along with Rc Majumder and Sen's modern source, the statements of them are so important and impactful for this article. But they removed that and started complaining against me here. They even complained against me earlier for socking but couldn't prove anything see .I even started talk page discussion before making these edits but our views didn't match.so I added them under WP:NPOV which is not negotiable.Nobita456 (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I also pointed out some faults in the edit of Trangabellam here. Trangabellam even cited a direct census(which is WP:OR and has no values in caste-related articles) edited some controversial lines but after my complaint, he removed that see. Nobita456 (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
And Coming to Ekdalian he himself said you cant remove sourced content under WP:NPOV in his very recent edit see his edit summary but in baidya case he himself removed it, which is really funny and ultimate level of hypocrisy. Nobita456 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Nobita456, I've now had 8 alerts in less than an hour from your editing of this page, and it's pretty distracting. Please consider planning and proofreading your posts all together instead of being so incremental. Bishonen | tålk13:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC).
sorry about that.there was some typing errors and spelling mistake.I will definitely take care of that afterwards,thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi again, Nobita456. I have studied the issues, and consulted with some more knowledgeable admins, and in my opinion your interest in the Baidya article is almost excessive. You're edit warring, and also coming close to bludgeoning on the talkpage. I hope you will cool your jets a little at that article. And please don't make accusations such as "hypocrisy", but assume good faith. Comment on content, not on the contributor, as our No personal attacks policy says. Bishonen | tålk20:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen for your studies on this case. There were many errors in this baidya page that I already pointed out and fixed. but there are still many in which I am working, that's why I am so committed to this article.I mean why do you cite a direct census to the article and edit a line where their brahmin clam goes to the slender ground which is very sensitive, then it is very hard to assume good faith edits. now coming to my next point, please tell me on which ground they revert my well-sourced line see 12.please check the sources and judged your self first one is from Rc majumder which also doesn't fall under WP:RAJ and the second source is by Ranjit Sen who is a modern Historian. so If they revert my edits which give different views then it becomes a clear violation of WP:NPOV .please tell them not to revert my edits. I initiated a talk discussion but they refused my edits. that's why I need an administrator who can judge it, like you. Thanks Nobita456 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I will not judge content questions, and RoySmith has already told you the same. That's not what admins do. You need to work to get consensus for your edits on the talkpage (without bludgeoning the discussion) before you reinstate them, as your opponents have already repeatedly explained to you. They are all experienced editors; that doesn't mean they're right and you're wrong on the content question, but it does mean they know more about Wikipedia's rules and practices. Please listen to them. Bishonen | tålk22:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC).
what thats mean? if they say I cant cite a WP:RS I have to do it? WP:NPOV is not negotiable and I don't need editors consensus,if they revert my sourced line and saying they dont like it I have to accept it? WP:RAA is there for a reason as per my knowledge.and there reliability is quesnable when they cite a direct census which is a WP:OR. Nobita456 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nobita456: You absolutely need to reach consensus before making contentious edits; please read our policy on the subject. In this particular case, it means you need to discuss the sources on the talk page (without edit-warring at the same time); and if a consensus fails to form, you can open a request for comment, start a discussion about your source at the reliable sources noticeboard, or request dispute resolution. What you should not do is repeat the same arguments to the same people a lot of times; that's what bludgeoning a discussion means, and it's disruptive. You also need to slow down a little when you make talk page posts; you're obviously typing in a great hurry, which means you make typos, which means your posts are hard to read and need to be corrected a number of times. All of this is very aggravating to anyone trying to have a discussion with you. Vanamonde (Talk)23:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks that was really helpful. but also WP:NPOV allow me to edit without other editors consensus,what is your view on that.please can you review my sources?as I found my felow editor judgement doubtful and one of them cited a direct census which is not a WP:RS for caste articles under WP:OR,in my opinion a neutral and experienced admin can judge it fairly. Nobita456 (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
No, NPOV does not allow you to edit without consensus. The policy page says that local consensus of editors cannot override the NPOV policy. You as an individual editor still need to obtain consensus for your edits, and if you feel that editorial consensus is violating NPOV, you need to invite outside input, through one of the methods I mentioned above. The policy is absolutely not a license to edit-war when you feel you are in the right. I will not look at your sources; I don't have the time. Please engage with the editors who are already on that talk page, or take your source to WP:RSN. At this point, at least four administrators have given you this advice, so you really need to listen, or you risk getting blocked for disruption. Vanamonde (Talk)02:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, sorry to bother you; honestly speaking, Nobita456 is still showing 'excessive' interest on Baidya & related articles (where there's slightest scope of POV pushing), also showing similar intent as the socks who have been blocked. On a lighter note, there's a positive side of such volumes of erroneous edits or typos; they have reached extended confirmed user rights. I have warned them at my level; would request you to check their contributions. It is really disruptive at times, and constant monitoring/unnecessary debate is required in order to stop such levels of interest & POV pushing! Not sure if they are a sock; but meatpuppetry cannot be ruled out. I am sure you will do your best, in case possible. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I am showing interest in all caste related articles of bengal as I have knowledge of that.I am involving with other editors at those articles talk page.and please stop doing complain against me every day to Bishonen.and I am urging you not to revert high quality academic recent sources like you did in Vaidya article.Bishonen please take a look at that article also.Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Would request Bishonen, RegentsPark, RoySmith, to take a call please regarding Nobita456. It is quite evident from their edits that they belong to the sock farm of User:Bengaliwikipro; all such socks have been blocked for obvious reasons, some as suspected ones as well. Look at their recent edits on the articles on Vaidya & Brahmin; adding POV content (without context) after being repeatedly told to discuss on talk page by senior editors like LukeEmily. Even, LukeEmily has now mentioned on their talk page about the same. Even if CU can't confirm, as per this, Nobita456 still deserves a block for disruptive editing, constant POV pushing, violating the warnings & advice by senior admins (above) and adding contentious content without achieving talk page consensus, and now edit warring. The user (whether a sock or not) is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but to promote/glorify Baidya & POV pushing. Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I described it here.admins please see . all my edits are well-sourced and high-quality academic. I am accusing Ekdalian of edit warring by reverting my sourced content in Vaidya and Brahmin pages for a reasonable reason. Nobita456 (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, Ekdalian and Nobita456, but I think I'm going to have to bow out here. Caste isn't really my subject. I'm capable of adminning caste articles as long as the problems are simple, but I have looked at the ongoing source discussions on these pages, and they're way above my paygrade. I suggest you appeal for example to RegentsPark or Vanamonde93 about these latest developments. (Though I know they're very busy. We don't have enough Indian admins!) Bishonen | tålk11:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC).
It's not about content; its more about intent; Bishonen, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, RoySmith, please look into the pattern; also these were the sources cited by User:Bengaliwikipro & their socks. In spite of detailed explanation above by Vanamonde, look at the edit warring on Brahmin, I guess Nobita is on the verge of violating the three-revert rule as well, that too reverting the edits of senior editors on caste articles; please check 1 talking about primary source Rigveda, 2 and 3. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Ekdalian is misguiding you guys. previous users cited directly Rigveda, which I myself removed under WP:OR.see. I added an academic recent source not a primary source see. even another editor Satnam added some other sources which make this claim even stronger and clear. despite three reliable sources first Ekdalin and now Tanagabellam reverted that and started edit war without giving any satisfactory reason. I initiated a talk discussion but they did not give any effort there see. under WP:REMOVAL Unexplained removal of content occurs when the reason is not obvious; the edit is then open to being promptly reverted. Ekdalin was not able to give any satisfactory reason here also. please warn them not to revert any well-sourced content which is relevant to that article. Nobita456 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen & Vanamonde93, I am really tired of explaining them and reverting Nobita456's edits. Here's another one; please look at the edit as well as the edit summary here. Just after the block has lapsed, this is how they are tampering with sourced content in order to push their 'Baidya' agenda; clearly not here to build an encyclopedia! You may simply click on the source and the relevant page will open! I believe, 31 hours of block will fail to stop a caste warrior, sorry to say! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Please see this time Ekdalian break that rule,luke didn't give his opinion and in middle of that discussion ekdalian started to edit that article,which I reverted.LukeEmiky even thanked me for my edits at talk page.Bishonen you told us to wait for the consensus but this time Ekdalian didn't wait for luke.please see Bengali Kayastha article talk discussion.I didn't do any edit war, Ekdalian break that rule.Nobita456 (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
At this point your desire to complain about each other seems to outweigh your desire to discuss content, which is a highly misplaced sense of priorities. Looking through the history, I see Nobita making a series of edits [36], Ekdalian reverting and adding some content [37], and both of you reverting each other after that, while talk page discussion was ongoing. As such, both of you added content that does not have obvious consensus, and reverted at least once to keep it in the article; which isn't ideal. If you were reverting to the last version that had consensus, this version is likely what should have been reverted to, and the edit-warring that occurred wasn't ideal. That said; Nobita, your editing still shows the problems I've discussed with you before. The one instance where you provide a quote on the talk page, here, the quote does not support the content you are using it for. More generally, when material is contentious, it isn't enough to have a single source supporting what you want to see in the article; we need to present the consensus of reliable sources, and where such consensus doesn't exist, all views in reliable sources, duly weighted. Please read WP:DUE before making any further edits; I am very close to recommending a topic-ban for you. Vanamonde (Talk)17:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I was wrong,but why Ekdalian edited in a middle of a discussion? I didn't do any edits before ekdalian started editing without hearing anything from LukeEmily (who edited that line). I would be happy if Luke and Ekdalian said that to me what you said me here.I am trying to get consensus from other senior editors including Ekdalian before making any edits as advised by you and bishonen. I am here to work together with other,not here to complain against other editors everyday. Let's dont make this more toxic. Ekdalian I don't have any hard felling against you from now,lets work together.Thanks Nobita456 (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Reading the thread above about Bishzilla's admonishment has led me to a truly radical re-evaluation of the history of Arbcom. Back in 2009 when Bishzilla was subjected to this admonishment, I was a fairly new editor. (I'd actually been around for a few years, but I was only just beginning to be significantly involved.) I knew pretty close to nothing about the Arbitration Committee, but I vaguely thought they were doing a good job. I continued in that blissful view until just a few years ago, when I saw a few examples of Bloody Stupid Arbcom decisions. In the unlikely event that you have nothing more entertaining to do over the next few hours than search through my editing history, you will be able to find places where I have made scathing remarks about recent arbitrators, and contrasted them with the good old days when we had decent, sensible, constructive arbitrators. Aah, the folly of youth! Aah, how the sun always shone more brightly in years gone by! 🌞 What an absolute load of idiocy the Arbcom handed out in the Bishzilla case. Maybe after all they've always been a bunch of fools. Sigh...
In the interest of fairness, I should like to say that there are some excellent arbitrators, but they just get swamped by the ones who are, well, less than excellent. JBW (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
No. I don't. Read or write anything about arbcom. From time to time, I make an exception: When I was admonished, I just said I stand here and sing. That is a line from a motet by Bach, which just made it to TFA, DYK? (It's in movement 5, Trotz dem alten Drachen - defiance of the old dragon, and described by an authority: "Gardiner noted that the firm stance against opposition could depict Martin Luther's attitude and also the composer's own stance".) I smiled. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
JBW, I do believe the 2009 ArbCom were amused by the idea of admonishing Bishzilla (rather than, say, Bishonen). Newyorkbrad, always a good friend of the 'Zilla, is my suspect for floating the idea of doing it that way. Bishonen | tålk16:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC).
Oh, so maybe I was right first time, and they were reasonably ok back in those days after all, and it was just my inability to appreciate a joke. Thanks for setting me right on that, Bish. Now I shall be able to sleep peacefully tonight. (Well, maybe.) JBW (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn't be too hard on the ArbCom. "The stupidity of a committee is equal to the sum of the stupidities of its members." When there are 14 or 15 members, at least one of them is probably rather stupid. While sometimes the stupids cancels each other, leaving an ok result, they sometimes joint together, producing a very stupid result. JehochmanTalk16:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Every time I post negative comments about ArbCom I wonder whether I'm risking desysopping, indefinite site banning, being beaten up one night when I'm walking down a dark street, and goodness knows what else. Well, when the day comes when someone files a request for an ArbCom case against me, we'll find out, I suppose. JBW (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The best way is to buy protection from The Cabal. (Nice little Workshop Page you have there. Wouldn't want something to happen to it, would you?) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Wow! I had completely forgotten about that. I expressed myself even more aggressively against the ArbCom than I remembered I had ever done. And I've got away with it for almost a year... But maybe the committee is waiting until the anniversary of my post before jumping me... JBW (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
What a pity I didn't make that post until the 28th of March, instead of jumping in on the 15th. That would be a good anniversary to have to be wary of. JBW (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Says the butterfingers who let that two-factor authentication fiasco lock him out of his account. Makes me smile every time I think of it. Anyway... bad things happen when I use wikicode too. I used to look much more competent with these things... purely because RexxS used to do it all for me. 😟 Your close looks good, Jonathan, but I have not been inspired to read the whole thing. Bishonen | tålk22:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC).
That's an extremely alarming username + userpage, young Fritter. I'll block just for that. I don't think I'd better revert the article edit, though, since it's not my area of expertise either. Would one or more of my stalkers perhaps like to take a look at Dhar Mann? Bishonen | tålk08:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC).
It's almost worse than those "Truth" usernames that we block on sight. (No, we don't, but we should.) BTW, would you rather I called you "young Burger", Fritter? Clearly anything you might could put in a sammich can be a burger now.[40]Bishonen | tålk11:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC).
Fritter is fine. What do you think of "Lichenous Rock?" Has a nice ring, doesn't it? And I can take better pictures of lichenous rocks than okra. Though now I self identify as a dog. I think "dog" should be my preferred pronoun? --Deepfriedokra(talk)11:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, he could be an orca. It's long been the case that anything can be called a burger. I have significant doubt that even the most traditional fast-food burgers (just talking about the mass-produced ones) have meat from any identifiable animal life-form. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello I didn't do anything wrong, you have some misunderstanding.I didn't do any edit war.I explained my reasons at my talk page.please unblock me.Iuke emily put that tag , he was not satisfied with the nutrality.but Ekdalian removed that tag before luke emily's opinion.I told him to wait for luke.but after when luke emily give his green light,I had no objection with that tag.please unblock me.and yes I will edit more articles from tomorrow,but for my good faith edits don't block me from Baidya article. Nobita456 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
That's frank, Sciencefish! OTOH, it's really clueless. Whose account do they want to buy? Just anybody's? Hans Isaac isn't even a userpage, it's an article. Clearly deserving of a NOTHERE block, in any case, and I've obliged. As for anything else... maybe you'd care to put it on WP:AN, to ask if anybody has had a more personal offer? Not sure that's worth doing, but perhaps just think about it. I wonder how much a well-established admin account such as mine would fetch in the open market.. hmmm. Or the Bishzilla account, unique and also well-established? Possibilities opening up! Bishonen | tålk11:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC).
Hello there. I believe one of the editors and I are getting into a dispute over policy/guidelines here [42]. I do not wish to be uncivil so I'm taking a step back from debating them. I'm also considering an RfC but before I make any decisions, I wanted to humbly ask if you could offer some advice on the matter. Thanks. DN (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, DN. American politics on Wikipedia is depressing, with these endless quarrels about every last detail. I agree it's probably time for an RfC about the inclusion or not of the sentence in question. Advice... well, just the obvious: present it neutrally and provide alternatives for people to discuss. If you list at least the alternatives "the party censured" and "the Republican National Committee censured", other people can then offer other wordings. But I think you know all that. An RfC means it's likely to be debated for a month... groan... but it's probably for the best. If you do open an RfC, I'll just leave my protection to lapse in a few days, on the assumption that nobody will try to add anything while an RfC is ongoing. Hopefully I'll remember to restore the semi..! Bishonen | tålk07:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC).
This guy Ekdalin seems to have a problem with every Vaidya-related article. He continues saying to me that I am a POV pusher.I created a separate article Vaidya (surname) for Vaidya caste and surname related article and keep this vaidya article only for Sanskrit term. how this is a POV? this was made to make it easy to understand for the readers. and we have many separate articles like this before see Pujari. I also created a talk page section but Ekdalin never showed up.LukeEmily told me he doesn't have much information in caste-related articles see.I wanted to describe and accumulate information about the Vaidya profession but Ekdalin removed my sourced content but couldn't provide any satisfactory edit summary see . even lukeEmily added this later saying it was sourced see . please judge yourself in reality who is pushing POV, and who is violating Wikipedia terms. Nobita456 (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, Kleinpecan, not yet. My suggestion would be that people just stop engaging with them. That said, I had some hesitation. This post is old; if it had been recent, I would have felt justified in blocking the IP from Talk:Great Barrington Declaration. Also, while Dennis Brown shut down the AE report on 8 Feb, he also warned the IP. And, significantly, a few days after that, the IP dismissed The Lancet (sic, The Lancet) as a reliable source, thereby, if not before, going full woo.[43] (And also promoted The Epoch Times, as you say.) And finally, I note the IP according to their own statement has an account[44] but prefers not to use it on that talkpage: "I will not sign in to establish that and reveal my identity because of the severe left bias herein". All of them very dubious things. Feel free to come back if the situation worsens. Bishonen | tålk09:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC).
^Special:Diff/1071092922: "I understand that you do not like me because you do not like my POV. ... And yet, your narrative is failing, and that failure is becoming increasingly obvious with elapsing time, and that is because it was media promulgated fringe theory to begin with, and eventually the truth will out."
^Special:Diff/1072438417: "It is also obvious that when I quote anything, even explicit text from reliable sources, you will counter that because of your biased interpretation, not because of the facts, or science. ... The extraordinary damage done by this one-sided presentation is largely accomplished, but your narrative is falling apart as actual data is being published to show the excess deaths opposition to the GBD has contributed to, and I will return at some future date when more data becomes available to more soundly condemn you for your irresponsible opinions." "First you find only RS that supports your POV, and then discount everything that does not fit your narrative."
^11 February (referring to the John Snow Memorandum): "That a collection of compromised, but well-positioned activist recipients of questionable funding, 80 of them, can get any garbage printed in Lancet says nothing good about the quality of science in Lancet."
^17 February: "Fauci's correspondence ... and the money trail he is interpolated into give good evidence of corruption."
Email
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Even if you were right, A09090091, that's hardly a good reason to use rollback to revert it. But I don't think you are right. Did you see for example this bit: ""The state hides the poor very well," said Rosie Bsheer, a Saudi scholar who has written extensively on development and poverty."? The only trouble with the source I can see is that it's old (2013), which ought to be acknowledged in the text. Maybe you'd like to copyedit the IP's contribution so as to add something about "As of 2013.."? Just a suggestion.
Oh, I just noticed you reverted them again, before you even posted here. That was a very bad idea. I'd self-revert if I were you, or you're liable to be warned (at least) for tendentious editing. Bishonen | tålk15:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC).
(talk page watcher) The IP's edit stated that here is alot of poverty in Saudi Arabia. This is often not seen by people; while The Guardian article is headlined Saudi Arabia's riches conceal a growing problem of poverty and asserts, in its second paragraph citing a scholar, that The state hides the poor very well...The elite don't see the suffering of the poor. But you think the article doesn't claim what the IP said...? SN5412915:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Fortuna. Yes, there's a tendentiousness about the user's edits and also about their argument here. Also, rather tiresomely, they're addressing me both here and on their own page. I feel split. Bishonen | tålk15:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC).
Apologies, I didn't know you were around; ignore me, we said the same thing. Here's another split,but this one can be shared with 'zilla :) . SN5412915:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Mohammad bin Salman
Since you blocked me from editing that page for 1 month and no problem I will not edit it forever. You as a veteran user on Wikipedia should known that this website must be a natural not biased.. on Mohammad bin Salman page, there were many misleading information and false allegations that were denied by both Saudi Arabia and Jordan like ((poising king Abdullah II)) and talking about his controversies on the first page. There should be many reforms in his page otherwise it will look like a hatred page Aziz bm (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
(I blocked you for two months, not one month.) Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. Editing for the purpose of whitewashing is not allowed, and removal of large swathes of sourced content is also not allowed. Is anybody paying you for your Saudi Arabia-related editing? By the way, accusing another user of "vandalism" for restoring the content you removed from Women's rights in Saudi Arabia was a bad idea. Vandalism is a serious allegation, and your report of the other editor at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism was rejected, because the other person's edits weren't vandalism. Please note that if you continue to make tendentious edits to other pages, as you did here, you're likely to end up blocked from the whole site.
But you can appeal the block from Mohammad bin Salman to another admin. If you follow the instructions I gave in my block notice, it will call an uninvolved admin to your page, and they will review the block.Bishonen | tålk08:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC).
I promised you that I will never edit or delete anything on Mohammad bin Salman and now on other articles so no need to worry, my appeal should be accepted you know why ? Because when I added the picture of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S that user reverted it and called it “absurd move”,, I mean, seriously ? Is this site becoming an anti-Saudi agenda ? Also, what do you mean by paying from Saudi government to whitewashing people ? What do you mean by reliable sources that are mostly from Washington Post and Middle East Eye ? Are you assuming that any negative sources about him should be published but positive shouldn’t because it’s considered a whitewashing ? I have no words to describe… Aziz bm (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I didn't mean to insult you by asking if anybody's paying you: it was a question, not an accusation. (And I didn't mention any government. That was your assumption.) Washington Post is indeed considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, see WP:WAPO. Middle East Eye is more dubious; compare all the discussions found by this search.
As for your appeal being accepted, I don't see you making an appeal; have you? Your saying that you won't edit Saudi Arabia "forever" gave me the impression that you don't care about appealing my page block from it. If I misunderstood and these posts on my page are in fact meant to be an appeal to me, I decline that appeal. Your edits to the article were too disruptive, in my opinion. Please appeal to a different, uninvolved, admin on your own page, following the instructions in my block notice. I have told you this several times now. It's all I have to say at this time. I'm not interested in going round and round with you further. Bishonen | tålk15:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC).
I didn’t mean to not care about your block, in fact, I’m worried that I got blocked and your decision is respected . What I mean is that if you believe that I’m trying washwhite or Disrupt any articles related to Saudi Arabia then I’m not going do that again, I didn’t meat to despise you and your personality, If you feel that I offended you or something like that then I apologize to you. Aziz bm (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
What, again? (Not deleted, just moved, but still.) And with no discussion on talk, I see. I've moved it back and blocked the user for two months. There's a disruption problem, and I think also a WP:CIR problem, and definitely a language problem. Thank you, Iskandar323. Bishonen | tålk13:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC).
Thank you
...for chiming in and helping the discussion. I would create the RFC myself, but as it stands, I don't believe that the previous discussion exactly makes myself or the other editor look very good, but I did try to keep it focused and relatively calm. Political articles can be, of course, contentious and complex topics to work on, but I'd guess that you are probably more than familiar with that issue. I will try to limit my participation much further in that talk page section, and there are other aspects of that article that could also use some improvement, so I will focus on those as I observe the continuing discussion, if there is any. I will "zoom out" as someone has repeatedly suggested, in order to study what went wrong and why, after all that discussion, literally nothing was seemingly achieved in making it better. In conclusion, I appreciate your time, stay strong and be well...DN (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Bishonen While these tweets can incite vandalism by IT Cell or right wing nuts and I would never approve of anyone doing that, they are pointing to a known phenomenon as well. I have been having a look at the editing history of the users mentioned and there is some weight to the arguments being laid in the Twitter thread. It is detrimental that opinion of few users have so much weightage in Indic sphere articles, which eventually leads to unquestioned editorialising as users in the same echo chamber as me will always agree with me.
If you know could you point me to resources on how this can be dealt in Wikipedia. Where can I discuss the edits of these users other than the talk page of those articles? Discussing on talk page when it is the same five users discussing is not going to take this anywhere. Sorry, I am busy mostly with my work and other things, so I wouldn't have time to actively look into this.
Hi, could you please explain how my editing was whitewashing the individual? I didn't remove anything related to the plagiarism section. In fact, my edits which added more info about him were removed by what I would describe as motivated editing. I was removing the plagiarism remarks from the summary because for a person who has been in conversation far longer than those tweets on plagiarism, it paints a disproportionate picture of him when you read the summary. It reads like he wrote two books and was accused of plagiarism. Moreover, right now neither of those allegations are proven. Both Sampath and other authors have given proof of him citing the people as well in the conference material. It would seem valid to keep it as a section on the article as the allegations did happen but the allegations taking 50% of the summary space seems to paint an unfair picture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshikamal (talk • contribs)
"I didn't remove anything related to the plagiarism section." Excuse me? You removed it from the lead section, where it was definitely "related to the plagiarism section". Altogether, you made five edits to Vikram Sampath. One of them added an award — Sampath was selected for the Eisenhower Global Fellowship (which is apparently not an important enough distinction to be mentioned in the Eisenhower Fellowships article, which you nevertheless link to), another added two jobs that he has had - according to you - it's completely unsourced. The section where you added this has two references at the end, leading a reader to believe the job statements are sourced, but these references do no mention anything like that. I'm not saying you created that impression on purpose, but your addition of unsourced text (something that shouldn't be added at all to a biography article) in front of footnotes was unfortunate. Another edit of yours talks about how Sampath "started gaining prominence" — promotional wording alert, and in the lead, no less. The lead section is supposed to summarize the article, and there was nothing about prominence further down. Your fifth edit created a "Controversies/Criticism" section under which you then placed the plagiarism allegations, stating in your edit summary that "This can be maintained under controversies/criticism as that is a much better umbrella section to maintain about a person". Please compare Wikipedia:Criticism — an essay, but one that is widely followed — that recommends against separate controversies/criticism sections. See Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. That, taken all together, is tendentious editing. Please follow the link. Bishonen | tålk13:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC).
It's a silly mispronunciation referring to a Swedish children's book, Tryptofish. Mr Sventon (Svensson) knows what I mean, and how good they taste. Bishonen | tålk19:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC).
No big deal, but I wouldn't have known how to form a Swedish plural. The search result for "temla" was stuff like this: [45]. I'd hate to think that would come in a two-pack. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, sorry to bother you again! Hope you are fine. This is regarding a particular source by Prof. Razia Akter Banu used in the article on Bengali Kayastha. The source has earlier been accepted by Sitush in a closely related article, you may check the difference (4 consecutive edits by Sitush after mine, here) long time back, and has been there in both these related articles. Trangabellam had raised an objection, which has been sorted as well. You may have a look at their recent statements towards consensus here where they clearly mention that out of two consecutive statements, the second one belongs to our article. After my last edits, I dropped a message pinging both the trusted editors (on caste & ethnic groups) TrangaBellam & LukeEmily and the latter agreed to wait for TB, please check here. In spite of all these, two comparatively new editors are constantly engaging in edit warring/disruptive edits! Since they are not only comparatively new, but Bengali editors, & may apparently have bias/COI, I have requested them to stop disruptive edits/edit warring and let neutral experienced editors like TB & LukeEmily drive the consensus (though I have a prior consensus with Sitush); please see here, I even mentioned that I (as a Bengali) have taken a backseat and facilitating 2 other experienced editors arrive at a consensus. But now it seems there could be some element of meatpuppetry, if you check their consecutive reverts e.g. 1, 2 and 3. Please look at the edit summaries in spite of me having consensus, misleading to say the least. Satnam2408 & Chanchaldm tried their best to convince TrangaBellam & LukeEmily (as evident from their repeated talk page messages), and when they failed, they are engaging in edit warring; moreover, meatpuppetry cannot be ruled out as well (both seem to be from the same place in Bengal). I would not trouble you by requesting you to look at the content, though it would be great if you have the time to look at it (sheer piece of history, nothing contentious, attributed to the author); rather, would like to bring to your attention suspected meatpuppetry in order to restrict me (3RR)! Please suggest if something can be done, at least in the form of a warning! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Chanchaldm and Satnam2408 are both reasonably experienced — about ten months — so I don't see meatpuppetry as all that likely, Ekdalian. Mind you, I don't think it's particularly becoming of Chanchaldm to warn you for edit warring when you have made two reverts and so have they. Bishonen | tålk12:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC).
Hi! I get the feeling most of our interactions have been in contexts where one would get the sense I don't like you or something along those lines. Just wanted to say that's not the case and I have a great appreciation for your comments when we happen to interact. My style of writing sometimes reads off very cold, aggressive, or dismissive but I do value your insights and look forward to coming across your username in the future. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!10:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I must have been a little bored with my usual pastimes of looking for innocent newbies to bite just for the fun of it spammers and vandals to block and WP:NOTWEBHOST violations to delete, because when I spotted your name at ANI, instead of just moving on, I thought "Hmm. There's usually something entertaining on Bishonen's talk page, and I haven't seen it for a while. Let's have a look..." So I nip over to here, and before I've got very far I find there's a damned fly crawling around on my phone. So, once I've confirmed that I can't just brush it off the screen, I think "I want one too. Let me have one too." So a few more innocent newbies troublemakers get away with their disruptive crap than would otherwise be the case, as I waste time making a pointless edit to my talk page and then making this even more pointless edit to yours. Wikipedia suffers, and it's all your fault. JBW (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid there's a very serious problem. On this page, as I scroll up and down, the fly stays in place on the screen, but on my talk page it scrolls off the top, with the text on the page. Bishonen, or Floquenbeam, or anyone else who understands these things, can you tell me what I've done wrong? JBW (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
JBW, you copied Floq's code, so it should work, and, indeed, when I scroll your page, it does work (the fly does not scroll off with the text). Could you have been having a nightmare? Did you watch The Fly recently? That can affect a person's dreams. Bishonen | tålk20:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC).
Well, I've made a tiny change to the code, and it works now. However, you posted the message above before I made that change, so why it worked then for you and not for me I don't know. Maybe it was a nightmare. Or maybe an epileptic seizure, or something. JBW (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't mean it that literally. The Fly is a 1950s horror movie about a mad scientist who turns into a fly. You may want to be careful with the fly on your page. Don't get into a molecular transporter with it! Bishonen | tålk22:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC).
Whilst "The Fly" was a 1950's horror film, it was based on a book what I have readed, and there was a far superior 1980's film starring Jeff Goldblum (was it directed by David Cronenburg - why is there no repository of such information on the interweb?). LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Really? But the 1958 film is the classic. And 1950s special effects are pretty funny. In any case, it's made my day to have the little Less (as Bishzilla puts it) pop up on my page. 😙😙 Don't be a stranger! Bishonen | tålk16:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC).
I've now prevented my fly from dragging bits of white space around, thus obscuring text on the page. Vastly better. You could do it too, if you wanted. JBW (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm technologically inept, or I'd do it myself, but I very much hope that somebody who knows how to do it would combine File:Fly transparent.gif with File:DarwinbishExtraMean.png, with the latter scaled to fly-size, and eyeing the former. That way, there could be the fly scurrying round the talk page computer screen with the Little Ankle Biter in hot pursuit. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Bish, I find it mildly humorous (or possibly you're just being kind?) that you ping me, as if I'm capable of anything more that copying someone else's code, tweaking it, and then pasting it into the source. If you didn't have your platinum goddess down in the corner to crib from, I'd have been unable to do even the little I did in like a million years. I'm the idea guy, not the doing guy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC) p.s. JBW's fly is a tremendous improvement. The exact kind of thing I would be completely incapable of doing myself. JBW is the person you need to be pinging about snails and such. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
You know what, JBW? It's great that the fly can now have a transparent background, but.. the transparent one is not an animated gif. It doesn't have the crawly little motions that improve the illusion. Anybody..? Nagualdesign, the creator of the fly? Bishonen | tålk08:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC).
I used to have software for editing animated gifs, but it went many years ago with an old hard disk, and I didn't reinstall it. That software is no longer available. Maybe I'll getting round to looking for an alternative. JBW (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that Die Fliege is being put to good use. I'd be happy to make a version with a transparent background but unfortunately my laptop will no longer connect to my WiFi. If I can get it working at some point I'll upload a transparent version. nagualdesign23:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Good news and bad news; First, in answer to your question, I only own 1 laptop and an Android smartphone. The good news is that after much fiddling I figured out how to disable my broken WiFi adaptor and connect to the Internet by tethering my laptop to my phone. I then spent quite a while making a beautiful animated version of Die Fliege in Photoshop, complete with translucent wings, but when I came to save it I realized that gif files only have a boolean alpha channel (pixels are either transparent or 100% opaque). Ah well. The bad news is that when I uploaded it to Commons I discovered an even worse technical issue. Previous frames remained visible 'under' subsequent frames (see file history). Apparently I need to set "frame disposal" to "one frame per layer (replace)", but I have no idea how to do that in Photoshop.nagualdesign02:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Nagualdesign for putting in the trouble and solving the problem. After I posted my last message above, I spent a long time trying to do it, and failed, for various reasons. All credit to you for succeeding where I didn't. JBW (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I've worked out how the place Die Fliege randomly: <span style="position:absolute; z-index:2; bottom:{{#expr:{{#invoke:Random|number|100}}*10}}px; right:{{#expr:{{#invoke:Random|number|10}}*10}}vw; transform:rotate({{#expr:{{#invoke:Random|number|4}}*90}}deg);">{{purge|[[File:Fly transparent.gif|link=]]}}</span> nagualdesign22:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Definitely trying that! Hmm... trying it... uh, I don't see it at all now. Is it somewhere random wrt how high it is? Then I don't think people will ever see it, Nagualdesign. Bishonen | tålk08:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I've tweaked the code a little. She should now appear anywhere along the width of the page (on desktop or mobile) and somewhere within 1000 pixels of the bottom of the page, and if you try to 'swat' her she'll reappear at somewhere else (clicking on her will purge the page causing new random values to be invoked). nagualdesign13:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
nagualdesign, the purge function sounds brilliant, but I just don't see her now. 😢 At all. Does she not like macs? Or not like Firefox? Do you see her, here on my page? Do you, JBW? Bishonen | tålk14:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC).
Yes, I can see her. If you're using mobile view you might have to click on "Read as wiki page". Other than that, she may just be hiding. Keep looking! nagualdesign14:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Mobile view, never. OSX El Capitan, Firefox 68.6.1esr. Yes yes, I know my software is old... Firefox retired my favorite features, so I'm using the extended support release. The chameleon got her! But I'll keep looking. Maybe her eggs will, uhhh, hatch all over my page soon. Bishonen | tålk14:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC).
No, Bish, I'm afraid I can't see her at all 😨. I'll let you know whether I can see her next time I'm on Wikipedia on ... err ... another machine. (I wouldn't like you to think I'm looking at this page on ... err ... one of those things you told me earlier not to look at it on.)
nagualdesign Netscape Navigator? I remember when that was the only way we could access the internet where I worked. I think that must have been sometime in something called the "twentieth century". Ever heard of it? JBW (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe I first installed Netscape Navigator using a dial-up modem. I keep forgetting how fast things change; the other day, my kids said they'd never heard of such a thing, and I was all set to get shocked and disappointed when I realized "why would they?". And I can't see the fly anymore either :( --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Guys, nagualdesign is just disrespecting my software, that's all. :P Nagual, I changed something in the code - please take a look - back to how it was before, and now she shows up, in Chrome only (not in Firefox). Please take a look, Floquenbeam and JBW. Do you see her? Bishonen | tålk17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC).
Two odd things (using firefox and windows 10, don't know versions because i'm too lazy to look):
When I purge the page, the fly shows up in a new spot about 80% of the time. But 20% of the time it disappears. purging again usually solves the problem. Possibly 20% of the time the random location is off my visible screen?
When I purge by clicking on the clock at top right (a WP widget), it simply purges. But when i click on the fly, (or when i click on the "Purge the page to see a different image" link below the revolving pictures at the top) I have to go thru a conformation step that asks "Clear the cache of this page?" and have to click "yes". it ruins the effect.
Yes, it does ruin the effect, Floquenbeam, and not only the effect of those two things on this page. Ruins the effect of User:Darwinbish/insultspout also. That worked beautifully when it was new, smoothly adding fresh Shakespearean insults, but then the stupid confirmation step happened. :-( Can anything be done, for all three cases? Anybody? Pinging Johnuniq. Bishonen | tålk19:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC).
My sympathy Bish, but purge requires a confirmation to avoid denial-of-service attacks on Wikipedia's servers. Originally, no confirmation step occurred and the server admins found that idiots were putting links all over the internet where passers-by would click them, and/or they would run scripts that repeatedly purged a page by simply visiting a purge link. Purging takes quite a lot of server memory and time and the confirmation complicates the process for the idiot, and slows them down. A logged-in user can provide Javascript per Floquenbeam's link to do the purge, but others have to be irritated. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for explaining, John. When this originally affected Darwinbish's insultspout (she'd very much like to insult those idiots!) so that it became a dribble rather than a spout, RexxS indeed told me it couldn't be fixed. I guess I was hoping something would have changed since then. Anyway, now I see the fly, whichever browser I use, and I hope other people do to. Thank you very much for the creation as well as the improvements, Nagualdesign! Bishonen | tålk08:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC).
You're welcome. It was fun trying to find solutions and I learned a few things in the process, like how to tether my phone to my aging laptop that hadn't been online for about 7 months. I don't think the purge dialogue is a massive obstacle. In the case of swatting Die Fliege they're trying to 'purge' the page of a fly, which I find mildly amusing. You could remove the purge link if you prefer and have it link to User:nagualdesign/Die Fliege instead. She'll still move around each time someone posts something on your talk page. nagualdesign21:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, since you took the action as required and I called your attention to the behaviour of another user, which I don't know how to deal with - I think your intervention is called for. Please see the number of times the same information (a tall claim supported by a single, and later just two, film reviews) has been restored without consensus and despite being reverted by several editors: 1234. I find that this user is too emotionally involved. Please see this exchange where the user is clearly operating under strong influence of their own, personal position (I'm willing to ignore the incivil manner and their choice to discuss me in the end and not the content, that's the least of his problematic behaviour). Shahid • Talk2me20:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Same goes for the other user that you decided not to sanction on ANI. Over the past 24 hours, they have reverted the page numerous times:
Hi, Shshshsh. I've spent some time typing up a reply to you about Kautilya3, and in the meantime, you have also added what looks like a request here to sanction TrangaBellam. (You seem to be avoiding pinging both of them, but they should be made aware that they're being discussed, you know.) I'm not going to look at that addition tonight. It's late here, and I'm a volunteer like you.
The Print is in general a reliable source. I agree, however, that one movie review does not merit inclusion of that material in the lead section, especially not so very early in the lead section, and especially not by itself, without any mention of the reception by the other side. However, I do agree with Kautilya, OTOH,[48] that there is a certain absurdity in calling for "scholarly sources", as you do, about a brand new film. Of course such don't exist. Nor is it reasonable to avoid all talk of the film's political theme until the scholarly sources come along.
The material Kautilya adds to the lead is amply supported by material further down, in the sections "Political messaging and historical accuracy" and "Critical reception", so it's in reality not just one source. (The lead is supposed to summarise the article, thus it doesn't actually need any sources of its own at all.) It is obvious that the reception of the film is bifurcated along political lines. Accordingly, rather than removing Kautilya's sentence in the lead, it would be better to complement it, for perspective, with the reception by supporters of the government; that reception is also to be found further down in the article. In my opinion. Since you ask. No, I'm not going to sanction or warn Kautilya. I'd recommend more collaboration from both sides.
As for the talkpage, I have finally realized that while your username is "Shshshsh", your signature is "Shahid", so I can now begin to understand your role there. (I hope you know how confusing that obfuscation is.) I must say the discussion on talk is pretty low quality overall, such as "User:Kautilya3 is vandalizing plot section and using his imagination". No, you didn't say that, but somebody did. (That user hasn't edited since they were last warned, or I would most probably have page-banned them from that talkpage by now.) The way Kautilya is personally attacked makes it easier to understand that he in turn mentions other users — not nearly as rudely as the post I quote — not just content, as we're ideally supposed to do. That page is not the kind of environment where I'd expect anybody to behave like a saint. Bishonen | tålk22:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC).
Thank you, I'm glad you have pinged them. My point is, you can't add such contentious information unless you're basing it on reputable, credible sources, and not just film reviews or opinion columns. I know for sure that the film has its agenda, which it goes without saying, I condemn. As I said in the talk, I haven't seen the film nor do I want to, but I do want WP to reflect facts. The article, as it stands now, states opinions as facts, and that being the case, both editors seem to impose their personal, subjective view (which I do not oppose, please see my messages to them, I'm in full support of it actually). Additionally, it's not possible to bring back information that has been contended by others without proper discussion and concensus. I'm turning to you because the few edits that I made yesterday have been reverted right away, and I'm willing to cooperate. 22:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not interested in sactioning - it's pointless. I may not disagree with them either, but I do think an admin should intervene and enforce some order in a highly unstable page. If you're too busy and think another ANI discussion is the better course of action, let me know. Shahid • Talk2me22:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Bishonen for your thougtful response. Shahid, it might be that we just have an unbridgeable disagreement. But this is a content dispute, not a conduct issue. Your best bet is to leave the content as it is, and do an WP:RfC so that other editors can come and take a look at it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:, no, it;s not my best bet because you do not own this article and you have reverted and been reverted enough. I made an attempt to follow the lines of Bishonen's early point, and copyedited as follows. I'm sure it will still evoke tremendous opposition, and you will have to take into consideration the fact that in content disputes, others' opinions matter as much as yours, and discuss it with them. If you notice, there are a good few users who disagree with this version anyway. We need to reach consensus on a version that would be agreed upon. Shahid • Talk2me23:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Good point, Kautilya3. Enforcing order in unstable discussions isn't really what admins do (unless you count removing disruptive editors from them), and as for yet another ANI discussion —arghh — it's not like the first one was so useful. No, this is a case for the talkpage, and very likely for a well-crafted RfC. Shshshsh, if you want to start that RfC, please read about the parameters here, and note especially the importance of making any RfC question brief and neutral. Bishonen | tålk23:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC).
Bishonen, I've copyedited the lead and toned down what seemed to me utterly unacceptable at this point. I've been on WP for almost 20 years, I believe (counting my days before creating this oddly-named account), so you can imagine I know what an RfC is and how to start it. :) I'm not sure it is purely content dispute, otherwise I wouldn't have written to you. Since you took a very firm stand against Krish for changes made by him which you found improper and his overall behaviour, I thought it is right to call your attention on the attitude of the other side as well. I find that their dispute over the past few days has caused much disruption on the article, with each party pulling it to their preferred position. Shahid • Talk2me23:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Bishonen, Please check the talk page you will find only two person who are editing without building consensus and you are blaming me for someone's emotions. I don't know how to comprehend this blame. Dsnb07 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Ad Orientem. Shshshsh, Bobby Sen's edits are vandalism AFAICS. Notice them edit warring today, to again change "mixed reviews" (true) to "positive reviews" (false), while also adding absurdities about Shubhra Gupta. That's disruptive editing. I'll warn them. Bishonen | tålk08:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC).
Bishonen, I started a section in the talk page which seems to have generated necessary consensus amongst those participating in the discussion. Some users reached out to others (including those this section is complaining about) to participate and provide inputs (supporting or opposing). However, they have either not participated or have explicitly stated that they have nothing to add to the discussion. Might I ask for guidance about how the consensus should now be reflected in the article given that I do not have credentials to edit it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Drama_Film_to_Historical_Drama -- Tsachin (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
'Reaching out to others' to try to form a consensus is pretty dodgy, Tsachin. I notice Webberbrad007 has attempted (unsuccessfully) to ping a number of users to the discussion, which is a bad idea; perhaps luckily, those pings won't have gone through, not the first time, and not the second time either,[49] as that is not the way to fix a ping. See WP:PING. Webberbrad has also posted about it on a number of user talkpages, which is another bad idea. I'm sure they meant no harm, but I'm glad to see you yourself haven't done any of that, Tsachin. It's much better to leave other people to their own devices, so that nobody risks being accused of canvassing. (WP:CANVASS is an important guideline.) Either others are watching Talk:The Kashmir Files or they aren't, it's up to them. Of course that also means you need to give people time to respond concerning something you want to add - I would say at least 24 hours from now - before there can be any question of a consensus. Remember editors are volunteers, and are also in different timezones. If a consensus for your addition does form, I don't think you'll have any difficulty getting it added to the article by some editor who does have the requisite permissions. Just point out on talk that you can't do it, and I bet somebody will. Bishonen | tålk15:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC).
I respectfully disagree with you here.
I would direct our discussion to our previous interaction on my talk page where you warned me (correctly) about my assumption that the alert TrangaB shared on my talk page was a warning. At that point, TrangaB and Kautilya3 demanded here that I generate a consensus before having any changes added (which I haven't attempted because the only active participants on the Vikram Sampath page are TrangaB, Kaultilya and Vanamonde93 and they had already arrived at consensus here. My aim here is to highlight the method of consensus generation - which is pinging each other by these three whose views appear to align. What Webberbrad007 did on my section of the Kashmir Files talk page was to ping (or try to) all the editors active on that page, thus attempting to reach a genuine consensus. Please tell me how this is wrong but what TrangaB, Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93 appear to do is right? Tsachin (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I've read the "Plagiarism" section that you refer to, which is very long. :-( I'm afraid I don't understand what one thing has to do with another; you'll have to explain it, and point to specific parts of the section. (What is it TrangaBellam, Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93 are trying to do, in your opinion, and where in the section?) Meanwhile, though a little at random since I have difficulty understanding what the problem is, I'll point out that the only reason I didn't advise you above to simply boldly edit The Kashmir Files yourself, making your desired change and seeing if anybody reverted you (in preference to the cumbersome process of first trying to get consensus for it on talk), was that you can't edit it; you need 30 days' tenure and 500 edits under your belt for that. Bishonen | tålk17:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC).
Thank you for your response Bishonen. The topic of my reply was "Is pinging others to generate consensus an acceptable practice".
Your prior response was that it isn't.
The three editors have used this approach to generate consensus amongst themselves on other pages, for example here and here. This seems to be a prevalent practice given they are seasoned editors qualifying to edit extended-protected articles. Tsachin (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi
As per WP:PIAEditors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.
So per this IPs only allowed to post on talk page that all Shrike (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't feel very strongly about this, Shrike, but per the big pink template I mentioned, they may comment. So the different instructions are in tension, but for my part I'd go with the pink template, which is page-specific. Quoting it: "Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests." My bold. And the post wasn't disruptive AFAICS. Maybe you'd like to take the issue to WT:AE? Bishonen | tålk11:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC).
Thanks for reply our Wikipedia has on main page banner that say "anyone can edit" but there are certain limitation to it like ECP protection and so on. I think the proper place is ARCA as it ARBCOM process so they should decide I think Shrike (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems ARBs say that is indeed internal noticeboard discussion if you don't mind I going to remove the IP comment Shrike (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Wait a minute, Shrike. "ARBs say" as in "two ARBs say", was it you meant? Well, two is a plural, yes. But you're too impatient. And now look at what the third arb says. Bishonen | tålk10:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC).
Well, I know. But it's not quite the same as being the one that says it. I think I'll hold off a little with Dsnb07, for my part, though the ice is seriously melting. Bishonen | tålk12:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, as far as I remember, you were involved in blocking at least one of the multiple socks of User:Doreamon99 -- User:Sketan, User:Ninja2019, who were pushing unsourced content (misrepresentation with incomplete quote, etc) in the article on Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha. A new sock seems to have emerged with a weird name in the article on one of the sub-castes of the parent article, trying to push exactly the same sources. You may have a look at Ninja2019's edits 1, 2. Would request to have a look at the article on Srivastava, and the editor קייאסטה שירומאני's latest reverts & talk page response! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
This sock is abusing Bishonen in Hindi, can some admin please remove the same (grossly insulting, degrading content). Similar personal attack in their edit summary; kindly remove. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) This particular phrase didn't translate for me into anything particularly offensive, more cryptic (could also be a bad machine translation), but their other activity today is well beyond the pale. Blocked indefinitely. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ekdalian:, I tried to block קייאסטה שירומאני for outrageous personal attacks against you here, but Ivanvector stole my thunder with a margin of a few seconds. :-( I've removed the Hindi post here. Bishonen | tålk14:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC).
Thanks, Bishonen. Similar raw Hindi abuses have been added by them on my user page, now reverted, but it's there in revision history! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Bishonen, for removing the same from my user page. The article on Srivastava requires protection; another sock has come up! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh, right. I've semi'd the article for a year (it just recently got out from under a six-month protection). Does this edit summary need revdel, Ekdalian? And would you like your own pages protected for a few days? Bishonen | tålk14:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC).
Thanks, again! You may not remove the above edit summary (not a personal attack), but you may please remove the revisions from your talk page, and protect the same. You may protect my pages as well for some time. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay, Ivanvector; will check. Would request you, Bishonen, to reconsider protecting your page(s) for few days just to avoid such filthy language, even beyond our imagination! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor is misrepresenting data and information from source. See change Log
Here is the EFN and citation added by editor efn|According to the Jammu and Kashmir Police, 89 Hindus were killed by militants between 1990 and 2021, while 1,724 citation |title=In 3 decades,
EFN : 89 Hindus were killed by militants between 1990 and 2021, while 1,724 people of other faiths (mainly Muslims) were killed during the same period
Source reads[1]: 89 Kashmiri Pandits, 1,635 people of other faiths were also killed during the same period.
Misrepresentation 1 : 89 Hindus (EFN) Vs 89 Kashmiri Pandits(Source)
Notes assume there was no Hindu apart from Kashmiri Pandits.
Misrepresentation 2 : 1,635 people of other faiths (EFN) vs 1,724 people of other faiths (Source)
Update : Editor has again changed EFN doesn't matches with line mentioned in article doesn't match. Please refer to logDsnb07 (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what efn/EFN means, Dsnb07, (Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy or the Edit filter noticeboard, according to Wikipedia) so this is rather obscure to me. But in any case that's not what admins do. Please resolve content issues on talk and refer only to reliable sources. Bishonen | tålk08:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC).
Sorry for using EFN and thanks for your patience. I understand your point that administrator doses do, but I (and people like me) need your help. Irrespective of point to facts, There are several reckless edits are being done to present single POV. Until you permit me, I would not add all detail and take space on your talk page. I have really high hope from you as an administrator. Thanks in Advance. Dsnb07 (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I see you topic banned LodoVena from India/Pakistan. They followed that up with this. Not sure if this is supposed to go to AE or something, or if dropping a note here is fine. Thanks for any assistance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Alerting the banning admin is fine, Rädisa, or indeed any other admin who's around. (I wasn't, actually, and Ivanvector got there first.) No need to choke up AE with tban violations from all the users who are unable to comprehend what a tban is and/or unwilling or unable to follow instructions. (I seriously doubt that LodoVena followed my link to WP:TBAN, for instance.) If there's something subtle, or questionable, AE may be the right venue. Bishonen | tålk15:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC).
Sounds good. I figured it was okay to just inform an admin, but I know there's more bureaucracy around DS topic bans and the like. Glad it's settled. What a shit-show this movie set off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know, young Fritter. I've never heard of that honorific. It certainly looks like semi is warranted, but the page sanctions "under DS" are altogether mysterious to me. I rarely see the point of them. What's wrong with just, uh, semiprotecting it as per usual? Bishonen | tålk15:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) As I understand it, the only difference between ordinary semi, and semi under DS, is that the latter is harder for other admins to alter, similar to other DS actions; we'd need your explicit consent or a consensus at a noticeboard to change it. Vanamonde (Talk)15:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh, thanks, Vanamonde. My own notion was that only under DS can we semi indefinitely, but I don't exactly know where I got it from. Does it need a special template (ew)? Other admins altering it seems a pretty remote contingency, anyway, so, well, I'd just semi it. And I see the youthful Fritter just did. Only for a week, which seems short. Bishonen | tålk16:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC).
I believe we always have the option to protect indefinitely, so long as the disruption is bad enough to justify it. I'm not aware of a special template for DS protections, but they do need to be logged like any other DS. Vanamonde (Talk)16:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
Get that fly! There's a good boy!
Just a heads up that Elena Jeanne Walker has popped up today, and is immediately looking like a sock of Liliana Verdiana Levy that you dealt with previously. I opened an SPI, but it was closed almost immediately as the IPs didn't match, so I'm not quite sure what I should have done differently.
Ha, perhaps I need to post some more effective creature than my fly-swatting guests. Somebody who knows how to catch them. It's a strange sockmaster, isn't it, Sciencefish? It's like she doesn't really try to hide. But I don't see your SPI closed? When I look at the history, nobody has edited it since you opened it. Could this be some sort of delay in the database? Or could you have been looking in the wrong place? Anyway, I've treated it according to what I see: blocked and tagged Elena Jeanne Walker per the usual tells. Bishonen | tålk16:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC).
Thank you for your speedy action. Looking at my browser history, I see I had accidentally clicked on a different SPI report, that had been closed. Sciencefish (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Re: user posting on the talk page of Dronebogus
I have a zero tolerance for this kind of thing, personally. And had some unsavory interactions with Perseus myself, where they were battlegrounding with an IP on Talk:Palmer Report[50][51]. And there's lots of other extremely questionable things in the user's contribs history, pointing overall to WP:NOTHERE. (e.g. [52][53][54][55][56][57][58] (Just use them either way and fuck the rules pardon the language)[59][60], lots more)
Would it be out of line to bring this to ANI? So another admin can block? Or since you've already warned, would that be improper? Happy to just forget about it, but it does bug me (pun intended). — Shibbolethink(♔♕)23:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Shibbolethink. I hadn't looked beyond the exchange I saw on Dronebogus's page, so of course it would be fine for you to take it to ANI. Even with what I saw, I hesitated between blocking and warning. But I hadn't seen the harassment while it was fresh, and blocking when it appeared to have ceased didn't seem ideal — "not punitive", etc. A more general ANI complaint to suggest WP:NOTHERE would be something else — my warning isn't really relevant to that, so please do what you think is right. (Note, Persesus has replied to my warning.) Bishonen | tålk06:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, could you block this user WikiLinuz or lower his editing rights. He has been engaged in an edit war on this article Bhima and has violated the 3R rule on this article. Please see this [61] and has also reverted the warnings on his talk page [62]. Thanks Ashneer
Hi, Ashneer. Both of you are edit warring, and should discuss on talk instead. Please open a discussion on talk as per WP:BRD. WikiLinuz hasn't violated the bright-line 3RR rule, which states you can't make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, so I'm not going to sanction anybody at this time. Bishonen | tålk07:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, I was scrolling through indefinite site-wide blocked IPs, and I noticed This IP was indefinitely blocked for CIR. I thought that IPs are only rarely indefinitely blocked. Does it need to be indef'd? ThatIPEditorTalk · Contribs22:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, ThatIPEditor. I didn't think I'd ever indeffed an IP. It must have been a bug (in my head). I've unblocked, because time served round about now will do as well as anything else. The range caused a lot of trouble, but if it starts doing that again, it can be blocked again. Thanks for noticing! Bishonen | tålk22:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC).
To avoid being piled on by talk page stalkers and those with dull axes, I won't respond to any comments that are not from Bishonen.
I'm curious what justifies unfounded accusations and ArbComs[63], and beating one's chest with other administrators and long-time Wikipedians over anyone that doesn't share their viewpoint.[64] I've watched, and participated in many discussions on American politics over the years on Wikipedia. I've seen and experienced many instances of unfounded claims of soapboxing, POV-pushing, having an axe to grind, and gaming the system. Which turned out to be a deflection from having to justify the use of the same ten to twelve sources for political-related articles, which are all associated press. The same sources that delayed releasing information on Hunter Biden's laptop, and dealings in Ukraine until after the 2020 election. Had it been a newer Conservative-leaning source, that site would be blacklisted without hesistation due to "misinformation/conspiracy theories".
Let's skip the part where you accuse me of "trolling", because you're not in my mind. Nothing in the section I wrote should be interpreted as my being anything else other than serious. 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:29 (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
what odd choices for diffs to illustrate their point. i assume someone more familiar can figure out who this is just from the two particular axes they want to grind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm as baffled by those diffs as you are, Floquenbeam. Do I accuse anyone of trolling there? Do I beat my chest with other admins? I can't see it. Maybe the IP mispasted, and intended other diffs. I don't know who it is, but the IP (=the /64 range) has quite the block log of its own.[65] I've posted Darwinbish's Anonymous Coward template on their most recent IP, to give them something real to complain about. Bishonen | tålk15:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC).
It's not so much height as body mass, I think. Radiocarbon_dating#Preparation_and_size says you need at least 10g, or as much as 100g, depending on the technology. It doesn't actually say which is the recommended method for carbon dating human males, though. Wouldn't it make more sense to, I dunno, check what it says in their passport or something? --bonadeacontributionstalk21:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Springee
I have politely asked Springee to stop contacting me, and they refuse to stop [66]. I do not have time to go into it at the moment, but I unfortunately am in need of assistance in this matter, sooner than later since they appear to WP:IDHT. Apologies. I will need some time away from editing due to this, but I will return when I am better able to handle this editors persistent "behavior". I do not wish to make a WP:POINT I would just like to be left alone for a while. Thanks, and again, apologies...DN (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Pinging SdkbDN (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Pinging SPECIFICO and Sdkb, as I have spoken to them briefly about the issue that I have been having. I'll check in after a few days. Sorry everyone! DN (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
DN, it doesn't look to me from the convo you link on Springee's page that they're refusing to stop — I see them apologizing for "one last ping" and then there isn't any more. I'm sure they'll leave you alone since that's what you want. I do appreciate that you're under some Wikipedia stress (what a horrible topic American politics is!), and I hope some time away from editing will help. Please feel free to e-mail me if you'd like to talk privately. Bishonen | tålk07:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC).
They contacted me immediately after I asked them not too and tried to draw me into another convo after I made it abundantly clear that was not OK. You're OK with that? I can't do this. I'm turning off my notifications. DN (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The guideline Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages says, "repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or similar kind of disruptive behavior." Although this is pinging rather than posting, the same principle should apply. One ping is not "repeatedly." To me this seems to be an attempt to win a content dispute by getting another editor sanctioned rather than a genuine complaint about perceived persecution. If DN felt annoyed, they should have repeated their request to Springee. Instead, they have decided to use up other editors' time for no good reason. TFD (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey DN, I don't think there will be any further problems at least not in the near future. There should be quiet on both sides. Post again if you think something new has arisen, but it shouldn't be necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Request for advice/action: edit warring and disrespect towards achieving consensus
Hi Bishonen, it's been quite some time. Hope you are doing well. Can you please have a look at the latest revision history of the article on Suvarna Banik, and the edit warring user Chanchaldm. It doesn't seem that this particular user has any respect for consensus, which is probably the key thing here (in a collegial editing platform). You may also have a look at this talk page edit, which clearly shows lack of respect towards consensus and high-handedness in the middle of ongoing discussions! Would request you have a look & advice accordingly. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Ekdalian. When I look at the diff you provide, it only illustrates how much above my paygrade the complex article Bengali Kayastha is. I do see the edit warring at Suvarna Banik, but it was more than three weeks ago. So I don't think there's any action I can appropriately take at this time. Sorry. Bishonen | tålk12:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC).
Thanks, anyway. But I guess there is some gap; the edit warring at Suvarna Banik is recent, last 2-3 days. After the other editor involved has initiated discussions, Chanchaldm has finally participated in it. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, Ekdalian, I got confused with the articles. I've given Chanchaldm an edit warring warning now, and would indeed probably have given you one as well, if it wasn't for your "aware" note at the top of your page. Did you try to swat the fly? Bishonen | tålk12:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC).
Thank you so much, Bishonen! Yeah, I would like to swat the fly, but I understand the futility of the same; it's only going to damage my screen! :-) Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen! Since it all started with Pinksy putting OR tag on top of the article, whose contents are sufficiently and reliably sourced, and most of which are quite long-existing, I repeatedly requested in edit summaries to share their concerns on talk page. Further I have even left personal message to the involved editor and an uninvolved editor to look into it. But Ekdalian chose to avoid discussion and to continue with his reverts(Since wikipedia isn't about vote or poll, Ekdalian and Pinsky combinedly violated 3 revert rule, I believe).I may have many things to say, But about the thing I can't find any logic is that, Ekdalian removed well sourced contents citing this reason. I assumed it was a genuine mistake and did this . But it was still reverted. First of all , Can well sourced and properly cited contents be removed just because the source isn't accessible to the editor concerned? But More shocking thing is that if it's not accessible to him, how can he keep part of the contents and remove part of those?! It's not only from same source but also from same page! Please take a look and advice. Thank you. Chanchaldm (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey Chanchaldm, it all started with Dr.Pinsky requesting me to review OR in the article concerned. I devoted some time in spite of being busy in real life! Therefore, you should have assumed good faith, and mentioned all that you have written above on the article talk page; this is probably not the right place for content related issues. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Please reply to me at article talk page about contents, since you're quite active. I have expected Bishonen's reply here. I am confused and totally shocked by your behavior and need her advice. Thanks .Chanchaldm (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Chanchaldm. I'm not going to get into the weeds of discussing the content of the article — please do that on article talk — but I'll make two points that may help. Firstly, there is no such thing as combinedly violating the 3RR. It's a solo activity. Secondly, as for removing something because the source couldn't be verified, that probably refers to several cites to Google Books. Those are the weakest kinds of cites, because people see different things in Google books depending on what part of the world they're in, and there are other problems too. Please try to avoid such cites. See User:Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes. Bishonen | tålk16:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen for your response. I have requested for your comment on behavioural issues only, not contents.
1.I was going through WP: REMOVAL, and found these lines: If there are two editors who have a dispute over the presence of content, either can be guilty of a three-revert rule violation if they engage in an edit war. If a second editor steps in on one side, and two editors outnumber one, the reverts count collectively in the three-revert rule. Sorry If I misunderstood these lines or could not properly explain these lines. Anyway Ekdalian's edits didn't seem constructive to me and he didn't initiate discussion as per convention, BRD, instead continued reverts.
2.Only one edition of this book is showing in Google books, but it's not accessible through this cite. (At least in Bengal, I have tried to access by many ways) I was able to get access to the single edition through an online library. I am still confused how part of contents from the same page(107) of the same Source can be removed(reason:can not be verified), and part of those can be kept! I have given quotations of the same on the article's talk page. I have requested for your advice here as I was( and still am) shocked by the reason given for removal of well sourced and properly cited contents! Thanks. Regards, Chanchaldm (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
"The reverts count collectively in the three-revert rule", Chanchaldm? I don't think you misunderstood or misread, but that's just plain wrong. Note that Wikipedia:Content removal is an essay, and not a widely known or widely accepted essay (I'd never seen it before). Basically someone's opinion. You're much better off going by the edit warring policy. Bishonen | tålk19:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC).
I saw you changed the protection, you wretch. The fly will get you! (And also, thanks. We should probably ECP all caste articles. Or, a better idea, we shouldn't have caste articles. But I know that's impossible.) Bishonen | tålk06:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC).
I'd rather face the sole fly than the swarm of Koli socks! Just look at this; finally someone found a cure for headache-pills. Abecedare (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Second time topic ban violation by User:Avinash Vats
This, [68], as well as all recent edits by User:Avinash Vats are a topic ban violation with regards to "making any edits to pages or discussions related to South Asian castes or social groups", made less than 24 hours after being unblocked for the same. I think further action is required to enforce this topic ban violation. Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Right, Chariotrider555. I guess it's become clear that they're incapable of abiding by the ban, and also that they're here only for caste promotion. Abecedare has blocked them indefinitely. BTW, Chariotrider, do you know how to link to a user's page without pinging them? You can use the noping template, like this: {{noping|username}}. Bishonen | tålk04:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC).
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
(ec - and same result) Thanks for asking. The link to the yt is in her article (ref 5) but I now placed it also under the external links, and it's on my talk in the box for that concert. (Why the DYK people said "a solo" I don't know but I'm tired of arguing with them. She was "a soloist", one of the four that Beethoven's symphony requires, and they all sang "Freiheit!" - instead of "Freude" - as Leonard Bernstein had done first after the Fall of the Wall.) The livestream has it all, safety announcement, speeches, intermission ... but there's a good legend to find the symphony movement, and the singing begins close to 1:43:11. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Donated kitten 4 u"That's no kitten!" cried the friendly dragon
Hi, Your Bishness. May i humbly request i be blocked. I was doing a good job being retired but Wikipedia has kidnapped me. I only have a month left on my college course and would rather be doing that. I have read and understand your requirements at Bishonen/yesi'vereadit. Plz help, i will donate kitten. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Zindor, welcome. So you need a month's wikiholidy in order to forward your education without distraction? Granted as soon as asked. You have been blocked for one month with talkpage access revoked and wikimail disabled. Thank you for the cute puppy and dragon. Best of luck with your studies. Bishonen | tålk03:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC).
Rangeblock q's
As you may have noticed, I upgraded the /45 rangeblock here to a /42 rangeblock. Q's for you (or, any of your page-watchers):
is there any reason to undo the original /45 rangeblock, which has now been superseded by the wider range?
if I did now unblock the /45 range would the IP's in that range be free to edit, or will they now just be blocked by the /42 block? Obviously, in this instance the former result would be undesirable but possibly in other instances , one could want to able to "punch a hole" through a blocked range.
I assume the answer to these q's is spelled out somewhere in the manuals, but I am taking the lazy route. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If you lift the /45 block, then the /42 block will still apply. I find it's useful to do this and say something like "this block needed to be on the /42" when lifting the smaller block. That way people are less likely to have the same problem in the future. No comment on the merits of either block, btw. -- zzuuzz(talk)20:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Abe and kind stalker zzuuzz. Those questions are above my paygrade. I think I'll just separate you guys from the guardian puppy and dragon above. Bishonen | tålk21:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC).
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles closed and archived
Hi Bishonen. The end result of this is just Barkeep49's change to the AE header?
Judging from this page, the only topics which are currently 'extended confirmed topics' are WP:ARBPIA and WP:APL. APL appears to be a subset of ARBEE, but only APL is designated as an extended confirmed topic. So the way to interpret User:Barkeep49's change is that IPs may not participate in any AE discussions that are about either the Arab-Israeli conflict or about antisemitism in Poland? In my opinion Barkeep49's edit looks to be a step forward. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
That's how I read it, EdJohnston. Of course the EC restriction may come to apply to other areas in the future, so I suppose it's best to keep the header unspecific. Bishonen | tålk18:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC).
Yes @Ed the end of that discussion was my change. APLE and PIA are the only two with ECR at the moment but as Bish notes that could change in the future and making things a bit more "plug and play" if ArbCom does extend ECR to some other area is a goal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Packer&Tracker
I blocked them for a personal attack but just realized that will probably negate your partial block. Will try to remember to reinstate the partial block but apologies if I forget!--RegentsPark (comment) 18:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that is a problem with the partial blocks, Reg: they do get busted if the user needs a short sitewide block. I'm kind of hoping there's a Bugzilla request to fix this undesirable state of affairs, but Bugzilla isn't, hmm, the kind of thing I get on well with. (Good friend of Bishzilla's, though.) If you and I both try to remember to restore the partial when the sitewide expires, maybe we have a chance. Bishonen | tålk22:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC).
Consult T194697 and the proposed Tech-RFC at T202673. In a nutshell: this feature can only be deployed if the current blocking architecture is radically redesigned; so, no hopes in the short run. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Oshwah. I'm not Finnish, but I am Swedish, so I have a notion, and I'm pretty sure that's a Finnish obscenity. Unhelpfully, bad words will come up empty in general — dictionaries are prudes. The "69"s tend to clinch it, also. That guy can wait 24 hours before creating a new one, IMO. Bishonen | tålk07:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC).
Bishonen - Yeah, I saw the "69"s too and wondered... I did google and DuckDuckGo "unnikuttan meaning", which both search engines returned a bunch of baby naming websites stating that this is a common Indian name... Other than that, I came up empty. I of course trust your judgment - you know me well. ;-) However, I'd kick myself if I didn't recommend that you poke into the matter (just a small bit) and see what you find. I would If I were you, just in case... ;-) Cheers, and have a good Easter! ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)07:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-Finnish-speaking stalker here. Like Oshwah says, Unnikuttan seems to be a legitimate Indian (Malayalam?) name [69] - it seemed familiar, though I'm not sure where I came across it. Which isn't to say that it isn't also a Finnish obscenity. I know of at least one fairly common female name from the Indian subcontinent that almost got someone rather unfairly blocked on Wikipedia, though come to think of it, the name was also (probably coincidentally) common in Japan, and that was most likely where the contributor was from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
And did they also have "69" in the account name..? But feel free to change or lift the block by all means, Oshwah. Andy, re something completely different, did you see Johnuniq and me at User talk:Hidwah? Bishonen | tålk08:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC).
Yeah, saw that. A bad case of not getting the message. I'm not unsympathetic to suggestions that the Morrison biography is rather written by the opposition, but the cure for that clearly isn't unsourced puffery for 'balance', and more partisan coverage for his rival. Probably par for the course as far as Wikipedia political biographies go though, and the Aussies have always taken a fairly robust view of what is considered legitimate political discourse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
There was no source cited which justified its inclusion in the Morrison biography in compliance with Wikipedia policies. And you might want to reconsider the wisdom of following me here to start up the same argument again, having already been advised repeatedly to stop trying to bludgeon discussions. If you really want to contribute to Wikipedia, stop writing, start reading. On policies and guidelines. On how this place works. You may not like how it works. I have serious doubts about much of it myself. It is what it is though, and if you want to participate, you need to understand how things go around here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, I wonder if you can keep an eye on Ram Navami riots, which is facing resistance from the Right-leaing newbies from the get go? I have also pinged you from the talk page of an editor that refuses to get the message. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Aside: I haven't looked into it deeply enough to see if this is a general pattern but: (1) there are close paraphrasing issues issues in some of linked edits, as in this one where much of the text is a word-by-word copy of p70 of the Sharma thesis, and (2) this edit says "40,000 unarmed civilians" while the cited source (at least the edition Dr.Pinsky linked to) says "30,000..., mostly civilians". Abecedare (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
To all those editors who are claiming this book as non-reliable, This work was published in 1954 years after Raj era, next Dr. Gopinath Sharma is as good as authority on Mewar history as Dasharatha Sharma is on Chauhan Rajput history and both these works dated to 1950's published by similar publications. They had cited multiple citations from primary sources for their claim with a long and elaborate bibliography. Dr. Sharma is quite well known for his researches on Mewar king and their relations with Mughal rulers.[1]Packer&Tracker (talk) 0;40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Packer&Tracker: You have addressed only the smaller and more doubtful problem in this case, which is that the text is so old as to come very close to the Raj era. (Not sure who "all those editors who are claiming this book as non-reliable" are, btw. I see a single editor, me, saying it's probably not reliable, and inviting further comments.) But you ignore the elephant in the room: copyvio, which is something that can get Wikipedia into legal trouble. Also, to take the words of another and pass them off as one's own makes Wikipedia and all of us look bad, and undermines our work. If you do it again, you will be sanctioned. Please read Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources to see how to avoid copyright violations. Bishonen | tålk08:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC).
@Bishonen: The text is still published after 1950 which excludes it from Raj era zone by quite a decent time. Since, the author of this text is known historian and had expertise in the field, it can't be labelled as unreliable. I just stressed that Dr. Sharma is quite well known for his researches on Mewar rulers and their relations with Mughal rulers. (for which I shared the citation where other modern scholar lauded his credibility on this particular issue)
Regarding the elephant in the room i.e. Copyviolation; I agree it was a mistake and will be cautious about this in near future. Packer&Tracker <<(Talk)>> 10:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
An approved dissertation should count as a reliable source is unrealistic, even if a dissertation is good enough for Springer or HUP. I'd only use it where there's absolutely nothing else. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Since Abecedare has thoroughly addressed this specific source already, let me add a more general comment; the term "historian" by itself doesn't mean much; reliability hinges not just on whether the author is an accredited scholar, but on the period in which they were writing, what publications they wrote in, and whether their writing is consistent with other sources in their field. We specifically discourage Raj-era sources, but this does not make all post-1947 sources reliable; they still need to be evaluated on their merits, and other things being equal, an older source is less likely to be reliable. Reliability is strengthened substantially by peer review; texts in an edited volume or a journal are far superior to self-published documents, and PhD theses (especially in that era) are barely superior to self-published documents. Finally, it ought to be self-evident that even if this is an acceptable source for minor detail that isn't controversial, we ought not be sourcing exceptional claims to a source such as this one: contentious historical claims should be cited only to peer-reviewed publications. Vanamonde (Talk)17:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Failure is always an option --Mythbusters. What I really wanted to do was write a comment at WP:UAA, on the lines of "the more arguing admins the better, I have blocked" but, stupidly, I blocked first and the overactive UAA bot got to it before I could. Been had that way before and most likely will again. Bishonen | tålk09:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC).
Addition of unverified user generated image on some caste articles
Hi Bish, since you are aware with south indian caste group related topics and disruption in this area in past. Let me draw you attention towards some specific pages Koeri, Kushwaha and others. A new user surely not aware of WP: MOSIMAGE, COM: IDNT and other such rules is putting an unverified image again and again on both these articles. Please, look at the matter as they are wasting time of other editors and harassing too by continuously reverting my edits and engaging me on different pages.`Heba Aisha (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, Heba, can't face that kind of thing right now, too much crap going on in real life. Might my young talkpage stalkers like to take a look? Bishonen | tålk17:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC).
Wish you best of luck for facing the challanges of your real life. You will conquer those challanges for sure. All the best.Heba Aisha (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I just closed out WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kroshta without action, related to this. The whole situation is very messy. I think the best bet for a peaceful resolution is at AE, but I'm not sure who's DS-aware here (OTOH, GS/CASTE doesn't require awareness, I don't think—but also lacks the structured environment of AE). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)23:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
RfC at Republican Party TP.
Hi there. Sorry to bother you, but I'm not sure if this [73] is correct. Could you briefly clarify for me if we are waiting on a close or if the content in question was "soundly rejected" [74]? Thanks. DN (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, DN. I don't understand why it hasn't been closed, but then I don't deal much with these things. Hmm.. I'm looking at WP:RFCCLOSE. "There are several ways in which RfC's end". Look at point 6: "The discussion may just stop, and no one cares to restore the {{rfc}} tag after the bot removes it." That happened here. But a discussion with 12 no's and 9 yes's, with a few suggestions that the question as put is not good, is hardly a 'sound rejection' (recollect that it's not a vote). The bolded statement at WP:RFCCLOSE, "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable", definitely does not apply here: the matter is contentious, and consensus is not that obvious (even though I would myself say it trends No). And it's being referred to in other sections. For all these reasons, this is surely a discussion that should be closed. To get that done, if I'm reading the information page right, you can either reinsert the RfC template, or list the RfC at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Reinserting the template would call up another 30 days — which is absolutely not needed or wanted AFAICS — so I would go with Closure requests if I were you. Also, before anybody asks, no, I'd rather not close it myself. Since the matter is so contentious, a closure that I did might well call up complaints that "DN asked a sympathetic admin to close" (even though you didn't). Compare also my reply in the previous section. Bishonen | tålk08:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC).
Thank you so much for this, you truly are making wiki better for us by taking time to not just respond, but comprehensively and with great care. I will try to keep this short so you can get to the more important stuff, but I still have some concerns about the levels of toxicity in a lot of the articles I work on. Not that I am by any means innocent, but that's part of the issue, is that toxicity is EXTREMELY CONTAGIOUS. It may always be inherent in controversial and high profile articles, but officers such as your self seem to be so understaffed and spread waaaaaayyyyy too thin. I honestly just want to help, and I am always looking for good officers to reach out to when I'm worried that I've caught the toxicity bug. If you have any referrals, as far as good officers, besides yourself, that I should reach out too, please give me their names so that I'm not just reaching out to the few that I'm familiar with and taking up all their time.You would think someone that's been around as long as I have would have more friends here, but I don'tThanks and have a peaceful, harmonious day. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, you work in American politics, DN, what can I say? The subject itself is toxic and polarized, in news outlets, in social media, and, heck, in governing bodies, so how is it going to be not toxic on Wikipedia? I think anybody who works in the area, however good their intentions, is bound to be somewhat infected by it. Working only in American politics will surely make anybody sick at heart. Maybe you have some other interests that you could foster on wiki, to dilute the poison? I don't know... reverting and reporting spam and advertising, and cleaning up promotional articles? That's very useful, and can be a lot of fun IMO. I've worked particularly with Hoary in the spam and advertising arena. Hoary has an unhealthy interest in articles on men's luxury watches, of all things. As far as good admins to reach out to for Am Pol, well, clearly I'm going to recommend my own friends! ;-) Acroterion, Deepfriedokra, Black Kite, Johnuniq, Cullen328, 331dot. I'll avoid mentioning a few admins that I do think highly of, but know to be too busy IRL to be profitably appealed to. (You know who you are, guys. Shoo!) Bishonen | tålk22:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC).
Canvassing in an article about (American) politics?! Who woulda thunk it! Seriously, though. Take it from me-- its toxicity even effects this bastion of clarity and neutral, spin-free editing. I learned to abhor it in real life. I avoid it here. (Bish, you may remember something I said in an email.) --Deepfriedokra(talk)22:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
(tongue in cheek) I suppose you could call it canvassing, except I'm talking about being concerned with my own levels of toxicity, not just everyone else's. What exactly am I canvassing for? For more WP:FAITH? Lock me up and throw away the key I guess...Cheers. DN (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm of the belief that everyone probably agrees toxicity levels are a concern, like having to go to the dentist or some other unpleasant chore, no matter where it comes from. Wiki has gotten so much bigger over the years that it's understandable if things have gotten much harder to see or spot, and it may simply must be ignored because it has gotten SO HARD TO KEEP UP with the really important stuff that actually keeps Wiki alive (even if on life support - laughcryemoji).... On the positive side, that means Wiki is working. I acknowledge the challenge in not letting parts like politics remain toxic. It will never not be a daily chore, but I'm under the impression that creating a positive collaborative space eventually creates more and more administrators to help remove some of the urgency and unmitigated stress. I agree that politics has to be an exception for now. I also agree that it can be, an example, to all of Wiki, on how it may be possible to improve things. When Gun show loophole was certified as a good article, (who the frick would have fricking thought that was even fricking possible at that fricking time?) it made me realize there is a method or blueprint already in place. Granted I was new, and likely not everyone who helped was on the up and up, but it still exists to this day and it is <.< >.> stable?... It is possible... Yes it drove me absolutely insane at times. Yes it gave me Wiki-PTSD. I think that is part of why we are here (not all). Jokes between friends are usually fine, it even helps break the ice between strangers sometimes, but would you let a stranger into your house/car/whatever that makes you or someone else feel weird and shitty, even by accident, even if only for a couple days. Would you let them come over every weekend and never say anything to them? Try to socialize, ask questions, take some time to make things easier/better/notuncomfortable and figure out whats really going on?... I won't take up anymore time, but thank you thank you THANK YOU for the references, I promise to keep working hard to behave myself and remember that everything I do here should respectfully reflect those that helped me get this far, and ensure this place remains a positive collaborative project that helps people, like you have helped me. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Block made on 12 April 2022 at behest of Boynamedsue
I would like to deconstruct your decision to block a range of IP addresses allegedly for disruptive editing and personal attacks, at the request of Boynamedsue.
The complainant, Boynamedsue, appears to run a bot or otherwise search out placements of the [by whom?] template tag and remove them in a pattern of dogmatic unco-operative editing that appears unconstructive. This brought Boynamedsue to a page where he had not previously shown interest or engaged in editing on the subject or any of many related pages and he came into dispute with an editor over [by whom?] tags. Boynamedsue trolled the editor and other users of IP addresses he presumed (incorrectly in many cases) to be the same editor to EVERY other Wikipedia contribution and proceeded to go out of his way to undo and make other disruptive edits baiting, provoking and creating edit warring. Boynamedsue contacted Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting members seeking to have them support him in edits provoking edit warring. The connection initially seemed innocuous but research revealed a much earlier edit by Boynamedsue on an article in immediate juxtaposition to the very same WikiProject Scouting editors and a presence of a user by the name boynamedsue on other sites in apparent connection with WikiProject Scouting editors. Edit timings were examined and revealed alternating editing in the different usernames. Boynamedsue was marked as a possible sock puppet. Boynamedsue has an extensive edit record on Wikipedia across an vast range of subjects with edits made over such extensive hours with such limited breaks to raise question as to whether Boynamesue is an individual or organization employee(s) or members(s). The content, quality and real purpose of that editing could be examined further but those edits targeting the placement of [by whom?] tags appear mostly unconstructive and disruptive.
Regarding the allegations upon which you acted:
(1) Boynamedsue alleged the user was "preoccupied with scouting". "Preoccupied" (cf. occupied) is a personal attack.
(2) Boynamedsue alleged "The user has engaged in personal attacks, calling me "pathetic" on two occasions" but the exchange (Talk:Michael Baden-Powell, 4th Baron Baden-Powell#“agent”) evidences that the only references to "pathetic", firstly ("Read your comments and realize how pathetic they are") was clearly directed at comments and did not call any person pathetic and secondly, ("ask them if you’re pathetic") also clearly did not call anyone pathetic as alleged.
(3) Boynamedsue alleged the user had a "tendency of confrontational posting", which, unqualified, is a personal attack.
(4) Boynamedsue alleged the user had edited his comments on a talk page but no edit was made to the Boynamedsue's comment and the only apparent edits to the page appear to be possibly indent level formatting. Boynamedsue's comments were copied to a different page and a [sic] and a [to whom?] tag placed.
(5) Boynamedsue alleged the user had "changed section titles with details of the individuals [sic] lives ... in order to make a case for merger" and alleged it was "a pattern of disruptive editing" but failed to mention the addition of extensive material, clarification of dates, corrections of causes of death, addition of links and references and many other positive contributions to the articles, some of which Boynamedsue undid. Nor did Boynamedsue mention details in edit summaries and posts on the article Talk pages seeking collaboration to resolve issues. Nor did Boynamedsue mention that one of the suggestions for merger had received majority support from other editors, long before subsequent edits. Boynamedsue reverted lead paragraphs to much earlier versions after edits had stood for some time and had not been changed by intervening edits by editors with a history of editing on the pages and, unlike Boynamedsue, an apparent real interest and knowledge on the subjects.
(6) Boynamedsue alleged the user "has engaged in edit-warring across multiple pages" but reference to the page histories reveals Boynamedsue's trolling, provocative disruptive editing across multiple pages on subjects on which he had no previous involvement and stated were "something I have no opinion on".
I suggest Boynamedsue deliberately went out of his way to troll and bait and provoke with disruptive editing and set out to create edit warring, sought to enlist the help of others for that purpose and then deceptively misled administrators including you to take action against other users.115.42.10.170 (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I blocked your IPs for disruptive editing and personal attacks such as this. If you talk to fellow editors like that again and I become aware of it, I'll block you again. Being dissatisfied with the way the other person edits is no excuse. (Also, note that your post there was apparently just a parting shot, after the issue had been resolved.) As for your accusations against Boynamedsue, I'm afraid I don't have the time at present to research BNS's editing in depth, but you can take them to WP:ANI if you like. If you do, my advice would be to leave out the numbered comments above, as they are egregious wikilawyering (except possibly the part of number 5 where you complain that BNS didn't mention your positive contributions) and reflect badly on you. Also, you should be careful of opposition research on other sites, lest you be accused of outing. Weirdness like the sockpuppet thing (?) or "I suggest Boynamedsue deliberately went out of his way to troll and bait and provoke with disruptive editing and set out to create edit warring" (??) doesn't do you any favors either. Bishonen | tålk06:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC).
The IPs were not mine and ISPs allocate other ranges. You use the term "personal attack" and Boynamedsue alleged the user "called him" whatever and to me these require that the person was the direct subject of the comments, which, as I set out at (2) above, they were not. You suggest I was wikilawyering but it is apparent we use language very differently and I see it in a strict, precise, black and white meaning while I now understand that you use it in a generalized way, based on the overall tone, sense or effect. I have learnt from your response in this and will ... try to consider this in future comments. You suggest the issue had been resolved and I took a parting shot but there was more going-on by Boynamedsue on other pages. You would need to look through Boynamedsue's contribution record to see that he sought out every edit he thought was from the same IP editor and reverted the edits but I accept that you say you "don't have the time at present to research BNS's editing in depth" to get a fuller idea of what really went on and who was doing the disrupting editing. A repeat contributor over some time of significant content, links and references to pages is unlikely to be a disrutive editor on those pages whereas someone who landed on a page only because of their obsessively searching out and removing [by whom?] tags is not a constructive editor. Like in sport, where regardless of a referee not seeing everything and being penalized, I am appreciate of someone being the referee. It was not my intention to ague with the referee but I felt there was something to examine to help improve in the future. Thank you for your time. Regards,115.42.10.170 (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Without wanting to get into the dross above in too much detail, what is wikipedia's position on users making large numbers of unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct against another user?
For the record, I have never canvassed wikiproject scouting, I have never used sock puppets, and I don't have an army of volunteer boy scouts doing my bidding under my own username. Those last two crimes would seem to be a little contradictory, surely I would get my meat puppets to use their own usernames rather than running sock puppets? Or at least do both. I don't use the name boynamedsue on any other site, and I have not engaged in any off-wiki organising. I have not engaged in any trolling. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Boynamedsue. Wikipedia, that Mathmos, doesn't really have a position on it, as every case is broadly or subtly different. My own position in this instance is that the accusations were misplaced, which I hope I made clear. However.. it seems to me that the IP changed their battleground demeanour quite a bit in their second post, which is a rare and pleasing sight for an admin. I'm not going to sanction them for what they've said here. Of course you're free to take them to a noticeboard, but I'd de-escalate if I were you, and wait and see how they go from now. But that's up to you. The info page Wikipedia:Casting aspersions certainly would support a report from you. Quoting ArbCom, it states "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation". On the other hand, do you believe that the IP's posts above have succeeded in besmirching your reputation? Because I really doubt it. Bishonen | tålk14:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC).
That would be the Indian admins, such as RegentsPark and Abecedare. We have too few of them, though, and they can't be always working this depressing area, so with simple cases such as this RFPP, I try to help sometimes. The disruption isn't frequent enough for protection (IMO), but I've page-blocked the caste-promoting IPv6 range. (Somewhat fearfully, since it's a very large range, but I noticed it was already under another page block, as a CU-block, which emboldened me. And also it's not a block from a big important page.) Bishonen | tålk17:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC).
Are there any Indian editors that are open for reaching out about caste related questions? For example, I've handled a bunch of edit requests on Talk:Ahir about the image being used. I assume it's just normal caste related complaints so I close as "get consensus," but I have no actual idea if there's a real issue that I'm ignorant of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh yes indeed, we miss Sitush. But there are a few very knowledgeable editors... but you know what, Rädisa, I hesitate to mention them here, and get them snowed under with requests and/or attacked by caste warriors. (Bad enough I mentioned a couple of admins.) I'll drop you an e-mail. Bishonen | tålk18:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC).
Speaking of email,I hope my last email wasn't too long, and was reasonably clear. Also, I think an actual good April fool's edit next year would be to put your fly on the main page, or at least ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
It seems like removing the images might be the safest until there is an explicit consensus to include. It seems like a borderline BLP issue to show "specimens" from 200 years ago. It's almost like having a picture of a slave at the top of African American. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad I popped into this section, did some learning, and changed my point of view on how to handle some of the caste related edit requests I come across. I feel legitimately bad about having denied half a dozen requests at Ahir now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Constructive editor blocked within range block
Hi Bishonen, can you please reconsider the range block that is affecting Special:Contributions/2409:4071:2492:3C24:3C8D:F3ED:AC65:20F8, as they made only a single edit, but that was essentially to revert a BLP vandalism. I believe this one is a good editor blocked because of the disruptive activities of others. Maybe there are more editors in this range that are getting penalized? I don't know if there's a way to check. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})21:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) that's not quite how ipv6 work, and especially this ISP or range. The person using that one may not be the target but they're welcome to create or request an account. It's highly unlikely they're still on the same IP from two weeks ago. PRAXIDICAE💕21:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I think there are probably some constructive editors within that very large range, yes, CX Zoom. On the other hand, I merely added one (fairly obscure) page to the active partial block that NinjaRobotPirate, a CheckUser, had already applied to the range. Realistically, it seems unlikely that my addition will inconvenience, or in fact "penalize", the constructive editors on the range. And, as Prax says, if it does, they can create an account. NinjaRP, would you care to comment? Bishonen | tålk21:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC).
That's a hard block labeled as a CU block... you really shouldn't be modifying that. WP:CUBL only restricts administrators from loosening CU blocks, but that means they're incapable of resolving collateral damage caused by their changes. Now nobody on that ISP can edit the page you added, whether they're logged in or not. Given that some Asian cities have a larger population than mid-sized European nations, I don't really like the idea of people expanding hard blocks on Indian ISPs. The reason why there's so much bureaucracy around CU blocks is because only CUs can assess the evidence and collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
They can't edit the page even if they're logged in? Well, if you think it's a serious problem for them to not be able to edit that page (again, it's the page Silaiyezhupathu), I'll lift my block, NinjaRobotPirate. BTW, did you see this ANI report? It's a little overwhelming; I wasn't sure what to make of it. Bishonen | tålk19:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC).
PS, I'm sorry I didn't notice you had set the block to apply to logged-in users (at least, I assume you had, the log doesn't show whether or not). Bishonen | tålk19:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC).
No, nobody on that IP range can edit any page in that partial block, even if they're logged in. You could revert your changes to the block, but, technically, if you undo my CheckUser block, you'll be summarily desysoped. It's frustrating to deal with hard blocks, even if you a CheckUser. There's frequently a lot of collateral damage that has to be taken into account with hard blocks, and if you're unfamiliar with the ISP or the sock puppetry case, you can cause a lot of problems. I get angry emails occasionally from people who can't edit Wikipedia any more. It turns out that I blocked all public transportation in New York City for both logged-in users and anon IP users. Or I blocked a multinational corporation. Worst of all, WP:CUBL prevents you from converting a hard block to a soft block if it's labeled it as a {{CheckUser block}}. I did this block to stop a sock puppeteer from editing a certain article from his logged-in accounts, and converting it to a soft block will make the block useless. That's why I say it's best to just leave CU blocks alone. Messing around with them can cause a lot of problems, both the stupid political problems that involve Arbcom and "real" problems that prevent people from editing Wikipedia. It's possible to do overlapping range blocks with a mix of hard and soft partial blocks. It's confusing (and annoying to try to figure out later on), but I can fix this if you want so that there's no collateral damage (or very little, at least). I'm not really sure what to say in that ANI thread. It's tough to say anything about so many different IP ranges, a bunch of disruption happening in them, and requests to do wide-ranging partial blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Technically, if you undo my CheckUser block, you'll be summarily desysoped. Really? I already reverted my changes, half an hour before you posted the above. I think I only undid my own part of the block and restored yours exactly as it was, but why don't you take a look? Or report to ArbCom, of course. Bishonen | tålk20:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC).
Well, CheckUser blocks are a mine field, that's all I'm saying. I can't imagine anyone would start an arbcom case – it's just that there's a lot of policy built up around them. It's like wandering into Arbitration Enforcement and not following all the bureaucracy there, who knows what will happen to you. Anyway, check out Blocklog for "2409:4071::/33" . That will work, and it will only affect IP editors. Hopefully, with the added note, we'll remember why there are two overlapping range blocks on the same ISP. The technical details aren't important, but because of the mathematics involved there are two /33s in each /32. So, if you block 2409:4071::/33 and 2409:4071:8000::/33, that's the same as blocking 2409:4071::/32. If that doesn't make sense, ignore it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
—PaleoNeonate – 01:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Facepalm I directed a comment at MPants, and Bishonen responded as though I had directed it at her, so I responded to Bishonen and MPants acted like I had directed it at him. Sheesh! Now let's drop this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Done. You are no longer a "woman in red" --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- TheresNoTime 😺 10:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rogue Admin?. Thank you. (Notified on behalf of Buffs) ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Miscellaneous
_by_Ron.jpg)
El_C 14:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC) 
_17.jpg)
.jpg)
lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
_(14596015197).jpg){kind=link}
nagualdesign 22:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
![[47]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fly_transparent.gif){kind=link}
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment § Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles. Shrike (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
