This is an archive of past discussions about 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.
I can't believe somebody's reporting Director to ANI for some obvious jocularity, nor that admins and others are putting on a big voice about Diorector's jocular comment here. "I will see you in court for not closing the thread"? Come on, guys. Please just close the thread. Bishonen | talk00:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC).
(Non-administrator comment): This is the first time in my life I have ever considered the possibility that smileys, or those dorkly "friendly banter" tags, have an actual use. Anmccaff (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
As the inventor or [FBDB], I'm glad the scales have fallen from your eyes. Between that thread, and the recent "Death threat" thread, I'm this close (makes "this close" gesture with thumb and index finger) to proposing that a special license be required for on-wiki humor. These amateurs are endangering our wikihumor heritage. EEng00:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC) P.S. Better watch it with that word dork. As you know, there's been some prickliness about that recently.
And most annoyingly, the crappy software didn't give me an edit conflict. When I saved my ANI remark, which somebody has now indiscreetly pasted above (I had promptly removed it), I had no way of knowing SlimVirgin had just archived the thread. Grrr. And for this I interrupted a perfectly good pout break! And I wasn't even nearly as rude as I felt like being! :-( I think I'll just go on another pout break, over that. Please don't post here, guys. I'm on break. Bishonen | talk08:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC).
Oh very well, I'm not on break any more, it's shot full of holes anyway. Bringing back the summer meadow with horse. Thank you for your comments above, guys. Bishonen | talk08:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC).
Absolutely, done. Thank you for reverting. (I had to revdel your edit summary as well, as the username was a violation in itself.) I wonder if I should semi the page for a while? Scary stuff. Bishonen | talk19:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC).
Ebele Okaro
Hello,
I don't seem to understand the removal of the phrase that was used to indicate her as an Anambra descent. That's a regular word that is used to indicate people's origin in almost all varieties of English. Phrases like "European descent", "Scottish descent", etc are not uncommon on Wikipedia. Can you please explain why "Anambra descent" is bad quality?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Jamie Tubers:. Are you seriously suggesting that you think "Okaro, a descent of Anambra, in Southeast Nigeria, was born in London, United Kingdom." is correct English? The idiomatic English expression that you're trying to mimic would be "of European descent". Note: (1) the preposition "of"; and (2) the adjectival form of Europe - "European". The phrase is almost always used as a direct qualifier, i.e. it's adjectival. You're trying to use it in apposition to a name, i.e. as a noun phrase – which it isn't. There's no way in English of economically constructing the sentence you're looking for. Something like "Okaro, a woman of Anambran descent (Anambra is a state in Southeast Nigeria), was born in London." would be the nearest that I can muster, but it's awkward. Have a think about the point you're trying to make and ask for help if you can't construct it in English. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, what RexxS said, Jamie Tubers. The English is incorrect. My edit summary saying it "isn't better quality than anything", may have sounded brusque, but I was referring to the previous edit summary, "better quality", which User:Celestina007 used when she restored the phrasing "a descent of Anambra". Celestina thanked me for my edit, btw, so she presumably didn't mind. Bishonen | talk21:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC).
Okay, I see what you mean now, but then again I was more concerned about the fact that you removed a very essential information because it's "bad quality". I felt, you could've reworded the statement, instead of just out-rightly removing the information. Anyway, I'll just re-add the information, hopefully, my edit would be of a "better quality" :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Your new version, "She is of Anambran descent, a state in Southeast Nigeria" is not good syntax, as it's not the descent that's a state. (Also it should end with a full stop, not a comma.) People have made several better suggestions above, please consider them. But I'm not interested in arguing about the wording; I'm not invested in the article, and won't edit it further. I merely reverted some bad English, in the hope that someone would add the info in a better form — as I indicated in my edit summary, I didn't know, and still don't know, if "Igbo" ought to be in there — perhaps you do. I can't find it in any of the sources. Bishonen | talk09:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC).
I've spent several hours tidying up, and in so doing have done away with the repetition of sources and content, changed to reliable sources, etc. She was in an Igbo language-film, FYI. Bishonen, hopefully you can now nap for a few hours and do nothing. :)
Jamie Tubers, I left out Anambra as the reference is poor, and I noticed that there were other references that did not support the content or had reliability issues. I strongly encourage you to consider the WP:RS policy. EdChem (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Very nice work, Ed — I watched you at it. (I like watching work.) Maybe I should now change my page image to an even more relaxed animal, such as this? Notice the impressed little vandals gawping. Bishonen | talk16:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC).
MjolnirPants, that picture is Obaysch, so allow me to congratulate you on your prolific editing, a significant achievement given your "hands" are singly ill-equipped to using a keyboard and you've been dead for well over a century. I'm impressed to learn you have inspired your own dance and that you managed to father Guy Fawkes (commiserations over what happened to him, though at least you can take some comfort that he wasn't alive when drawn and quartered) over two centuries years before your own birth! Since you've now outed yourself, you might consider adding a COI notice to your article's talk page. Being (I suspect) the first WP editor to begin editing after death, your notability is assured (though verification might be problematic) and you can represent the perspectives of other deceased article subjects, but please be careful... I'd hate to see accusations of proxy editing for others who have died, Wikipedia doesn't need headlines for blocking the only known deceased Wikipedian still editing nor for being speciesist in blocking our only known hippo-editor. I know that we do have 'zillas and other cute critters editing, but none that I know of has your additional existential handicap. Finally, I understand that you value your privacy and Bishonen posting your picture may be embarrassing, but you are something of a celebrity as a computer-literate and functional deceased Hippopedian and paparazzi come with the territory. Perhaps some small tramplings might keep harassers at a more respectful distance? You might consider doing a couple of interviews to satisfy people's curiosity, which could also provide RS material for developing your article to FA (it'd be great to see you return to the main page). :) EdChem (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
RexxS, I would not want to insult, overlook, or in any way disregard (or worse, disrespect) Lady Catherine, especially having already committed the faux pas of appearing inappropriately attired in front of Bishonen, another of the formidable Women of Wikipedia, earlier in this thread. However, I must confess to being confused. As I understand it, Lady Catherine died in 2008 and her vital essence edited between February 2009 and January 2012. However, Lady Catherine herself had edited prior to her death, from December 2006 until November 2008. Her Ladyship re-joined us, adopting her full and proper title, from 29 September 2012, and we continue to benefit from her wit, wisdom, and magnificent condescension to this day. MjolnirPants did not join us until September 2013, but died in March 1878. I think that Lady Catherine is likely the first editor to return to editing posthumously, and almost certainly the only editor to grace us with her presence in living, vital essence, and deceased forms – achievements that in another editor might be miraculous, but in Lady Catherine, with her unlimited capacities, seems to be somehow predictable. MjolnirPants, however, is the only editor I know of to begin contributing to Wikipedia after having died – an achievement all the more impressive given the computer was not even imagined in the 19th century and MjolnirPants has also overcome the formidable computer-usage limitations that come with being a hippo. Both deserve our respect for their achievements. :) EdChem (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
You were watching? Admins can remote control the cam on my computer? I'm not dressed properly to be watched by anyone, let alone someone as graceful and refined as yourself... Bishzilla, trample me now!
On the image, I can see the symbolism, in that the hippo can appear tranquil and relaxed but when roused can run faster than a vandal and aggressively deal with crocodiles, so edit warriors would cower in their presence. :) EdChem (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Adhela and Guy Fawkes in 1883
Ed, I love the engraving of Obaysch's family, Adhela and Guy Fawkes. (Guy Fawkes is a girl. Couldn't they tell?) Would the little MONGO mind if I snuck it in amongst his atmospheric nature pictures in the edit notice? Let's see how long it takes before anybody notices. ("Hey, MONGO, I didn't know you'd taken up engraving!") Apropos, Dürer's Rhinoceros is already an FA. Written by a good friend of mine, long gone from Wikipedia. Also a cool critter. Bishonen | talk11:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC).
Bishonen, I would imagine that distinguishing Guy Fawkes' gender would have been straight-forward, but perhaps Guy Fawkes transitioned? I like the idea of the extra image in the MONGO collection. As for good friends long gone from Wikipedia, it is sad the extent to which this site uses up editors and spits them out, but I guess that is inevitable with the way this place operates. EdChem (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate, I am surprised anyone has noticed me enough to think me part of a cabal. I'm also worried about how many editors were watching me, though, I'm not sure that a Bishzilla trampling is going to be enough to repay my debt to Wiki-society. :( EdChem (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen, I'm not emotionally invested in the article either. I just happen to be watching it, because she is a Nigerian subject. I tend to be averse to the removal of content, without adequate explanations. Sorry for the hasty revision. All the same, thank you :).
@EdChem: Good job on the edits. I am aware of RS, I just didn't bother to check the quality of the source (and I didn't add the information initially), my bad. I guess it's resolved now. Thank you all for your time and efforts :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
(Guy Fawkes is a girl. Couldn't they tell?)Does no one remember the 5th of November?
MONGO still around...but stubborn fight with Dell computer to fix their junk has me sidelined sans desktop at present, just as I was starting to get back into editing....grrrrrr. Yes please do add images to the MONGO collection...which is going to be greatly expanded by August anyway after I return from wild woods excursion from my ancestral lair from whence I came.--MONGO15:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
[Pleased.] Hello little MONGO! Bishzilla was starting to consider sending out sock posse to search! Adhela and Guy Fawkes added to edit notice. Charming. Ugly baby, admit, but Adhela nevertheless wonderful motherly expression, rather like 'zilla herself contemplating homely darwintwins. More Bigfoot images and bears from MONGO optimistically awaited. And birds, see current edit notice! bishzillaROARR!!15:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC).
Link doesn't work, Tapered. But also it's a redirect, and the IP seems to have given up, so probably no need for action. (Goes back to nap.) Bishonen | talk08:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC).
The notability of religion in a biographical article
Hi, Bishonen. While I have your attention: User:MShabazz went through my contributions as a result of the Zionist Occupation Government debate and reverted most of my edits that mentioned the subject's religious background in biography articles. Is this not notable when properly cited? It seems to me that religion is one of the most important aspects of someone's upbringing, and most "Early life and education" sections include far less informative details. See User_talk:MShabazz for my message directly to him. Franzboas (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This is an old bone of contention on Wikipedia, I believe especially because some editors have insisted on adding the subject's religious "background" even for subjects that are, for example, agnostics. I'm not well up on what practice is nowadays and, indeed, I have trouble understanding why it's so bitterly contested on both sides. I'm not the right admin to answer your question. Bishonen | talk17:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) I usually toss thorny questions like "religious background" at User:HJ Mitchell. He's well known as impartial and can be relied on to do a thorough analysis. And I don't want him to become as idle as us old folk. --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, RexxS, good idea. I can't shake a conviction that there's a general discussion about it somewhere, but I don't know where. WP:ANI doesn't sound right, as it's a content issue. Anyway, I don't think it can be decided across the board in a simple way, because circumstances alter cases where biographies are concerned. BTW, the article you're talking about isn't called Zionist Occupation Government. That's a redirect, and your efforts to get the article moved back to that title don't seem to be gathering consensus so far. I'm putting it mildly. Bishonen | talk20:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC).
Yeah, I've given up on getting it moved. It's not worth the fight, and I've always understood that there is a valid argument for keeping "conspiracy theory" in the title (although I think it's the weaker argument). I'm confident that the recent torrent of support is self-reinforcing bias, but I don't think it's important enough to appeal. I'm just going to get consensus for a few factual changes and move on. Thanks for being civil, respectful, and helpful through all of this. Franzboas (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Some relevant links to discussions and consensus regarding religion in articles are WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS. This is a link to the RfC that resulted in the removal of the religion infobox parameter. Essentially if an individual's religion can be reliably sourced and is pertinent to their notability, it (generally) can be included in the body of the article. Being able to prove the subject's self-indentification with the religion is also important if there is a dispute as to whether it should be included. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots23:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
how one can have a not on an article talk page for nearly a month, asking for any thoughts for potential improvements prior to nomming for GAN... and not a single comment.... but immediately after dropping the template on the talk for GAN, templates magically appear on the article... -- Aunva6talk - contribs21:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
moreso that the editor placing the tag is rather unspecific about where it needs cites... in an article with over 60 footnotes. really not helpful. -- Aunva6talk - contribs21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't have the article on my watchlist, so why would I visit its talk page. It was nominated for GAN, so it is posted on the WikiProject's announcements, which is why I saw it. You nominated an article that has obvious issues. You evidently haven't bothered to read WP:GACR or the article you nominated fully. If you had bothered to do both, then you would have be able to identify these issues and fix them before your nomination. Nominating articles that clearly aren't up to snuff isn't helpful either. It's just a waste of a reviewer's time. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
"all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" is really all it says regarding cites. now, true, there are a few places that may need cites, and it may very well be that the refs are already used elsewhere, and i just need to reference them again. -- Aunva6talk - contribs22:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that you didn't bother to prepare the article before nominating it for GA and now you're scrambling because I've identified that it clearly doesn't meet the standard. Gotcha. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
nay, more like, i hadn't noticed some of the locations lacking sources previously. from what i can see, compared with similar video game GA's, the only think it's missing is perhaps the critical reception. compare it with minecraft. anyhow, let's maybe take this to the article talk page. -- Aunva6talk - contribs22:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not interested in talking to you about the article any further. It has issues beyond the sourcing and woefully bad reception section. Maybe next time, don't start talking rubbish about me on another editor's talk page when you're clearly at fault for nominating the article in the first place. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
It's kind of understandable, though, isn't it? A note on the talk page is seen by a small handful of people; making it a GA nomination shines a spotlight on it and brings lots more eyes. BTW, I tried to remove the {{refimprove}} tag, but messed it up somehow, and you'd removed it anyway. So all I did was make article history look dumb. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Look at the header "Tags" on my talk: I seem not the only one who thinks degrading tags are a disgrace. I had three article tagged (all solved by now, but sooooo ugly before), and recently a TFA about a piece of art was distorted by a tag for a suggested (silly) merge for much of the day because the bot kept bringing it back. Ideas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Your warning
@Bishonen: He opened by attacking me as a paid editor calling me a "shill". So i received a warning because he is your friend? Does an editor without COI make personal attacks and then refuses to apologize and instead claims he is more qualified then me? Did you give him a warning? Bishonen you've dealt with me before. I'd never get banned from a topic, look at my history. I am almost always right. Be neutral and dont post false warnings on my page. Did you see any attacks on other editors who disagree with me? Valoemtalkcontrib13:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Also to let you know RexxS has been stalking me reverting articles I wrote which passed AfD. I am perfectly allowed to post on his talk page if he keeps engaging in work I've done. Valoemtalkcontrib13:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
While I was still thinking whether or not to respond here, and indeed trying to think of a good reason to even leave your post on my page after you removed mine from yours, the issue went to ANI. I suggest we keep it there. Bishonen | talk15:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC).
Again..? I talked at some length with Uncletomwoodhere, and with you. As I said at the time, I doubt Uncletomwood would be of interest to a CheckUser. There are actually better people than me to ask about these articles, 59.88.136.171; I'm not Indian, not a Checkuser, and I'm ignorant. Please sign talkpage posts with four tildes, ~~~~ , so people don't have to look for you in the page history. IMO you should also create an account and take ownership of both your edits and your complaints and not avoid scrutiny with all these different IPs. Pinging @Sitush, Vanamonde93, SpacemanSpiff, and Bbb23: if they care to take a look. Bbb, how's your headache? Is anything here of interest to you? Bishonen | talk14:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC).
Thanks for protecting the article! Could you please also protect Central Civil Services? Also, please have a look at Central Secretariat Service, the same person is adding promotional content which shouldn't be here in the first place. Also, I would like to nominate
File:CSS Special Training Assistant Superintendents 1951.jpg (since it does not serve any purpose here), and
List of Income Tax ranks in India for deletion (since the Group A ranks are mentioned in Indian Revenue Service and Group B ranks in Income Tax Service, Group ‘B’, so no need for the third article for just the ranks, and in fact these are not "ranks", but "posts" as the former are only in the uniformed services, which income tax in India is not) and I know the same person is operating all the accounts, he cannot hide and lie forever, the truth shall prevail! Thanks, again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.247.7.249 (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2017
See, there really is no point in you spreading vitriol when you do not know the truth. There was absolutely no reason for you to act like this, anonymous IP. Any rational person would know that I am not socking and not handling those accounts nor am I adding any of the promotional material to the Central Secretariat Service page. It seems that you already do know and you are still being ignorant about who it really is. Guess I really have no option but to stop responding to your threats because I am not scared of it because I haven't done anything. I am not adding any promotional material and nor am I handling those accounts. Let the truth prevail. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand how frustrated the IP editor is with all the promotional content but he/she must understand it is not me. I don't want to out myself again but I want the IP editor to know that it is not me handling those accounts. PLEASE CONDUCT A CHECKUSER or any sort of other test on me to prove that I am not the socking IP Uncletomwood (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Too modern for me, Bish, and too much involving potential BLP issues. I generally prefer my subjects to be dead or, at least, inactive. I wonder if HM The Queen ever thinks this? - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Sitush: the thought of reading all those articles and histories, which my sock sense on high alert, makes me lose the will to live myself. Bishonen | talk22:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC).
At least you have a sock sense. I've spent countless hours dealing with socks without actually realising they were socks. I don't mind being perceived as a mug but I do detest the waste of time incurred. - Sitush (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I've only heard of such a thing as "sock sense". I wish I could buy one. Even my socks don't have any sock sense. Bishonen | talk22:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC).
Jack had more "sock sense" than anyone I ever came across. I suspect that spending huge amounts of time on-wiki looking at other folks' editing patterns contributes more to its development than any innate ability. Not recommended. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
i'm getting a sense of deja vu here... wasn't there just a discussion about these articles? also, i highly doubt uncletomwood is socking... keep in mind that the becaon lights article is up for AfD. -- Aunva6talk - contribs05:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Just a quick passing comment, these articles are the playpen of Vrghs jacob (talk·contribs·logs), a notorious copyright violator (among other behavioral issues). Then there's also Motbag, the two have seemingly opposite views. I haven't looked close enough (and won't have time to in the near future, unless I'm spoonfed some evidence), so anyone interested can take a look at the various sock categories and tags of jacob (the SPI is pretty bare as Moonriddengirl and I have mostly blocked named and IP socks outside of SPI). —SpacemanSpiff05:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
SOrry for the late reply. he's back at it again. vandalising the articles himself and calling others vandals and Indians "illiterate"! This is ridiculous how are articles not yet protected and what's the harm in having a CU on Uncletomwood and his other socks?! Can't you see the similar traits?! He was saying that his parents are IAS officers while using Panrussia account and while using Uncletomwood account he claimed many false things and was bragging about them. None of which was true. I have to leave and will be back in a few hours and will share his other accounts as well
Bishonen, judging from the history of the Civil Services of India article, somewhere between most and all edits in May are by now-blocked socks and IPs, who are mostly reverting each other. Perhaps re-institute semi-protection (as was needed in 2013) on this page, set Bishzilla in the edit notice for the page, and Darwinbish could keep occupied any who edit problematically? EdChem (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Semi six months. No, no, Bishzilla in edit notice is a stronger form of protection, done instead of semi in dire cases. Before going that far, maybe we try extended confirmed protection, or db and her henchmen. Who removed Bbb23's post? I'll dig it out a little later. Bishonen | talk09:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC). No, it was there, I'd just got temporarily blind. IP — FGS sign your posts with four tildes, ~~~~ — Bbb23 is a CU. So, I've asked him. —
Bishonen, I was thinking Bishzilla in the edit notice might cool any, ahem, over-exuberant IPs who register accounts to continue editing and acting like a royal pain in the posterior... :) EdChem (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I still don't understand why my username is being constantly dragged into this. I made false claims in 2013-2014 but have never made any such claims thereafter. I repeat that I am not associated with any of the socks of Vrghs Jacob. I welcome a checkuser if only to clear my name from this mess. I also ask the IP editor to kindly please stop this disparagement immediately. Thanks! The IP editor is warned not to do this again. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It's obvious that Bbb23 doesn't think you're a sock, Uncletomwood, and that the varying IP isn't getting any traction here. No need for you to worry. You know how many users I've been disparaged by? Just ignore it. And could you please use colons to indent your posts, to show who you're replying to? See WP:INDENT. Bishonen | talk10:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC).
Due apologies, Bish, I'm sort of on Wikibreak; and I have neither the time nor the bandwidth to look into this at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
More sockIP trolling?
I seem to have yet more users logging out in order to troll me on ANI.[1] I can't just blank their comments since a logged-in user who just has a grudge against me but is not engaged in sockpuppetry has been humouring them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I've commented to the IPs, Hijiri, but I hope you don't expect me to read the entire thread. Both Alex and you have written way too much in it, and the law of diminishing returns has set in. I advise you to leave well enough alone, and let whoever wants to get the last word. Bishonen | talk22:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC).
I know that, and I am happy not to have you read the thread. I am well aware that nothing will come of it, and that both Alex and I have written way too much. Thing is, though, I actually want the thread to be closed and/or archived without any specific result. The two users Alex and his friends have been criticizing have not done anything sanction-worthy, and I don't want Alex or his friends to be sanctioned because ... well, I know from experience that people in whose boomeranging I was involved almost always blame me for what happens rather than reflecting on their own behaviour, and I don't need any more of that nonsense at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Shit. I hadn't actually noticed, but this is the second time in as many weeks that one of them has shown up in a thread I was commenting in and essentially tried to make the discussion about me.[2] I guess I'll just watch out for this guy from now on, and the next time he trolls me -- I'll ask someone else. ;-) Sorry to bother you again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Hijiri 88. I come in peace and would like to state that I am not a sock nor a user who logs out to post anonymously about you. I'm just a guy who reads the ANI and occasionally comments. As you are practically involved in every dispute ever filed on ANI, the law of averages has meant my odd comment knocks on your door more often than others. I have no beef with you, or agenda - I just think you need to stop flooding ANI with your verbose and unhelpful fanning, and give the admins a chance to address the problem properly. That's it. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
No, on two separate occasions (one long before my recent dispute with another verbose user in a thread I didn't mind becoming bloated) you commented on discussions I had commented in, and instead of addressing the content of the dispute you specifically went after me. In the former instance, I was only a peripheral third party, and you chose to specifically go after me (pinging me despite of all the other editors who had posted a lot more than I had), and in the latter you completely ignored the substance of the discussion, your comment reading as though my behaviour was the subject of the thread.
And no, I am not practically involved in every dispute ever filed on ANI; I have commented in less than half the threads currently open there, and less than half in the most recent archive, even though this is basically the most active I have ever been as an ANI contributor.
It's pretty clear that, whoever you are, you are interested specifically in harassing me, and your excuses for doing so simply don't hold up: at the time you posted the above-linked comment in the ethnic/media discussion, my sig appeared 58 times on ANI, compared to 37 instances of B2C's sig, 14 of MBurch's and 12 of FFA P-16's: if I was only replying once to each comment by each of these three users (and yes, most of my comments were just responses to one or more of these users) that would explain all of it. I had only commented twice in the thread you chose to ping me in in the diff above, compared to six comments by Xx236, four by Spikeballunion, two by Jjbers (whose sig appeared 18 times on the page), and yet you devoted half of your comment to me, and mentioned only me by name, despite the fact that my comments had been several days earlier and had largely been ignored by the rest of the discussion.
Yeah, you're right. I don't need this grief. I'll try to make sure my sig doesn't appear anywhere in either the next ANI archive or the one after that (if one of the threads I have already commented in takes a really long time to get archived). Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
He brushes off the criticism with another wall of text, which avoids the point in favour of wild swinging and empty waffle.I know how this works - I write back that I'm not picking on him or I'm not hiding my identity and we are suddenly writing screeds about that instead of the point, and I'm the next unwilling participant in the Hijiri Show. Just accept you have a problem and maybe dial it down. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hijiri hasn't posted on ANI since they made the undertaking above several days ago — "I'll try to make sure my sig doesn't appear anywhere in either the next ANI archive or the one after that" — and yet you think it appropriate to come to my page to needle them further? Would you like to be blocked for harassment? Bishonen | talk12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC).
I think your comment about "the syntax problems presented by the two parallel clauses" nails it. I made the tiniest change to the opening sentence. I was hoping you could have a look, if time permits. I've opened a talk-page thread as well. Hope all is well with you. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I commented... ? Aha, found it. The woman who went out to dinner and never returned. I like your current version of the first sentence. The whole two first paragraphs feel a bit uncomfortable, though. (The third reads well to me.) That's probably because everything's contested and everything's a compromise — you know, like the horse designed by a committee. I was gonna say, there's some repetition in the first paragraph — but I see you have already fixed it, great. Then, the sentence "Both irreducible complexity and specified complexity present detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes" in the second paragraph is pretty reader-unfriendly. It starts as if the reader's gonna know beforehand about irreducible complexity and specified complexity, and know that they're ID arguments — without having to first click on the links. Of course the previous sentence is meant to introduce them as ID arguments, but I don't think that works very well: a stronger connection between the sentences is needed. Do I dare to eat a peach? I've fiddled with the second paragraph. What's the worst that can happen? (Hides.) Bishonen | talk14:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC).
The worst that could happen is you'll be tormented in Purgatory for a thousand years for that bit of blasphemy. On the bright side, it would meant I'll have some intelligent company. --RexxS (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The worst that could happen? Jimbo will block you for 3 & 1/2 hours, and a second Arbcom case will run concurrently alongside the one about whether to place the comma inside or outside of the closing quotation mark. :-) The article could really use a thorough copy-edit, but it's tough to convince some folks that the prose can be improved while still honoring long-standing consensus as far as what's being said. Thanks for joining in! I appreciate the comments & suggestions, and the second paragraph is definitely better as a result of your "fiddling". Joefromrandb (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Escalating blocks indeed! I knew that joke wouldn't be lost on such a learned and perspicacious user. It was long before I arrived in the Wikihood (technically maybe not, as I made the occasional edit as an IP for 5 or 6 years before finally joining the place), but I've read about it. Jimbo has blocked users since his "permanent abdication" of the tool, and it's interesting that WP:BLOCKABDICATE no longer notes this fact. Of course, if Wales has the power to overrule Arbcom, their "acknowledgement" of his "abdication" is the rough equivalent of "democratic elections" in North Korea. One of these days we're going to have to finally get around to doing something with this! Joefromrandb (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, he has only blocked the odd vandal, sock, and supposedly hacked account since then; I'm not bothered about that. The hacked accounts were blocked by a hacker who had got access to Jimbo's account during the notorious Great Password Spill in November 2016.[3] That was very annoying from my POV, because I happened to see it — I saw the Jimbo Wales account vandalising on 11 November. One of the edits turned up on my watchlist. See the red figures in the contribs here? One of those. So I went to block the account, but of course I was a little taken aback, I hesitated for a moment, and checked what else it had been doing — like a fool, because it meant another admin got there a few seconds before me. Arghh. :-( :-( :-( There would have been such a pretty symmetry in me blocking Jimbo. Would really have set me up. ("Didn't Jimbo block you once?" — "Yeah, and I blocked him once.") Bishonen | talk21:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC).
Well, as predicted, the edits to Uebert Angel and talk page arguments have started again. Two new editors this time: one you've met on the talk page and another whose first edit to the article was to remove "formerly known as Uebert Mudzanire" from the opening. Have a look at the history and the talk page, and have a think about whether it's for PP again. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
On looking deeper, there appear to be a couple of older socks, the milk man wasn't the first to bring us milk!—SpacemanSpiff09:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Saint Petersburg
Hey Bish :) Remember The Mad Lad From Saint Petersburg? He's back. In my attempt to save some time I've run into a bureaucratic snag at the SPI, though. The rangecontribs shows there is some cleanup to do -- possibly a large amount of it -- and having the checkuser would help. So in those great words spoken to Tim the Enchanter, anything you could do to help would be very helpful. Manul ~ talk15:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hallo, kitty. Er.. so Harry Mitchell extended the short rangeblocks I had originally placed, right?[4] I see Harry is a little sporadic, but I still think I'll leave this to him and/or EdJohnston. I can only handle rangeblocks/range contributions when they're very simple and the wind is in the sou'west. Sorry. Bishonen | talk16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC).
In the SPI I mentioned that I left a note with an admin (Ed) who is familiar with the case. I was surprised that the checkuser request was evaluated and rejected before Ed's input. It makes little sense having each SPI in these long-term cases start from square one, explaining the evidence as if the person reading the SPI has no knowledge of the history. Oftentimes the socks are obvious to those acquainted with the sockmaster's edits, as it is here with the distinctive madness espoused by the Mad Lad From Saint Petersburg. I don't understand why the person evaluating the checkuser request wouldn't look at the history and wouldn't wait for input from an admin familiar with the case. Rather than spending the time writing up evidence starting from square one, I had hoped to get an admin who has dealt with the Mad Lad to affirm that it's obviously him. In any case I've added some evidence that may be sufficient on its own. Manul ~ talk18:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, there are now three versions, that's the trouble. But the more I think about it, the more it should be simple enough. (Trembling from head to foot.) I'll do it; just let me collect myself. Bishonen | talk20:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC).
A bit like watching a contortionist, wasn't it? No, RexxS, I know you're not "trusted" to delete and recreate and carry on, but my first thought was you might hold my hand while I did. Asking on ANI was admittedly quicker. I must get admin tools for Darwinfish, then we wouldn't have this circus every time (because it's not the first). Bishonen | talk21:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC).
I have also made the mistake of moving to or within the wrong pagespace, as Ipigott did in this case (and I have very nearly made the mistake a few times more). It is undoubtedly a part of the interface that could need an improvement of some sort. --Hegvald (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Request For Help
Would it be at all possible if you could delete the edits made by this particular IP? The IP in question is being used by a vandal who appears to be copying and pasting large amounts (300,000 to 600,000 characters) of what appears to be lurid written pornography, and, in addition to being graphic, and possibly copyright violations, it screws up the loading of each page when one looks at the history.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Done, and IP blocked. Please let me know if more turns up from related IPs; the range can easily be blocked if needed. Bishonen | talk03:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC).
Hi, Calton. A little surprisingly, the user has been here for ages, so I don't see a NOTHERE block at this time. Blocked for a week. If the disruption continues after the block, perhaps a topic ban can be considered. Bishonen | talk15:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC).
I know, Volunteer Marek, but that was eight years ago. I'm surprised he wasn't blocked at the time. Wait, was that the edit that was mentioned recently on Talk:Richard B. Spencer? Yes, I see it was, and he responded by saying he was thirteen at the time. In any case, you know, VM, if he carries on in the same way you won't have to wait very long before he's blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk17:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC).
EtienneDolet "I nearly blocked you"
User:Bishonen, this is just the latest in a long series of disruptive stunts by EtienneDolet. Just a few days prior to the incident with the video they made this comment: "(Germans) know a thing or two about crematoriums" in reference to the Sednaya Prison Syrian crematorium and only struck it after it was pointed out to him that saying something like that could get him sanctioned.
Here EtienneDolet is dishonestly misrepresenting another user's comments. The user said that not EVERY negative thing needs to be put in the article (which is of course trivially true), EtienneDolet is disingenuously claiming that the user said that NO negative thing can be put in the article and then when confronted with this blatant misrepresentation he argues with the straight face that the words "every" and "any" mean the same thing. And of yeah, on the same article, he is also arguing with a straight face that the participation in a coldblooded execution in Syria is "non-controversial" (!!!) so he can add info to an article without having to provide reliable sources, just sketchy ones. You simply CANNOT have a reasoned discussion with someone so shameless and deceitful. Hence all the trouble in this topic area lately.
I can provide older examples as well, like when ED claimed that "scholarly sources" backed up one of his assertions, then when asked to provide them he stalled and finally provided links to anti-semitic conspiracy websites as his "scholarly sources".
Does he have a clean block log? Yeah, because he's great at WP:CPUSH and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and generally obstructing any meaningful conversation. Doesn't actually make his behavior any better. Like I said. This is an instance where a user simply needs to be removed from a topic area as they've done nothing but caused trouble and sown chaos.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps he needs a topic ban in that case, Volunteer Marek. But I don't feel familiar enough with either the area or the user to be the admin placing either of those. Especially, as I said, in view of the clean block log, because that makes it a big deal — never mind how, exactly, he has escaped being blocked. (His topic ban log is not clean, no.) Bishonen | talk17:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC).
I would have thought that making the "(Germans) know a thing or two about crematoriums" comment was a different edit from the one where they link to a video of an execution. Or is there something I've missed? If not, wouldn't that be shopping for three admins over two edits? --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
You simply CANNOT have a reasoned discussion with someone so shameless and deceitful—How many NPA and civility warnings do you need, Volunteer Marek? El_C08:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
[P]rovided links to anti-semitic conspiracy websites as his "scholarly sources"—That is a serious accusation. How come you don't have a diff accompanying it? El_C08:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In my opinion, that's not a PA at all, it's a casually stated opinion based on years of longterm disruption and borderline trolling by ED. Also, this isn't ANI, it's Bish's talkpage; no one need supply diffs unless pressed. In my opinion, ED is gunning for some sanctions. He's been playing games with these sorts of articles, and needling and harassing VM and MVBW, for as long as I care to remember. I think it's time to put a permanent stop to it somehow. Although I'm not sure how this ended up here rather than ANI, I think ED is going to end up at ArbCom someday soon if this isn't sorted out. VM and MVBW aren't entirely blameless but most all of the troublemaking, disruption, harassment, game-playing, and community time-wasting comes from ED in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I, for one, fail to see how calling someone "shameless and deceitful" isn't a PA. All this venom and accusations without evidence—that doesn't work for me. If there is disruption, someone ought to compile all the evidence, with minimal invective, and we can go from there. El_C10:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I did not know anything about EtienneDolet until he started editing page Putin with inserts like Putin has enjoyed high to very high approval ratings throughout his career, particularly following the annexation of Crimea in 2014.[7]. This led him and Khirug to an editorial dispute with several users including VM [8]. He then followed and reverted edits by VM on another page [9] and reported him at WP:3RR [10]. The discussion on the page was heated [11] and resulted in complaint by ED about another user [12]. ED then submitted a rejected RfA request and made numerous WP:AE comments. His initial complaints were mostly about editing page Putin. I was especially impressed by this page created by ED. This is something I did not see since the "evidence" by Russavia (talk·contribs) and Offliner on WP:AE. ED followed edits by VM on Syrian war pages. But whatever. I would simply minimize contacts with these guys by leaving any pages where they appear. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Ummm, that wasn't a rejected RfA request, it was a rejected AE request. (I did quite a double take over that one.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
There was a failed RfA request by ED and an WP:AE discussion started by ED where you commented. Thank you for helping to resolve various issues on talk pages and good neutral editing. I would like to minimize my involvement in this. Talking with ED is too frustrating for me [13]. I am not sure how VM has so much patience to talk with him and other strongly minded users on so many pages. I simply can't. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
How would you propose that someone describe an editor who has repeatedly, time and again, taken actions that are underhanded or deceitful? Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
A disruptive editor. Certainly, not call them underhanded or deceitful outright, but refer to their actions instead. El_C09:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Simply calling them "disruptive" fails to identify the specific problematic type of disruption being specifically referred to, which is deceit and underhandedness, which definitely bear mentioning because ED has been utilizing gaslighting/deceptive type of techniques longterm (and therefore merits an ArbCom case in my opinion). Stating facts is not WP:PA. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are just plain wrong on the NPA policy. You can't say something like that about one's character, only speak to their actions. El_C04:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Same as "the possibility that he makes a good-faith request to be unblocked, he recognizes what he did wrong, and said request is accepted, within the next few months"
Should the WP:RESTRICT entry be altered to mention that it applies to the sockmaster (as editing restrictions apply to people and not individual accounts)? Or just removed as almost certainly being redundant, as the master is indeffed and doesn't seem likely to return?
Courtesy-pinging User:MjolnirPants, who opened both the ban discussion and the subsequent SPI.
Oh, you're right, Hijiri. But naah.. I think ignoring the whole topic ban business is fine. I won't bother to remove it, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. But let's all try to remember this sockmaster, and keep a weather eye out for them on Argument from authority , because when you say they don't seem likely to return... ha, I wish. I know what you mean, of course, but ha, I bet they'll return all right. Bishonen | talk08:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC).
Yeah, you're totally right. I was just being coy. Then again, maybe by "return" I meant the possibility that he makes a good-faith request to be unblocked, he recognizes what he did wrong, and said request is accepted, within the next few months. If block evasion is assumed, then the TBAN would still be redundant, as any new sock accounts are already due to be blocked based solely on the block evasion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Darwinfish studies the code for the cropped flying pig with interest. How'd Mr RexxS do that? He cut off a piece of the image! There's both height and width and also size. And yet there's only two dimensions. Hm, hm. I suppose the size must be the size of the actual pig, right, Mr RexxS? Like, size = fatness? darwinfish21:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC).
@Darwinfish: The size is the width of the image that you want to crop (the scale, if you like); the height and width are the dimensions of the "window" that you are cropping to; the offsets (top and left) are the position of the "window" relative to the top-left corner of the whole image. If you're a really good fish, I'll let you play with User talk:RexxS/Overlaid images. --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Ha, that's brilliant, Ms Sarah Welch. And a little alarming, because, you know, how hungry is she? Let's see what Darwinfish can do. He's still staring at the code. Bishonen | talk09:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC).
Darwinfish: those brackets, slashes and semicolons confuse me! too many!! it is not proper English and no way is it grammatically clear, but somehow works! Geek-grammar magic, probably! @RexxS: is there a way to make the overlaid images float, let text wrap around them to the left or right, somehow? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
'zilla + MONGO horses
I actually intended it to work as a template like this:
That should be much more readable, and would make it easier to put inside it something else that floats it off so that text can wrap around it. It also would allow a border, etc. as this demo shows. Do you think I should just move it all to template: space? --RexxS (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
'zilla + MONGO horses running scared
More scary 'zilla coming for the horses
He he, fine template, easier to change. Look, more scary! [Darwinfish is actually very impressed by Ms Sarah's prowess with the less easy code. It confused him deeply.] darwinfish15:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC).
RexxS: Indeed, finer template than before. Darwinfish will probably nibble and figure out the "rightshift" and "downshift", then share the bits. I may try the overlaid images with some maps and a few other ideas. Yes please, when you have a moment, move it to template: space. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks RexxS. Is it possible to make it default to a floating image, or add a parameter such as float = right/left/no? I will play with the "<div..." thingy, in the interim. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I could make the containing div part of the template and pass a parameter, but my natural inclination is to treat the overlay template as one thing and the part that positions it on the page as another, mainly because the way I've demonstrated for floating a container to the right (or left if you prefer) is quite generic: you can wrap anything you want inside that sort of div, so it's a useful thing to learn how to do. Here's a suggestion: see if you can get the sandbox at Template:Overlaid images/sandbox to do what you want - or talk the fish into having a go. It's easy to test by just changing one of the examples to read {{Overlaid images/sandbox ... etc. --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@RexxS: So you know, your efforts have not been a waste.... I have been playing with the sandbox in preview mode. I have some questions, and will bother you after my wits are exhausted. That may be soon enough. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
re. proposed deletion of Lucifer 1970s rock band
Hello,
I received an e-mail message from wikipedia this morning saying Legacypac had proposed (what I thought was) the speedy deletion of the Lucifer (1970s Rock band) article, so I left a message on his/her talk page querying that. I now realise it was not actually about the article but my Luciferfan user name!
Thanks for pointing that out. I chose that user name when I was putting my first article on wikipedia about the group 'Lucifer' a few years ago, obviously with no offence meant to anyone.
Hopefully that's the end of it. Thanks for your help.
Luciferfan (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
Since you participated in the discussion about Dennis Brown's block of Franzboas, I'm pointing you to this, which presents some proposals for additional action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Beyond My Ken. I also engaged Franzboas on their page at an early stage, and they've been here. But I don't think I'll weigh in all the same, as I have some doubts about what should best be done. But thanks for notifying me. Bishonen | talk09:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC).
I thank you and the other guys for the swift action regarding the Craig removal case. Although I suspected some of those accounts were fake, I'm actually surprised that all of them turned out to be so. Clausgroi (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
"Google Juice"
That was odd. I was pinged, but your message didn't show up on my User Talk page at first.
Maybe I should have chosen a less colorful expression, but what I meant, generally, is that a lot of spammers/SEO types think that posting stuff on Wikipedia increases the importance/visibility of their stuff in Google search results. I don't know if that (or other similar tactics) actually work, but it seems a common enough belief that finding spam on User pages and user sandboxes could be a full-time job.
In this specific case, the drive-by editor seemed to be attempting to legitimize the so-called binary options -- you may remember the massive COI/spam battle over Banc de Binary -- so I figured that while it wasn't an advertisement, it WAS an attempt at juicing Google to spin results favorably. --Calton | Talk16:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I wonder if I get any google juice from my first invisible message..? It's in there somewhere — inside some template — though that wasn't where I posted it. I don 't really understand how your page works. Are there templates within templates, perhaps? That never has a good effect. Bishonen | talk16:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC).
Some now-blocked user dumped a load of comments on my User Talk page, where he attempt to bludgeon me by reproducing the ENTIRE contents of a Talk page. Some well-meaning person came in and tried to separate the new from the reproduced comments with some sort of template I don't understand, and I hatted the whole mess so I wouldn't have to look at it. But I've archived everything, so you won't have to deal with it in future. --Calton | Talk16:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Bish. The edits by the disruptive IP seemed familiar, so I did a search on <removed> the name the IP signed with on their talk page, and found similar disruptive edits going all the way back to 2011 (see Special:Contributions/24.25.237.226, <removed>, and posting incoherent rants on talk pages, just like the IP ypu blocked), meaning that they've regularly wasted other editors' time for at least six years now, and still haven't learnt anything from all attempts that have been made to make them understand. - Tom | Thomas.W talk19:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom. I removed some of your post, as we can't link IPs to RL names, unfortunately. But I'll keep it in mind. Does it affect many pages? Possibly an active use of semi would be best. Bishonen | talk21:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC).
In addition to plugging own theories about Norse cosmology they also plug an own home-grown theory (no doubt based on their own surname...) about everything that starts with "Mus" being derived from an old middle-high German word meaning "moss/mosses" (see Special:Contributions/172.78.205.84 for another IP they have used recently...), which means that it also affects any article that starts with Mu*, or has an article title containing Mu*, such as Muspelheim, Musbach valley, Mutzbach, Müssen and so on (see [14] and [15] for two old examples of it, and [16] for a recent one), so they can pop up almost anywhere here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)(The IP signed their posts on their own talk page with their real name, BTW, and have done so for years, thereby AFAIK waiving WP:OUTING)
Good grief, Tom. That reminds me of my highschool teacher talking about how, according to Olof Rudbeck in the Atlantica, Eva, as in Adam and Eve, got her name: it was from Adam exclaiming "Eh! Va!" the first time he saw her. I'm not sure he, my teacher wasn't making it up to amuse us... but it does sound quite Rudbeckian. Reading our article... Rudbeck thought Swedish was the original language of Adam from which Latin and Hebrew had evolved... yes, of course, we're all patriots here... and Diderot used Rudbeck as a cautionary example of the deceptive linking of etymology with mythical history. A similar idea, isn't it? Just refer the IP to Diderot for the "deceptive linking"! And yes, I realise he has outed himself a few times, but still, and especially since it's an unusual name, I'd rather be safe than sorry. Bishonen | talk22:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC).
They're back as Special:Contributions/172.78.207.216, wasting other editors time by using talk pages as a forum, and trying to spread their home-grown theories (see their contributions and talk page). Behaviour and comments that make me believe that the main problem with this editor is lack of competence. They have also edited as Special:Contributions/172.78.220.21, an IP that was blocked for block evasion after I reported it at WP:AIV, but was unblocked again when the admin chose to WP:AGF... - Tom | Thomas.W talk12:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thomas.W, that's a biggish range they apparently have access to, 172.78.192.0/19. But certainly in the past few days, all edits are by our guy,[17] so I've blocked the range for 3 days. Much good may it do, since this is clearly long-time abuse, but I don't have any better ideas. :-( Pinging @There'sNoTime: for information. Bishonen | talk14:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC).
Thanks, Bish. What irritates me most about this IP-hopper isn't that they're trying to push OR theories, because there are lots of people doing that, but the deceptive way they go about doing it. For example by first making changes in one or more articles, such as in this example Musbury Castle (with these edits by multiple obviously related IPs; check the contributions of each of those IPs and you'll see that they're all the same person...), and then asking questions at the reference desk, where the people who answer questions obviously will check what the articles say before answering, and then give an answer that confirms the IP's theories, since the answer is based on the IP's own edits (see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Are the words Muspell, Muspiell, Musburg, and Musbury related?). Giving the IP-hopper the support and confirmation he/she craves, and at the same time making more and more people believe that what the IP-hopper says is true. - Tom | Thomas.W talk15:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for dispatching that vandalism-only account! Alas, his talk page vitriol continues via IP. Very grateful in advance for any kibosh you are able to put on that nonsense! Take care - Julietdeltalima(talk)22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what the deal is, but I'm not going to comment unless some specific issues are presented. Not particularly keen on going on a wild goose chase. —SpacemanSpiff03:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Linguist111, deleted. I suppose they know they have a talkpage? They posted on your page, so it seems logical. But if I end up having to block them to get their attention, so be it. Bishonen | talk12:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC).
Yes, they've replied to me a few times in the past (for example, after I reported them to ANI for persistent addition of original research back in January [19]), but they've hardly ever communicated apart from that. Not to be harsh, but it seems like they're having some competence problems (notice they've never used an edit summary and have created a number of poorly-referenced BLPs [20][21][22][23]). Also notice their last contribution to an article before they started using their user page as a web host was two weeks ago, so they seem to be WP:NOTHERE now as well. If they recreate the page I'd, regrettably, be in favour of a block. Linguisttalk|contribs12:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Is rev-del required here?
Hi,
I reported an IP to AIV. Not sure if this edit qualifies for rev-del. But would you please take a look into it? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran(talk)19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I might as well revdel, I think, and I'll check the rest of the history, which seems very lively, and perhaps protect the article for a few days. Thank you, Usernamekiran. Somebody else has blocked the IP. Bishonen | talk20:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC).
Thanks for the reply. Yes, somebody might have seen the report in AIV. I didnt realise, but that page is going through a lot of vandalism. I think the subject was recently in news. There is already a request on RFPP by other editor, I requested there the protection for 48 hours. —usernamekiran(talk)20:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
PS: Is there any wikipedia guideline/policy or essay which states "a good online presence does not mean notability"? —usernamekiran(talk)
He seems to have a lot of fans, and they all seem to think Wikipedia is a chatboard. I've semiprotected for a week. Well, I don't think we have any principles for what doesn't mean notability so much, there's just too much of those things. But a good online presence isn't a reliable source. Bishonen | talk20:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC).
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
I'd recommend making sure your essay is framed in the same manner – and remember that our guidelines are meant to descriptive of our practices, not prescriptive of what may be allowed. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2017 (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.
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.
I am so annoyed that you are complaining all the time. I have not done you. I only added Next Topmodel Contestans which are my favorites and that is just fun because I thought I can do this on MY page but I did not know anything about it. So I leave now alone and take care of you or others around me all the time. PantherLoop (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Please use wikia.com or some other webforum if you think Listen! is an appropriate way to start a discussion. As has already been explained, no page at Wikipedia belongs to you or any other editor. See WP:UP for the general procedures regarding user pages, but bear in mind that the community decides what happens at every page, and there is only one editor who thinks deletion of your user page was inappropriate. See WP:NOTHERE for an idea of what happens when someone spends too much time on things like user pages. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
(talk page gnome)@PantherLoop: Note that Wikipedia also has user sandboxes (like User:PantherLoop/sandbox). However, even those sandboxes are expected to have to do with Wikipedia, i.e. to be work-in-progress article drafts (per WP:NOTWEBHOST). Those experienced editors and administrators are not harassing you, they are only making sure that Wikipedia policies are observed (which is required for the quality control of the encyclopedia). I agree that there are better suited wikis, blogs and other web hosts for your material. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 05:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
PantherLoop, I understand it can be annoying to get many complaints, but you really have to try to look at the substance of them, not just the annoyance: what they're complaining about. Please click on the blue links that they contain; they're meant to help you. And please don't put exactly the same message on my page as you already put on another, it makes it harder to take it seriously. Bishonen | talk08:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC).
Help me avoid AE
Once again, I am in need of some assistance...this person really needs a topic ban. Battleground behavior, disruptive talk page posts bordering on harassment; see this, and the fact that their user page is lifted from Tyler Durden; original research and battleground behavior [24] (that content is not supported by the source; and their comment is total nonsense). If all this were not enough, plenty of name calling, most of it after being warned. I dropped an ARBIPA notification on their talk page yesterday, and they went ahead and reinstated their original research, so I'd say they were eligible for a ban pronto. I'm posting here to avoid a much longer trip to AE; if you don't feel up to dealing with this, and that would be perfectly understandable, let me know and I'll bite that bullet. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, do you feel the same way about SPI as you do about AE? I blocked this one yesterday and for some reason he refers to the account you mention above. It's likely the same person from language and bheavior, but just trolling in a different way. —SpacemanSpiff08:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Aha. I thought WBV seemed unexpectedly aware of the idea of multiple accounts for a new user (in the sense of accusing everybody else of using them). However, I have treated them as a new user and only topic banned for three months, which is pretty short for such disruption. Bishonen | talk08:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC).
Many thanks, Bish. Spaceman, honestly I'm not certain. I'm quite sure WBV has had some experience on WIkipedia before, but I'm not sure where or as who. I was initially not convinced that he is the same person as epistemphilic, but after looking at the evidence I am more certain that they are in fact the same person. I will look at the behavioral similarities in greater detail tomorrow. With MYA, I'm really not certain, mostly because there isn't much material; but they do share similar quirks of in their similarly poor english. Watch the SPI, I'll post something in more detail there shortly, since this will have to deal with behavioral evidence. Vanamonde (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The Durdens
Hi Bishonen. Out of curiosity, how was CheckUser information able to verify that it was one person, not two, operating the Tyler Durden and Marla Durden accounts? As I understand it, CheckUser is only able to verify that two accounts used the same device and Internet connection. In this case, both Tyler and Marla were open about the fact that they were using the same connections and devices, so it shouldn't be a surprise to us that CheckUser would verify this. Mz7 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I go into a deep trance and sense that the two accounts are in fact one person. Actually, there were some technical characteristics that made it more likely they were one account person.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) and (edit conflict). Hi, Mz7. I wrote a whole thing, but I see the CheckUser in question has shared his shamanistic insights already. (You mean, more likely they were one person, right, Bbb23?) Anyway, they did not affirm that they were using the same device. Tyler merely said, when you complained about Marla having edited from his, Tyler's account (as well as her own) and you told him he should get a new password at once[25] that, no, he hadn't given her his password, but he had 'had to' let her edit his user page from his PC, because she 'insisted him' (and he was logged in on his PC at the time, I assume, or it wouldn't make any sense at all).[26] The reason she had insisted was that, as a new user, she was unable to edit his userpage from her own account. If we weren't all so frantically good-faith-assuming, he would have been blocked after that rigmarole ('had to', indeed). But I'm sure you can see that the implication is that she normally used her own device, as indeed would be likely. I'd do a double-take, for my part, if I saw two siblings, aged 22 and 17, sharing one device between them, in this day and age (and one of them referring to it as "my PC", yet). Of course that wasn't it. WP:BEANS applies re Bbb23's trances, I expect. Bishonen | talk21:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC).
Now, now, RexxS, Mz7 is one of the most helpful and civil administrators at WP:SPI. It's a pleasure to deal with him, so no snark, please, even if you consider it mild.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: 'Shonen's talk page is one of the most popular places for vandals, spammers and sockpuppets to post, so asking here for more details about the technicalities of checkuser is a really, really bad idea. I'm one of the least patient and uncivil editors to grace these pages, so I'm unlikely to be responsive to admins like you telling me what to do. Is that clear enough for you? --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Mz7: There's also a third Confirmed account, and they're playing/trolling around with the third account and and Tyler Durden attacking each other on a Talk page. Maybe the third account is the black sheep in the family. You should also take a moment to read some of Marla's comments. It's like something out of a badly written children's book.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for all the input, everyone. I don't like the situation any more than you do, and given all this, the blocks are reasonable to me. @RexxS: I'm indeed aware of WP:BEANS. My only question was whether CheckUser information is able, in this case, to provide more information beyond what Tyler and Marla had already made public to us. Since the answer is clearly "yes", I'm satisfied, and I'm not pushing for any more details. Mz7 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, I still have my doubts. Having extensively interacted with Tyler Durden over the last six months, I know him quite well, but Marla Durden was doing newbie edits like this. But, now that Mahant Yogi Adityanath also got tagged as a sock of his, I think I will need to wait to hear from him whenever he is able to come back and file an unblock request. But the funny thing is that TD has been doing quite well, earning barnstars and appreciation from several quarters. He has no reason to play games like this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The manga/anime drama was puzzling, the disruption bad. In the best case, Tyler Durden may have tried to welcome others to wikipedia, be protective, then cover their mistakes. In the worst case, shadows of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Either way a mess, a useless time sink, not helpful to the project. I fully support the blocks by Spiffy, Bbb23, Bish, others. Time to move on, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Honestly I'm rather baffled by this whole episode. this one was a totally pointless account, and the shenanigans with the "sister" as well; but the "master" did seem to be able to edit productively, when they knuckled down to it. I'm especially confused by the idea that Tyler created two socks, but the whole lot are unrelated to this lot (we could use some behavioral evaluation there, btw) because I can see a user creating a sock to play Jekyll and Hyde in the belief that it will raise their standing; what I cannot see is a person who creates socks to do this while engaged in a dispute with another sock farm. To me, this suggests that either Tyler is a lot less mature, and possibly younger, than we think him to be, or that this is part of a larger pattern of disruption, that we have only begun to discover. Vanamonde (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I have just come to know about this. Moreover, I am traveling, and have only hurriedly read a few snatches of the supposed family drama that has proved Tyler Durden's downfall. I too thought Tyler was becoming a productive editor, and contrasted with his productive contributions, these seem puzzling. I don't believe, though, that they rise to the level of an indefinite block. I say this as someone who has very likely interacted with Tyler more than anyone commenting here, with the obvious exception of Kautilya3. Please consider blocking him for a short time, a couple of weeks perhaps, even a month, and allowing him to return with ample warnings about any future infringements. Our ultimate goal is to see the creation of reliable content, not to penalize people over indiscretions that only obliquely interfere with the creation of that content. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»09:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Fowler&fowler. I have respect for your opinion, and Kautilya3's, and have been considering shortening the block to a couple of weeks; but I'm not sure. I don't think his unblock request, which I just noticed, does him any favours, especially his suggestion that his sister probably created the other sock, as a "prank". In other words, he hasn't socked at all; it was his WP:LITTLESISTER's doing, all of it. That's a little much for me. Bishonen | talk11:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC).
Bish, I've looked at the behavior of this bunch once again, and I'm more convinced of what I've said above. Either Tyler is telling the truth; or he is also connected to this lot, and we are just being hugely trolled, as Spiff seems to be suggesting. I haven't made up my mind, but I cannot believe that if he has socks at all, he has only two. Vanamonde (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bishonen: Yes, I do understand that his explanations are not convincing. But, from my perspective, there is the counterpoise of his increasingly mature contributions, and the fact that the infringements seem to come from no provocations that commonly lead to the creation of socks. (And I've crossed paths with a few masters of the art in my time, starting with the redoubtable user:Hkelkar.) I am suggesting that we ignore Tyler's explanations, that we not request him to come up with better ones, simply block him for a month, with no access to his user talk page, allowing him ample time to meditate on his folly (or at the very least his choice of company), to allow him to return on the condition that if there are any other incidents of this sort, a non-negotiable indefinite block will ensue. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, I believe that Tyler Durden is telling the truth, as I said on his talk page. It looks like Bbb23 is looking into the details, but in general the computer tools haven't gotten so far better that we can dispense with human judgement where needed. To claim that TD was playing pranks against himself is too far-fetched and defies everything we know about him. We need to take a second look. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think Bbb23 has this well under control. If Tyler provides the information Bbb23 has asked for, it should be possible to see that there is a little sister (i'm keeping an open mind on the existence of one) and who controls the Yogi account. If it turns out that Tyler was socking, and that the explanation provided in the unblock request was wrong, then an indef block is the best option going forward (sockpuppeteers never reform). If the evidence is murky, then a short block of the sort Fowler is advocating is the right thing to do. If the evidence clears Tyler, then, I'd support an immediate unblock. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not taking the position that he did not make the sockpuppets, only suggesting that even if he did, and lied badly about it, he deserves to be given another chance because he was becoming much better at NPOV content creation and reliable sourcing. Playing "gotcha" with a few sockpuppets the motives of whose creation remain murky, misses his positive contributions. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
If making positive contributions were a "get-out-of-jail-free" card for sockpuppetry, we'd still be graced by Jack Merridew's technical skills. Not to mention that Geogre would never have been so badly treated by ArbCom that he stopped editing. Are Tyler Durden's contributions really worth so much than either of those two? And before you ask – yes, I'm still pissed off about the way they were treated. --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
No, but I am saying that positive contributions can be a get-out-of-jail-after-serving-a-month-card if you are a minor (by own admission and behaviorally) and a first time offender for sockpuppetry which doesn't, prima facie, involve orchestrating greater support for a POV or avoiding a block. Meridew was one among 45 sockpuppet brethren, some seasoned editors with edit counts in the quadruple, even quintuple, digits; had a block log a mile long, lasting over many years, Tyler has three sockpuppets, whose combined edit count barely crosses 50. The editing histories of Meridew and Tyler are not apples and oranges; they are watermelons and cranberries, the former selling at half-price after a week in the supermarket, the latter still in the bog. This is as far as I go with making my point. Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
You fixed the wrong mistake in indenting (see WP:LISTGAP if you can't see why). Jack was nevertheless a skilled and valuable editor whose crime was to eventually kick back against still being under an unnecessary sanction over four years after serving out a "standard offer" of rehabilitation. Geogre was a peerless writer on many subjects whose crime was to create an undeclared alternative account which he used when editing from work. I can see no equivalent justification behind Tyler Durden creating sockpuppets and playing games with us. Let me make my final point: It is fundamentally unwise to treat children as if they were adults; but it is catastrophically perverse to treat adults as if they were children. Many of the problems we experience on Wikipedia are quite probably a result of making those two mistakes. --RexxS (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I want to make 2 points. First, I want to echo Kautilya3's points above. TylerDurden appears to a productive editor and it is very much out of character for him to do something like this. If he has a trolling tendency, why didn't it manifest itself before? If you're going to make a bold claim like TylerDurden is "Mr. Jekyl & Dr.Hyde" you better have a long history to back it up.
The second point is regarding the scale of disruption caused. If TylerDurden did resort to sockpuppetry, he should no doubt be punished. But that punishment should not be an indefinite block. Tyler/Marla Durden caused less disruption than many edit-warring users do, who often get only 24-hour or 72-hour blocks.VRtalk06:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
User:WikiBodhiVamsa
@Mz7: Tyler Durden's previous name was Vamsee614 and the last name is same as WikiBodhiVamsa. They could geolocate to the same region, as @Bbb23: found WikiBodhiVamsa unrelated in different SPI. They both mention their name and caste in their userpage. Checkusers don't give private details, but if Bbb23 can confirm that they are from same city? Actually they have already given their location in their userpage. If they are unrelated, I don't want WikiBodhiVamsa to be blocked. MarvellousSpider-Man01:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
No, WikiBodhiVamsa isn't blocked at all, merely topic-banned. Yes, I notice:d the "Vamsa" coincidence, Marvellous Spider-Man; as you say, they both gave their RL names on their userpages. It's odd, for sure. Bishonen | talk08:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC).
Interesting. I never knew that! However, "Vamsee" means flute, Krishna's musical instrument and part of TD's real name. Not sure if WBV knew what "Vamsee" means, but he has been trying to mimic or mock TD from the beginning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Please don't attach any importance to the welcoming stuff. I advised TD to give guidance to new users when he reverts their edits. That is the right thing to do in my opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
RexxS: Indeed, Vaṃsa (vansha) is a notable topic in Buddhism as in Buddhavamsa etc. Also in Hinduism as Suryavamsa (solar/son-based family) and Chandravamsa (moon/daughter-based family) of the Puranas. Jainism too. Surprise!, we don't have an article. Will create a stub this week, unless someone else saves me the effort. Kautilya3: we mention vamshi in the Bansuri article, perhaps need to add vamsee in there as an alternate spelling, and maybe even a redirect. Some contributions and replies by Tyler Durden were indeed thoughtful and productive which is probably why we are even discussing all this... WikiBodhiVamsa account, fwiw, is quite new. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I am quite shocked that User:Ms Sarah Welch would suggest that I might be a sock puppet of TylerDurden. That is completely false. The fact that something so utterly false is being said about TylerDurden makes me wonder if some of the other stuff said against him are also equally false.VRtalk06:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Bosnian bullshitometer
It's just gone right up to 11, triggered by the works of User:JurganHolst crapflooding Bosnian pyramid claims with this. I can't take any admin action on bullshit grounds as I'm involved, but as it's a clear copyright violation from here (including the bizarre parenthetical bit about autism) I feel justified in imposing a 24h copyvio block after he added it again after being warned. I'd be eternally (well, for at least a few days, maybe a week) grateful if you could cast your sharp admin eyes over it (and perhaps ask one of your friendly ankle-biters to guard the perimeter). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll look later, but do you think it's a sock, Boing!? You'll remember the user who is now indefinitely topic banned from the subject, see for instance [27]. Bishonen | talk12:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC).
No, I'm sure it's a different religious follower. There's a comment from someone with the same name here (being careful what I say for Outing reasons as I/we? know the identity of the banned one). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Starting with 24 hours for copyvio seems about right. I dropped a DS alert, though I don't think it's very likely to be of use if the editor persists on the same level. Ordinary blocks may be simpler. Bishonen | talk17:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC).
Looks like he gave up. Did you see the banned one has written quite a bit about the iniquity of Wikipedia on his blog? (That surely can't be outing. So many people have.) Bishonen | talk15:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC).
(edit conflict) All three are static, now all blocked for a week for block evasion. I suppose I might leave the article unprotected as a honeypot for the IPs (proxies?) the individual has access to, but.. nah. Semi'd one week. It's never been protected before, so I'm loth to give it longer, but I will if the same disruption recurs after the week expires. (Provided somebody alerts me.) Bishonen | talk10:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC).
P. S. I have also blocked the 59.89.4.0/22 range, to take in the IP posting at the bottom of this page (59.89.5.91). Bishonen | talk13:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC).
Carrera y Carrera
Hi Bishonen, how are you? :)
As you asked for, I changed the first sentence of the article Carrera y Carrera, I also added a source to El País news about Carrera y Carrera(probably the most important newspaper in Spanish in the world) and a source to Vogue_(magazine)´s news about it too. I think Carrera y Carrera is well-known in many countries so this article should stay in Wikipedia and not be deleted. What´s the next step? Thank you, Pravdaverita (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Pravdaverita, your new sources are fine, and improve the article greatly. Another thing you could do to improve it is to remove Carrera y Carrera's own website as a source. Also sources like DesignJewelryBrands.com, a directory where it's pretty obvious that representatives of the brands describe themselves — it's not a neutral third-party source. Note, it's all right to use such self-created sources for things like neutral history, such as the first paragraph of the "History" section. Sourcing things like that to Carrera y Carrera itself is fine, but something like exporting to over 40 countries — that should preferably have a neutral third-party source. Also, there are some dead links, such as Brands of Spain — it would be good if you could find something else to use for that. (I hope Brands of Spain isn't needed at all, because it's obviously another self-created directory.) Thank you too, RexxS. RexxS took the next step, Pravdaverita — he removed the prod template. If he hadn't, you could have removed it yourself. I hope you understand how to use RexxS's links — if you have trouble with them, I'm sure he'll help, he's a nice dinosaur. Bishonen | talk18:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC).
Sorry, P3DRO, I don't have time to look properly tonight, I'll do it tomorrow. But the diff you refer to is nothing IMO, considering the post they're responding to. Bishonen | talk23:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC).
I forgot to mention one thing. I'm sure that this user Notyetmyboy is a Sockpuppet of slbEdit. The modus operandi is the same, he only contributed in pages related to SL Benfica, he was only active when slbEdit was not editing and he stopped editing when slbEdit started to edit again. Also, the user name is a clear provocation. I once called him a boy because of his behaviour and he was suspended for one month, thus the username: "not yet my boy". P3DRO (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
P3DRO, did the Notyetmyboy account edit disruptively? It doesn't much look like it, as nothing has been posted on their talkpage. Notyetmyboy edited while SLBedit was away, yes, but not while they were blocked, so it wasn't used for block evasion. If it wasn't used for disruption either, nor used while the SLBedit account was editing, I can't say I'm very interested in the possibility that they're an alternative account, nor will a Checkuser be, because it wouldn't matter much.
I have to admit I have little or no understanding of sports articles, and I'm reluctant to dig into SLBedit's very voluminous edit history to find personal attacks or other disruption. If you give me some diffs with examples of those things, I'll certainly look at them. (Preferably something better than the example of "bad language" you gave above.) Bishonen | talk10:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC).
Every part of the name is capable of offending somebody except the "the", so definitely a username block, I think. Bishonen | talk23:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC).
Can't you see that Ms Sarah Welch has changed the entire article/Page in last 15 days. This article was a standard for many years. and Now suddenly someone with a posh Christian name ropes in and changes it and you make this page protected. If you really have some morals and ethics, then make it protected from June 12, 2017 standard and not the ones that Ms Sarah Welch has changed single-handed. Though it can;t be ruled out that you are all same a gang of wiki thugs... Rascals of highest order, if you can't see who is vandalizing what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.5.91 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether people have posh names or not. What matters is that they add well-sourced and appropriate material. Ms SW's sources were excellent, and you removed the additions, and the sources, with no input on talk, and taking no responsibility for your edits, such as you could do by creating an account. You don't merely use dynamic IPs but you also flit from range to range to evade your block. Please sign your posts, so people can at least see which IP is talking for the moment. Even better: don't post, because you're blocked. Bishonen | talk13:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC).
Just do what I do, Ms Sarah Welch, and pretend you understand it. See, what I did was I put all the 59.89.xx IPs I had seen, which included 59.89.5.91, into an IP Range Tool For Dummies my son has made for me (this is why we have children), and got the range 59.89.4.0/22. That means that range does include 59.89.5.91; it doesn't mean I understand anything. No, 59.89.4.0/22 was the range I blocked; there was no "5" in it anywhere after the leading 5: see the block log here. @RexxS, Johnuniq, and Writ Keeper: maybe one of you can explain the mumbo jumbo for Ms Sarah? Even better, maybe you can find a simple IP range tool on the internet for her to use? (I can't away with Wikipedia's tool, or any other I've found out there. Unfortunately the stupid-friendly one I use isn't online.) Oh, look at MONGO's mountain lake! Bishonen | talk20:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC).
Hmm, I can try, but it's gonna necessarily be kinda technical, so I'm sorry in advance if it doesn't make sense. Basically: y'all know that computers work in binary (0s and 1s), not in the decimal system (0-9) that we humans work with. The thing about IP address ranges is that they use binary math to calculate the ranges, but when it gets translated back into human-readable decimal numbers, it doesn't look right.
So an IPv4 address (the X.X.X.X numbers we're familiar with) is a 32-bit number; it's represented in the actual computer as a set of 32 bits, which is to say 32 1s or 0s. When we display an IP address, to make it a little more legible, we break it up into 4 numbers, each of which represents 8 of those bits, and then we convert those bit groups into decimal. As it happens a set of 8 bits can represent a total of 256 numbers--which is why each part of an IP address ranges from 0-255. So, if we were trying to see what 59.89.4.0 (ignore the /22 part for now) looks like to a computer, we would do this in reverse: 59 in binary is 00111001, 89 is 01011001, 4 is 00000100, and 0 is--of course--00000000. So we could read 59.89.4.0 in binary as 00111001.01011001.00000100.00000000.
Now, what the /22 does is define the range, and it does that by identifying the significant bits in binary--so what 59.89.4.0/22 means is the range of IP addresses that have the same first 22 binary digits (which in this case means all the IP addresses that look like 00111001.01011001.000001XX.XXXXXXXX in binary.) This includes all the IP addresses that look like 59.89.4.X, but it also includes all the IP addresses that look like 59.89.5.X. This is because the binary representation of 5 is 00000101, and so the binary representation of 59.89.5.0 is 00111001.01011001.00000101.00000000. As you can see, the first 22 binary digits of 59.89.5.0 are the same as the first 22 digits of 59.89.4.0, so when we block 59.89.4.0/22, 59.89.5.X is included in the range block. In fact, the range block will include all IP addresses that fall between 59.89.4.X and 59.89.7.X, since that's all the IP addresses that have those first 22 binary digits. Make sense?
Now, if we wanted to *just* block 59.89.5.X, without touching 59.89.4.X, 59.89.6.X, or 59.89.7.X, we'd block 59.89.5.0/24 instead. This time, the /24 instead of the /22 now tells us that we want the first 24 binary digits to be constant. Since we know that each of the first three decimal numbers represents 8 digits apiece, and that 8*3 is 24, we know that all of the binary digits in the first three numbers would have to match, meaning that that would make sure that only the IP addresses with the same exact first three decimal numbers would be included. Writ Keeper⚇♔20:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Look... so many 1s and 0s!
I'm grateful that Writ Keeper provided the details. The condensed version would be to assert that 59.89.4.0/22 means the first 22 bits of 59.89.4.0 when written in binary, and that is the same as the first 22 bits of 59.89.5.91, so the latter is included in the former, along with all other IP addresses that start with the same 22 bits. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both. Actually when I read that, both the long and the short version, I kind of understand it for a minute, or Darwinfish does; but I can not get my head to actually think in binary, to calculate the ranges. So I just use a tool. Did either of you have an online tool to suggest for Ms Sarah? I suppose there may be one at labs. Bishonen | talk23:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC).
Hi Ms Sarah Welch. Just wanted to let you know that I hid the non-free image File:LittleRascalsSaveTheDay.jpg you had added with an earlier post. Non-free images are only allowed to be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. The file can be linked using the colon trick if you like; I didn't do that myself because I wasn't sure where you want the link to show up. In addition, you can replace the non-free with one of the files found at c:Category:Our Gang if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Oops, oops Marchjuly! My bad, my bad. Thanks for the note. I should have scrolled down and seen the permissions. Next time! We have a decent collection of Die kleinen Strolche images. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you technically allowed do that?
I saw your close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Técnico (moved from WP:AN). I think you were far too merciful, but then in recent months it seems like everyone except ArbCom is moving away from permabans in favour of temporary bans in even the most extreme cases (see also: Drmies's dealing with a certain comics-focused editor in February).
But your close seemed to be effectively a one-year imposition of a DS-style restriction on the user (he can be given a more extensive topic ban on the discretion of any single admin), which -- while less restrictive than what the majority !vote was -- seems a little beyond the purview of an ANI-closer. I ask because a few months back, in an unban discussion, an admin seemingly offered to support the unban if he were allowed place the user under similar probation indefinitely and unilaterally replace the ban if disruption resumed, which seemed like a gross misunderstanding of how the banning policy. Your action was not that bad (the discussion was grey enough, and participation low enough, that you probably could have closed it without action, and even a super-!vote like that would not have been the same as unilaterally overturning a clear consensus), but I'm always worried when I see anything like "admins can impose bans" being placed by anyone other than the Arbitration Committee in anything other than extreme circumstances.
When is too much drama not enough? The most sensible response is seen in Special:Contributions/Técnico which shows that the account may never be used again—what a surprise. I have no idea whether Bishonen correctly filled in the form required to sanction a user, but it is just a statement of the obvious, namely that if an editor gets the result shown in that ANI section and gets a lenient sanction and later repeats their disruption, an admin could respond in a suitable manner. A suitable manner might include an indefinite topic ban under the terms of WP:ARBAP2—that would be based on repeated disruption after a clear warning. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify, User:Johnuniq: I'm not ignoring you to be rude. I had a reply to you ready to post when my iPad suddenly jumped from 2% to 0% and I lost it all. The basic gist is in my replies to Bish below, but I was too depressed about what happened to redraft my direct reply. Basically, I didn't mean to imply that I was criticizing Bish for filling out the wrong form: I was curious if (she thought?) she was technically filling out the correct form since I've seen a lot of weird shit going on around bans over the last seven months or so, and I was wondering if it was just a coincidence or I was just missing something. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri 88, no, I'm probably not, it was pretty IAR. Though there is a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card in WP:CBAN: "the community may engage in a discussion to impose a topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction". My sense from that is that I'm more free to impose tailored sanctions than when I'm banning per arbcom discretionary sanctions. I'm more worried about imposing a sanction nobody in the discussion had actually suggested, than about going beyond the purview of an ANI-closer, but I still don't think it's fair to call my close a supervote. Lenient ban + probation was meant to be a compromise between all the points reasonably suggested. The discussion was at a high level (except for the user's own commentary), and I tried to find a solution that would do justice to everybody's concerns. Probably didn't succeed, because that would have been what my language calls a tulipanaros, a tulip rose, but it was my aim. Bishonen | talk09:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC).
Oh, I didn't mean to call your close a supervote -- that would entail the assumption that most (or perhaps some) of the !voters would have disagreed with you on the substance; I suspect some of those more vested in the dispute than I might take greater issue than I do with your mercy, but it wasn't like you chose to overrule the community consensus in favour of going the opposite way. What I meant was that it would have been a supervote if you had decided to close with no action whatsoever (something I've seen in similar cases), but that even if you had done that it wouldn't have been as bad as overturning a previously imposed community sanction based on the assumption that you could unilaterally reinstate it without another ANI flare-up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
P.S. As John implies, the probation is also technically unnecessary. Since the user has received the DS alert, any admin can impose a topic ban at discretion should the disruption continue. Indeed, I thought about doing it per DS myself. But with the full and well-considered ANI discussion staring me in the face, it seemed disrespectful to the community to just place the usual old quick-and-dirty arbcom sanction. Bishonen | talk11:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC).
Yeah, I know. I also suspect (based partly on my experience with similar editors in the past) that they are either gone for good now that they have been told that what they had been doing was unacceptable, or will violate the probation anyway. If I had any serious concerns about your specific close it would be that the latter would happen and we'd just have another flare-up at ANI. I was mainly asking a technical question because I've seen the "admins can impose bans" thing crop up from time to time, and even though you could have cited ARBAP, it didn't seem like you or the majority of commenters in the thread were explicitly citing that. My experience earlier this year with an admin who will remain nameless has made me wish ANI-closers and/or random admins had less power to impose or overturn community sanctions and/or sanctions that should have been treated as community sanctions. I'm too lazy to check, but I can't help but imagine that there's a reason sysops are only allowed unilaterally impose sanctions in certain designated areas where ArbCom has given them the authority to do so, while sanctions otherwise require community consensus or a specific ArbCom ruling. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Request Opinion
Hi Bishonen,
I restored an ANI thread after it was removed by an IP editor with the edit summary "rv troll." This was my first action in the area, I was unaware of the ongoing discussion / dispute before the ANI thread appeared. I was then approached on my talk page and I made this post. The IP suggested it demonstrated that I am WP:NOTHERE, and another user has described my post as violating WP:NPA. As an experienced admin who I respect, I ask for your view of my actions in this ANI thread, on my user talk page, and at the end of the article talk section (most of which preceded the ANI thread). Pleas be frank, if I've misjudged my actions or acted inappropriately, I would rather be told. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Surely you don't take criticism from an editor who behaves like 71.198.247.231 seriously, Ed? If that had been a name account, it would be indeffed by now. Oh, wait.. could that possibly be the reason they prefer editing from an IP? Well, I never! Anyway, I've blocked them for a couple of weeks for disrupting ANI, it's ridiculous. As for Arthur Rubin, who I assume you're referring to, I've no idea what he's talking about in the ANI thread, and I see other people in the discussion also appear baffled. Bishonen | talk12:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC).
I thought the IP's comment about NOTHERE was funny because it was so absurd, and their post to me that I should strike my description of their behaviour as disruption was also ridiculous. Thanks for the block on the IP, I was surprised no one had done it sooner, to be honest. I was just trying to give you the background that led to the comments from Arthur Rubin, whose post to ANI on deadnaming is followed by one with the edit summary "clear WP:NPA violation, even if accurate." I do not think of myself as someone who engages in personal attacks, and I was very surprised to see an admin refer to a post of mine as a clear violation of WP:NPA, and that is why I sought input from you as an admin who I respect and trust to honestly tell me if I've done something foolish and violated the rule against personal attacks. Arthur is talking about deadnaming so I interpret his comment as referring to my post to Colonial Overlord on my user talk page. Arthur has also said that the IP has a point in saying I am not here to build an encyclopaedia. I don't want to turn the ANI thread into a discussion of my comments as the thread needs to focus on the behaviour at talk:Trans woman. However, the comment about my being NOTHERE which I saw as silly coming from the IP is much more serious and objectionable to me coming from an admin. An admin stating on ANI that I have clearly violated WP:NPA is also problematic when I was trying to make the point that disrespecting the gender identity of a transgender person is offensive and unacceptable. I intend to raise it with Arthur on his talk page, but I wanted a reality check from an experienced Wikipedian who was outside the situation first. Am I missing something and can I be seen as NOTHERE and having clearly violated WP:NPA? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Not IMO, no. I don't understand why Arthur Rubin thinks your use of the term "deadnaming" is a personal attack. If you look up Deadname on Wikipedia, you get redirected to Transphobia, which says (leaving out the footnotes): "Misgendering can be deliberate or accidental. It ordinarily takes the form of a person using pronouns to describe someone that are not the ones that person prefers, calling a person "ma'am" or "sir" in contradiction to the person's gender identity, using a pre-transition name for someone instead of a post-transition one (called "deadnaming"), or insisting that a person must behave consistently with their assigned sex", etc bla bla. That's the only reference to deadnaming I've found, and you can see it even says it can be deliberate or accidental — so how could telling people not to do it possibly be a PA? I don't understand how Arthur Rubin can construe your telling Colonial Overlord that he has no right to deadname a transgendered person (" that does not give you or anyone else the right to violate the BLP policy by deadnaming or by denying any transgendered person their gender identity"[29]) as a personal attack. It seems very far-fetched to me. As for the way he, Arthur Rubin, expressed it — "The anon has a point"[30] — when the only point the anon had made was that you were not here to build an encyclopedia — I can only assume it was accidental, and not intended the way it sounds. It would be, well, pretty extravagant for AR to suggest out of the blue that you're NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk15:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC).
Thank you for your comments and opinion, Bishonen. I am glad to say that Arthur Rubin has struck both of his comments in the ANI thread. :) By the way, the IP made an unblock request that leaves me curious about whose bad hand they are. EdChem (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Someone who thinks I have a personal vendetta against them isn't a very distinguishing characteristic, though. Users who think that (or to put it with more precision, who say they think that, and that several other admins also have a personal vendetta against them) are as the sands of the Sahara. Bishonen | talk09:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC).
Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Doidlo and Doidlodilalodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldilodo
Thank you for the kind words. Actually, I soft-blocked the long-name account, so it was okay for them to create the shorter one afterward. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk)
Yes, it was OK after you softblocked it for being too long, but was not OK in the sense that Doidlodilalodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldilodo seems to have been itself a sock. At least it was sockblocked by DoRD.[31] BTW I see you've also welcomed a medium-length name account, Doidlodilalo, before you welcomed Doidlo.[32] If you're not worried they'll think it's OK to use both, fine — I'll leave it up to you. I may be getting jaded, but I don't think a user who messes about to this extent, with the "frodesiak" names too, shows great promise of becoming a useful contributor, but let's hope I'm wrong. Bishonen | talk00:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC).
All this, ...lodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldil... stuff is hurting my brain and I'm getting confused. :) From what I see Doidlodilalodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldilodo was the first account, softblocked by me, with an invitation to create another account. So, that long account was never a sock. The new accounts created were made (according to the user) to be possible new, main accounts.
I agree about your last point. The number of accounts created after the soft block and their names indicate a bit of trolling. I just want this editor to get to work using one account and make up for the time wasted so far. I'm doubtful and suspect this user was around before and had a problem with an admin.
The user just created Dioldo (against your warning, I know). I'll keep an eye on things. (You are within your rights to block if you really want to.) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Just to relieve my feelings, you mean? No, no. They're such a charmer I'll be happy to leave them in your care. Seriously, good luck. Bishonen | talk00:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC).
Hello...Today is my birthday, so I checked the calendar to see who else shares my special day! So happy First Edit Day! LAIf you reply here, please {{Ping}} me. @ 09:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Trump tower meeting
In regards to closing of the afD. Don't you think the discussion should remain open? Even though nominator withdrew there were multiple other people who voted delete, and a lot who voted merge. There really didn't seem to be clear consensus if any of the three ways yet, and regardless of the withdrawal there was still a debate on the issue. WikiVirusC(talk)12:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, WikiVirusC, thanks for bringing it up, and you may be right. But the nominator withdrew the nomination because the article had become something completely different from what they nominated, both in name and content. That means that people in the discussion voted on different versions, and my thinking was it would be more logical to start a new discussion — a second AfD — which deals with the new version, rather than attempting to assess such a fluctuating discussion, where people were talking about all different things. Perhaps it would be a good idea to start a new AfD, which is about the current version and under the current name? In case you'd like to do that, please feel free to tell people I ("the closing admin") said so, in case they complain it's too soon. Another thought: anybody is in any case free to perform a merge-plus-redirect. Bishonen | talk15:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC).
It was moved to the changed name pretty early on, but most of the replies/votes were after that, but I now understand the reasoning for closing and just allowing a second nom to happen. I don't feel a new discussion is necessary since a lot of the non-keep votes were merge, and we can discuss a merge on talk page. If someone else feels strongly about deletion I assume they will nominated again I guess, but most likely decision will probably be merge or redirect anyways. WikiVirusC(talk)16:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
A photograph from the noble nursery.
Such pages should not be allowed on Wikipedia and those who create them should be horsewhipped and then banned for ever. They are nothing more than malicious and deranged anarchists set on destroying world harmony by maligning noble and honourable statesmen. I strongly doubt that Mr Trump or any of his family have ever met any of those subversive Bolsheviks running Russia, and what if they had? They were doubtless only discussing human rights abuses in Russia or gay pride or of the other new confangled causes which seem to so preoccupy people these days - all this fake news needs to be stopped at once. I am a great admirer of Mr Trump and he of me but like him, I woudl never allow my personal feelings to cloud my judgement. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The Lady doubtlessly is privy to information confirming such that we commoners are unable to access; I have no reason not to trust her judgment in this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Isn't it time you offered yourself for adminship, m'lady, if only to redress Wikipedia's political balance? It is often said that admins are a disgustingly liberal lot. Bishonen | talk19:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC).
It is indeed high time that I wielded the admin tools, perhaps you should nominate me my dear. I am one of the most liberal and egalitarian people on the planet. My mind is so broad I sometimes wonder how I manage to support it. All my servants will regale you with tales of my generosity and good nature. I can see their happy faces now, as I recall last Christmas Eve when I anounced that as their Christmas gift, I would carpet the back stiairs at my own expense. Now is indeed the time for my elevation. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I wonder, is adminship not a touch common for someone as elevated as Lady Catherine? If she were a star, she would be the North Star, the constant guiding light around which all others revolve, and so should her Wiki-Status be... not a common admin but a unique position of inspiration through her benevolent example, her supreme condescension, and her willingness to rebuke cetaceans with whom she is vexed. We need a Wikipedia:Request for Catherinehood (singular, as there can be only one WikiCatherine), to formally recognise Lady Catherine as the Wikipedia OverLady with all permissions and whose merest whims would bind us mere mortal Wikipedians by their self-evident infallibility. EdChem (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I can say EdChem without fear of contradiction or accusations of false modesty that you have a perspicacity matched only by my own. It is true that I have a humble ability to improve the lives of others with my wisdom, tact and empathy. The tools would be useful, particularly the check-user one which would enable me to glimpse into an editor's private life and thus advise them on real life as well as virtual problems. I have always been very interested in what others are doing - I have a very inquiring mind which is why I am so intelligent. Perhaps you could arrange for the check user to be assigned to my account toute-de-pronto. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
For the record, not all of us are left wing commie would be regicides. As far as I'm concerned Western Civilization has been in terminal decline since 1789. I really must make a point of calling on your ladyship. I have the honour to be and remain your obedient servant etc. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Lady Catherine, I hope you can excuse the tardiness of my response, I was overwhelmed by the magnificence of your generosity and rendered speechless by the effortless poise with which you manage to balance your infinite humility with your indescribable combination of Delphic wisdom, Wildean wit, Applebian discretion, Troiian empathy, and positively anti-Trumpian tact. I feel confident that you will be well accustomed to the effect your august personage can have on those of us who are members of the weaker sex, and believe that your universally-admired condescension will be more than adequate to the task of constructing a reply of unparalleled truthiness. Sadly, on arranging check user permissions for your account, it is not within my authority nor my power. Further, having been critical of ArbCom at times, for reasons I am sure you can readily intuit given your own perspicacity, they are generally disinclined to respond positively to my suggestions. As for our founding cetacean, I suspect he would be so over-awed by your infallibility and omniscience that he would fear elevating you to positions of greater authority due to the shadows you would inevitably cast across his reflected light. I fear that Your Ladyship will need to continue to bear the cross of limited tools as part of the slings and arrows of amassed and intimidated Lilliputians. EdChem (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Although I voted keep, I agree with the OP that this is not a valid close. The policy is clear, "While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep or added substantive comments unrelated to deletion, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it." It is not unusual for pages to change during the deletion discussion, and that does not justify this type of close. I have submitted this to deletion review. Mattflaschen - Talk05:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
[Bishzilla maternally interested by the look of the cute, vulnerable little creature.] Hmm. Maybe another little sock? User:Batbish? bishzillaROARR!!10:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC).
Since you have dealt with this editor's issues,[33] I believe it would be in the best interests of Wikipedia for you to check their latest editing spree.
It appears that Saladin1987 has decided to take their changing of referenced information(for which he was banned from India/Pakistan/Afghanistan articles) to Iran/Turkey areas. I have already had a brief conversation with Saladin1987 on my talk page, though I seriously doubt they will listen.[34] --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
A problematic user, Kansas Bear. As I told you privately during my break, I have forwarded your complaint to some admins I know. Precisely because I've dealt with the editor before, more and fresher eyes are better. If problems continue, there's always ANI, also. Bishonen | talk09:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC).
Request for IPv6 range block
Hello Bishonen. There is an IP user who I think needs an IP range block. They have been blocked on one IP address multiple times ([35]) for disruptive editing about WWE events, and have also made similar unsourced edits on other IP address in the same range ([36], [37]). I'm asking you as I recall you range blocked a similar editor in the past, who I think is the same person, although editing from a slightly different IP range. My last request seems to have been this one [38], although it looks like User: Berean Hunter blocked in that case. Anyway, thank you for your assistance. Silverfish (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
As I stated earlier, No, I didn't accept your offer 'after' reading the message by another administrator, he may have posted that message while I was editing my post, and it was only after sending you an un-ban request that I read his message. I had deleted the earlier message and sent my request after going through that section where I was being accused of using multiple accounts. To be honest, I was, and still am, really shocked at all those accusations and allegations.
I have just one query. Am I not allowed to edit pages related to Pakistan also ? I mean even those pages or topics which are not disputed at all ?. And I don't know what your experience has been with other users, but rest assured I won't disappoint you. And I will request You to un-ban me from editing controversial topics only when I am able to convince you that I can contribute positively, and hopefully I will be able to do that in less than six months.
@Samm19: The intention of the topic ban is to prohibit you from editing, including discussing, anything political or historical or otherwise controversial, broadly construed, related to any or all of the three countries mentioned, separately or together. But I don't want to prevent you from editing biographies of, say, Pakistani football players, or film stars, or food, provided there is no political connection. (I can say that geographical features are likely to be right out. I can't undertake to assess borderline political implications of those.) When in doubt, please ask me before you edit. And yes, if you think you can convince me in less than six months, feel free to try. You realize it won't necessarily be granted, though. BTW, it's not necessary to call me Sir, or Madam either for that matter (I'm a woman). Happy editing. Bishonen | talk22:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC).
No problem. I think I'd better describe those exceptions on your page, so other admins and users are also aware of them. Done. Bishonen | talk14:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC).
You made our local newspaper!
In the course of trying to clean up the single purpose editing on the Luke Messer page, the Indianapolis Star wrote an article about it that included one of your edits. Just thought you would like to know.--rogerd (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did like to know, thank you, rogerd! Appearing in the local media almost makes me feel like a Hoosier myself! (Though I have in fact never visited the States.) Bishonen | talk09:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC).
This is, what, the third Admin you’ve gone to on your WP:ADMINSHOP to get me banned?
I was cleared by a checkuser. The only ``evidence`` you have that I’ve ever even seen that page before the other week is that I disagree with you about a minor issue involving it.
I do, however, encourage anyone to check out the sockpuppet investigation I opened. That wasn’t retaliatory; even if you’d never opened anything against me I would have known you were socking. Two people making identical arguments in identical style on the same page? And once I looked into your edit histories, the implication was clear. I think that any Admin that hasn’t previously been involved that looks at all of the evidence I pointed out will clearly see what’s going on.
Do you have any explanation for how the other account always pops up when you need it even after months and months of inactivity? Or how, even when on a WikiBreak, you knew to come help it out right as it needed it?
I doubt you would even deny that the Mondegreen account’s editing history or its initial behavior is atypical in the extreme.
Not to mention that now you’re clearly attempting to bring a third account into the mix, that yet again almost immediately responds to you as soon as you call on it. Moltenflesh (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
That's very interesting, @Moltenflesh:. Where do you see my 'almost immediate response', considering I haven't responded to MP at all so far, indeed I haven't edited since he posted above? But I think I'll respond now at the SPI you filed. Bishonen | talk07:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC).
Moltenflesh (whose comments here follow the behavioral patterns of Perfect Orange Sphere exactly, surprise surprise) is, I believe, attempting to argue that Chrissymad is a sock of mine based on Chrissy's response at the SPI page Molten opened, rather than accusing you of responding immediately.
Indeed, we're at the point where I wouldn't be surprised if anyone who supports me on content or behavior (which has included literally everyone else who's gotten involved in the Argument from authority page or the multitudinous drama surrounding it; and I do mean 'literally'... well, literally) gets accused of sockpuppetry, right up until the point that an admin blocks Molten as the aquatic fowl they so obviously are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.12:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The third account was the one mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation, Original Position. Inactive for months and months, but then responds within the hour to your Talk Page post. That is a consistent theme: the Mondegreen account also suddenly comes back to support you when needed, just like you will for it. All the actions fit WP:ALWAYS to a T. Moltenflesh (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hiya Bishonen! Enjoy this preliminary cell phone shot of Mount Jackson in Glacier National Park, Montana...I have a better rendition coming soon as I download 1000 plus images I took with my regular camera! Nice to be adding some more to the "MONGO's atmospheric nature pictures" collection, even though mine, even my best ones, hardly compare to those done by many others!--MONGO01:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The little MONGO turn up, hello! Hope those mountains not shakin! Little MONGO, please give 'shonen link to lots of atmospheric nature pictures when they uploaded. She don't know how to find nuthin! bishzillaROARR!!10:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.
Bish: The above IP is persistent, edit warring with Joshua Jonathan and I in Turiya article. An invitation on the article's talk page has yielded no response yet. I would request a RFPP for a few days, but I wonder if that will help given the IP has made many edits. Nothing urgent, please take a look when you have a moment. I eagerly await the zillion photos of MONGO, don't you! Even his cell phone shot above is so good, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Ms Sarah. I see they haven't edited since you warned them (at least not from that IP). Please let me know if there should be further problems at the article. What about the IP's contributions to Gaudiya Vaishnavism? Are those OK or would you like to revert them? Bishonen | talk08:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC).
Bish: Just reviewed the Gaudiya Vaishnavism article too and did some house cleaning (it needs more attention). The IP may be a sock of Cminard, because both edit warred and restored the same section with identical content, months apart (1, 2). Cminard was blocked for similar unsourced/non-RS and disruptive editing by Ymblanter, later by Yamla, on Russia + American politics space articles. Cminard was plugging the same content in Turiya and Gaudiya Vaishnavism articles before the block. Indeed, the IP haven't edited since yesterday. But if they do, will let you know, and we can weigh the Cminard link. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Calton, I seem to be on an indefinite semi-break, I suddenly got so tired of the whole thing. Better put a notice at the top of the page, I guess. Anyway, what I do in these cases is ask generally ask Bbb23 or my little Ponyo for a CU — you can do that for yourself. Bishonen | talk09:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC).
Sorry to hear that, too. I'd actually left a message on Bbb23's talk page (since he's the one who did the blocking), but it turns out that he's taking a break, too. --Calton | Talk14:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Calton: Can you put the evidence in an SPI? I was away as well; Bishonen, Bbb23 and I clearly didn't clear our schedules with each other! I have a ton of catching up to do, but if you put together an SPI and ping me I'll take a look as soon as I can (if another CU or Clerk doesn't get to it first).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots18:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate for you to close the 3RR and make accusations against me. I think it would be appropriate if you recused yourself and allowed another admin who has no history with me close the discussion. You blocked me for alleged retaliation, but now that there is real retaliation and an incident of BLP violation involved, you dismiss it with a reprimand to me which I find rather disturbing. Atsme📞📧11:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, at least the tps recognize the history, just not their own. Is it against policy for me to request an admin with no prior history/uninvolved? At least I try to avoid interaction with editors who have shown Ill-will toward me. Atsme📞📧12:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Jeez, I've shown ill will, Atsme? And here I thought we'd been having pleasant conversations about your beautiful photos. Shrug. IMO my close of your 3RR report was very mildly expressed, considering your disruption of Talk:Jared Taylor. You have ignored any number of actual reliable sources, including books published by academic presses, ignored the overwhelming consensus of the non-neutral RfC you opened yourself, and then in obvious revenge you've gone to WP:AN3 to file a frivolous "report" against experienced editors who you ridiculously hint may be socks of each other. I'm on semi-break, but if you continue to waste constructive editors' time and patience (which is our most precious resource) in the way you've been doing, I'll take the time to topic ban you from American politics. If you think admins who have previously sanctioned you are thereby involved, you'd better take a look at WP:INVOLVED. Bishonen | talk14:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC).
Wasting constructive editors' time? So you don't consider me a constructive editor regardless of how much work I've put into this project, or what I was trying to accomplish - your words cut like a knife through my heart. How is that not considered bias/discrimination against me? What you're doing now is not unlike what you did to me before - it's a repeat performance which tells me you are not going to change - the discrimination is real. I also thought you had gotten beyond that, but I was wrong. I've done nothing to deserve your wrath yet again. Disruption? I made approximately 6 edits at Taylor and tagged it properly, all of which were reverted, then went to the TP to discuss what is already a highly contentious topic because of the wide ranging hatred for the guy, but it's also a BLP. When I realized we were getting nowhere because of a few disruptive editors who flat-ass refused to follow WP:LABEL, I called an RfC. And that is what you're calling disruptive? I thought I was following protocol per our PAGs. Removing sources from my comment in the RfC is what was disruptive but you didn't think so. Reverting large blocks of text at a newly created article in retaliation against me was disruptive, but you didn't think so. I provided the diffs, and you're blaming me. And now you're threatening me with a TB from American politics? The article was immediately listed at AfD by another of my historic detractors who is also involved in Taylor, and you don't see any POV pushing here? I can't even begin to describe how hurt and offended I am by your allegations and threat to TP ban me. Your bias against me has made you incapable of seeing the true picture whenever it involves me. Perhaps the ban that is needed is an iBan for my protection. I created one frigging article that could be considered "political" in its broadest sense - the focus of it being the DOJ which is NOT supposed to be political, and alleged collusion with MSM, and based on that one article you're threatening me with a TB on American politics. With all considered, how is that not discrimination against me? Atsme📞📧16:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Atsme, we haven't interacted much, but since you supported my RFA nearly a year ago with a kind comment I hope you will take this comment in the spirit it is intended. I do not doubt (nor, I am sure, does Bishonen) that you are a constructive contributor to this project. However, I have read through that entire discussion and the RFC. While I do not think you are approaching the page in anything but good faith, you have, to put it mildly, gotten too close to the issue, and the AN3 report was a bad decision. I would respectfully suggest you step back a little from that page. Perhaps work on something else for a while, and if you do return to the page, try to do so with a cooler head and a willingness to read past the frequently antagonistic attitude (for which you are not solely to blame) and to see the substance in other folks' arguments. That way nobody gets upset further. If Bishonen is blunter than I am it is purely because she has shoveled more shit in this topic area and consequently has less patience; but as a person who has only dealt with you in an administrative capacity, she is not "involved" in capital letters. Once again, please take my comment in the spirit it is intended in. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, when I tell you I'm considering t-banning you over your disruption at Jared Taylor, you respond "I created one frigging article [presumably referring to Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting] that could be considered "political" in its broadest sense ... and based on that one article you're threatening me with a TB on American politics". That's quite a leap. I wasn't even aware of the new article, which is now apparently in train for being merged. (Added note 14:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC): I see you mentioned that article at AN3, so technically I have seen it mentioned, but I did not actually read it or its AfD, as your comment about it was even less appropriate in an AN3 report than the rest of your text.) If you think Jared Taylor has nothing to do with American politics, that's another problem. ArbCom discretionary sanctions have been authorized for "pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people", as you have been repeatedly informed. Jared Taylor is one of those closely related people, and crying BLP to prevent him being called what a massive array of reliable, including academic, sources call him is disruptive. I hope it's clear what article I'm referring to in saying that. In case you further misunderstand or ignore what I say, please don't expect me to explain it again. Perhaps one of the kind non-blunt talkpage stalkers would like to if it seems needed.
Note that you have now also received an alert about the discretionary sanctions for BLPs. Since your disruption is closely connected to the myopic use you make of such policies as WP:BLP and WP:LABEL, it may indeed be better to t-ban you from biographies, rather than from American Politics, in case of further disruption. I'll think about it. Bishonen | talk09:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC).
I'm not going to engage you so you'll have an excuse to block me or TB me, but it seems to me that I do have the right to ask you on what grounds you are making these threats? May I please see the diffs? Atsme📞📧23:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Actually, Bish, a t-ban from politics broadly construed would be most appropriate. Atsme has been unrelentingly disruptive, tendentious, aggressive, and unheeding in her participation regarding anything remotely connected to Donald Trump, broadly construed, even in the face of repeated patient and civil attempts to reason with her. It has been an enormous time-sink. The issue is quite reminiscent of the drama-fest that swirled around her a few years ago. I'm not sure how much more the community should be forced to deal with. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
My last comment here - please let Bish enjoy her break and have a chance to refresh. It's time to give it a rest. Atsme📞📧01:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This isn't ANI, Atsme; I'm not required to provide diffs. However, if or when this does come to ANI or ArbCom, there are quite an overwhelming number of substantiating diffs; in fact, there are numerous repeated and repetitious conversations running into many tens of thousands of bytes each that substantiate. Softlavender (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Edited to add: And in terms of this message you have just now left on my talk page, what I have stated here does not violate that. If you believe it does, you are welcome to report it at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
RE: Please stop
I am not adding information saying there's an Icelandic Resistance Movement.
I am adding information that the Nordic Resistance Movement has sent resistance men to Iceland to recruit new members. You can go ahead and stop removing it now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHeathen (talk • contribs)
The recruitment efforts of Swedish/Norwegian neo-nazis aren't an encyclopedic subject, WikiHeathen. You should stop before you're blocked from editing. Your various attempts to promote your tiny marginal organisation and make it look important are not welcome on the English Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk20:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC).
The Nordic Resistance Movement DOES have Icelandic members. I know one of them. It's the entire reason the Swedish Chapter came to Iceland; to seek new recruits.
It's preferable not to start a new section when you're continuing the same dialogue, so I've moved your post up. Your personal knowledge is not a reliable source, nor is the website in Icelandic that you refer to, see WP:QUESTIONABLE. Anybody can put up a website. Also, as I have already told you, it's not only a question of sources. Neo-nazi thugs going to Iceland to distribute propaganda is not a matter of encyclopedic interest, however much you'd like to present yourself as a Swedish "political party". (It's striking btw that the article has no mention of how many members this "party" has. 20? As much as 30?) The article needs cutting down altogether; the English Wikipedia is not a tool for extremist propaganda. The most informative part of Nordic Resistance Movement is the sentence "In the mid-1990s, former members of White Aryan Resistance (VAM) were released from prison and formed the core of Svenska motståndsrörelsen." Says it all, really. Bishonen | talk09:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC).
Some falafel for you!
Hello,
Why you delete the Benlav Flight Systems, its an popular new startup in Iran, a fast growing technology in aviation. please help on improving NOT deletion, I ask you to create the article again. cheers Amir daryaei (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's interesting. I can't sanction him, as I'm WP:INVOLVED on the article, but I shouldn't think he's long for this world. My page is quite well-watched. Bishonen | talk10:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC).
[Bishzilla only too familiar with stupid tiny stuff. Peers at the little Floquenbeam through her strongest reading glasses, tries to see his phone. Hmmm. Is that a cornflake in his hand?] bishzillaROARR!!14:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for your comments about my lack of proof reading. As producing long well-edited written reports is much of my livelihood, I'm mortified to see how poor a couple of those comments are, and I'll work hard to avoid such unclear communication!
I remain perplexed though, why telling someone to "fuck off" in a heated edit during an AFD discussion is not an insult. I've read WP:NPA several times during this discussion. NPA says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". And this isn't some sly, intelligent, subtle insult - it's an offensive insult. Obviously I'm completely misinterpreting somehow, given the clear consensus; but I don't see where. I suppose I should just accept it, and enjoy the freedom to use the phrase itself.
BTW, speaking of insults, was the word "idiotically" necessary, given I wasn't keeping insisting on sanctions? I kept insisting that "FO" was a personal attack - and perhaps that does make me an idiot - but I don't see how "idiotically" helps. (though perhaps once I figure out why "fuck off" is not an insult - it will make more sense to me. Nfitz (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Which what, demonstrates that I'm wrong about something, that when I figure it out, I'm then supportive of the position I previously opposed - like most people. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Which comment? The comment "fuck off" wasn't very polite, but how you read it as an "insult" is beyond me. The speaker wasn't calling anybody anything, or implying anything about them personally, so how is it either an "insult" or a "personal attack"? I really don't know how to explain further. My own comment — that your insistence on calling "fuck off" a PA was idiotic — expressed my irritation at your uncalled-for intervention in the ANI thread to talk, repeatedly and elaborately, about "User:Sitush's long history of personal attacks or unacceptable language, as well WP:CIVIL violations". Perhaps you're right that it wasn't necessary. Bishonen | talk20:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC).
Hmm. Personally, I'm surprised anyone wouldn't read it as an insult. The phrase was "Fuck off, username". I'm scratching my head how this isn't both disparaging and scornful. So you wouldn't classify similar statements such as "go to hell" or "drop dead" as insults? My initial comments were simply that it was a uncivil and a WP:CIVIL violation; please tell my sense of community standards isn't so far gone that I'm wrong about that. (I've not got any interest in any vindictiveness against the editor in question, who I both value and respect - I'm merely trying to discuss this so I can understand where I'm at difference with community consensus - which I'm quite happy to follow. Nfitz (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Some people think the worst comments are those with bad words. Others, with a firmer grasp of ethics, think it is worse to be accused of antisemitism. People in the latter camp may react forcefully when so accused. Please spare us the bullshit "oh but it wasn't an accusation". See WP:CIR. You might also review WP:NOTFORUM because beating this horse to death should be done at another website—the issue was closely monitored at a very busy noticeboard and as far as I know, you are the only person who does not understand the issues and is still talking about them. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I thought I'd made my motive clear. That response neither answers the question, nor has any relation to the question. Stop beating the horse - I've moved on; I just want to avoid future horses, that seem to litter the place. Nfitz (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I am - which is why I'm asking for assistance in identifying what a dead horse looks like. I admitted that consensus was against me a long time ago, and have only in AGF sought advice so I can learn and move forward. Ironically, everyone seems more interested in jumping in and ... well beating the dead horse ... rather than actually trying to assist my growth. I honestly don't get it ... people admit they are wrong all the time in the real world; am I the only person who has ever done it before here? Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Probably - but he seems smarter than your average bear. Either he's going to be very difficult to convincingly catch - or he's actually working in good faith, but with different views ... Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Nfitz, someone who is so consistently contrarian, as you seem to have become in recent months, would probably benefit from not discussing other people at all and instead simply contribute to article pages. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
What an awful place Wikipedia has become. Even if you admit error, and all fault, apologize, and then ask for help - instead of getting help, all you get are people lining up to be rude and bully you. Okay, who else is out there who hasn't taken a swing at me yet? Ed? James? I tried to quietly take this conversation somewhere as private as it gets around here, so as NOT to create drama. What's the message here? Ignore everything, not learn where my misconception is, and then repeat it again sometime in the future, because I've not been able to identify the root cause? I feel I'm trapped in some kind of "how not to manage people" seminar. Nfitz (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I was pinged here. Nfitz: I believe I was the first to complain about your BLP violations and the most vocal. After reading your unblock request I'm convinced you didn't understand BLP policy but you now do understand BLP policy. Note: we haven't interacted since, so my comment is based solely on that discussion. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks James - yes, that was a different debate - which I also admitted my fault, and apologized (to you in particular I think - but if I didn't, I should have), and did figure out where I've gone wrong. The issue this time, is that I'm having a hard time understanding how telling someone to fuck off isn't derogatory, disparaging, or scornful, or even a WP:CIVIL violation. I've conceded I'm obviously wrong, given the unanimity - but no one seems to have any interest in just simply explaining, what I'm missing. I do keep putting my foot in it lately - must be something in the air. Nfitz (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Whenever someone swears, try "translating" it into a clean version. So "fuck off" = "go away". It's not a violation of policy to express emotion, nor is it a violation of policy to ask (or even demand) someone leave you alone, so all you're left with is "I really want you to go away and leave me alone". People get entirely too hung up on swear words: I, for one, fucking love them. They're the shit. And you should never presume that swearing is a sign of an inability to communicate, as "common knowledge" would have us believe. Swear words are just another method of adding emotion to speech and text, and the only reason they're taboo is because they're taboo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.23:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I've no problem with swear words - after all, I'm the one whose just-turned 5-year old is a regular with me for his 5th season in the crazy supporters section at the local football club, where I keep telling those around me that I don't fucking care what you shout (though in retrospect some of the Spanish ones during the Champions League might have been a bit much). Not sure if I should take this entire discussion at face-value, or if you are all just gaslighting me to the point I go and change my name to User:Fuck_Off_Nfitz to reflect my apparent standing here - and then get banned. ☺ Nfitz (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One for you to look at
Can you take a look at Dona-Hue? I was earlier on thinking of topic banning the user from India related stuff but I seem to have gotten WP:INVOLVED now by reverting some of their nonsense in a couple of articles, as are Doug Weller, Vanamonde and RegentsPark. At this point, I don't thin a topic ban would be of much help as the user shows no sign of any competence to edit here. —SpacemanSpiff02:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Well... I'm supposed to be taking some rest and recuperation. But I'll trot out my usual about the time and enthusiasm of other contributors, and block. It's hard to be tactful in these cases — at least for me — Bishzilla might have done it better. Bishonen | talk03:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC).
I've been away too and will be on and off for a few more days, have to take care of the dog who had a bad injury. Thanks for dealing with this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff15:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Spotted in Montreal
'Zilla reputation precede her, even if French spelling not so good
Maybe the young Bistrilla is Bishzilla's little sister? [Hastily fending off the interested Bishzilla.] No, no, Bishzilla! Please don't create any more socks! Bishonen | talk14:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC).
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I'm not sure if they have poutine, but I was there for pizza. The best places for poutine are generally cheaper greasy spoons, using home-style fries, often fried in beef fat (no frozen or spiced fries). The gravy must have a lot of pepper and the cheese must not be grated, and should be generous, and no yellow/orange or processed cheese! —PaleoNeonate – 03:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
For me the shibboleth of real poutine is the squeak of the cheese curds: I know of no cheese per se that can emulate it. Stupid indent function seems to use the greater of a left-obstruction size and the amount of indentation instead of adding them.—Odysseus147904:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
Technical news
You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
I suspect goat has been on the menu for dinosaurs like me since at least Jurassic Park. I certainly recommend κατσίκα με ρίγανη from Santorini. And I do remember staying at a hotel in Crete where each evening the menu claimed to be serving a different sort of meat: beef, lamb, veal, pork, etc. all of which looked and tasted oddly similar. It is interesting to note that on Crete, I saw no evidence whatsoever of a single cow, sheep or pig, but there were thousands of goats. --T-RexxS (rawr) 15:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
[Bishzilla hungry as always. Fondly recollects disappearing goat in Jurassic Park — appetising scene! But also has tender heart. Also notices spiky horns on little critter — uncomfortable swallowing. After some hesitation, sticks the little goat in her pocket. Magnanimously:] Pet, not snack! bishzillaROARR!!16:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC).
Glad to hear it, 87.1. It represents admins at their best; I thought of putting a caption, such as "You talkin' to me?". But OTOH we don't want to get taken to ANI for biting the newbies, do we? No. Bishonen | talk21:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC).
As bitter and astringent that movie is, it's one of the few I enjoyed. But then, you're right, it's not for all.
BTW, you're right, a talk page greeting is the spot where one can be humorous, in a place which in some cases can be quite gloomy. :) 87.1.125.215 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you left a discretionary sanctions alert on Saladin1987's talk page a couple of months ago. Could you please take a look at his recent edits? He had made a series of edits to a large number of articles replacing Afghan with Pashtun, some of which I reverted. Now he's reverting them back stating that they are sourcededits when that's clearly not the case. I was going to leave him a caution, but I see that he's already received a ton of warnings on his talk page. FYI, besides your latest sanctions alert, he's also received two others, one by you a year ago and another by EdJohnston 3 years ago.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I've warned him. But that damned Google Books stymies me. Sitush, can you help? Even with your head woozy, I'm sure it's better than mine for this stuff. Bishonen | talk14:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
The Google Books link states,
The Lodis were of pure Afghan origin and Bahlul Lodi pacified the proud Afghans by distributing rich iqtas among them. His court resembled more of an Afghan tribal assembly than the council of a great king.
Indeed. Saladin is just a persistent pov-pusher who prefers what they know to what the sources say. I doubt that they will change but perhaps I am in a particularly jaundiced mood after recent events. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I've thrown him a final loop (final warning), and will try not to lose sight of how he edits after that. Bishonen | talk21:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) I noticed this thread earlier today, and recognised the user name, so I added a source for "Afghan" right after the mention in the lead on Lodi dynasty, so that there's no way he can get away with claiming it's unsourced if he tries to hit that article again... - Tom | Thomas.W talk21:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Another problem for you
IndianEditor is just here to push a point of view, not contribute to an encyclopaedia. Just see the editing history at India, Pakistan, Rally for Rivers (where advertising is a problem), Jaggi Vasudev etc. I've warned on ARBIPA and have reported to AN3,and if not for the edit warring at India (which I'm not involved in but am an editor of the article) I'd have taken action (I'm not sure of the right choice between a nothere block and an indef ARBIPA topic ban, though both are likely to have the same effect). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff15:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'll try to inform myself better, SpacemanSpiff, but I can certainly block the user for the 3RR vio. You recollect ARBIPA topic bans can't be indefinite, btw? A year at most. Bishonen | talk21:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
Hmm. Right, Space, it's ambiguous. The comma after topic bans hints that it's only the blocks that are restricted to one year... damn this Kremlinology! Arbs I've talked to seem to think it applies to bans as well. Bishonen | talk08:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC).
There was a discussion a few months back on this when I think it was agreed upon that ds blocks are the only ones limited in duration (can't seem to find the link). Just look at the various years at WP:DSLOG, there's loads of indef tbans out there. Soham321 which had so many participants at AE resulted in an indef tban, etc etc. —SpacemanSpiff08:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I wrote something on their page. [Wistfully:] I suppose somebody should explain to them about primary and secondary sources. Bishonen | talk23:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC).
Thanks! :-)
Thanks for reverting that edit on my user talk page. I'm not sure how I managed to rollback my talk page twice like that... anyways, I appreciate you for taking care of it :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
That's what I figured, indeed I already said so on your page, Oshwah. (The song is actually "Hey, nonny, nonny", I guess? Shakespeare or something. What an immortal way with words.) Bishonen | talk11:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) Two Shakespeare songs that I know of: "Sigh no more, ladies" from Much Ado; and Ophelia's lament for her dead father. Apparently the correct term for it is a "burden". Something new every day. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I wrote some scholary things with sources.I told Bamnamu that I think i can find some Chinese-English administrators easily but It is hard to find Korean-English administrators.So i ask him whether bamnamu is the administrator or not.I think this problem starts because i editted Goguryeo articles which can make some people feel so sensitive about that.But,i also feel so sad that I can not edit the history of my country easily.Thank youRicheaglenoble (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you're evil, but indeed most people here at the English Wikipedia can't read Korean. You seem capable enough of communicating in English. It's pretty hopeless for people to communicate with you when you write in Korean and expect others to put it through some (indeed) far-from-perfect machine translation tool. Even if your own English isn't perfect either, I'm pretty sure it's better than Google translate, so please use it. And I agree with Hijiri that you really need to stop commenting on editors' nationalities, because a) it's inappropriate, and b) you're only guessing. And no, Bamnamu isn't an administrator. You shouldn't be trying to find administrators of a specific nationality anyway. Bishonen | talk14:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC).
Richeaglenoble, the "some scholary things with sources" I was referring to were in one case a blatant copyright violation (you copy-pasted an entire newspaper article and inserted a grammatical particle here and there, and in the other was sourced to some guy's blog. The former edit ... I don't want to discuss here, since it took place on a foreign-language Wikipedia and I am TBANned from Japanese culture (which includes the genetics of the modern Japanese and modern Korean "races" and the implications of this for whether a large-scale migration and population-replacement took place in the Yayoi period) on English Wikipedia. The latter edit was apparently about how modern Han Chinese are a "mixed breed", which, given that all your other edits have been focused on how Korea is and always has been an awesome empire as much as China, is difficult to interpret in good faith.
i editted Goguryeo articles which can make some people feel so sensitive about that I'm not sensitive about it at all. I'm Irish, and the only dog I have in this fight is that I love history. I know there are a lot of Korean nationalist POV-pushers adding nonsense OR and material sourced to blogs and the like to those articles (hence the semi-protection). So when a new account shows up and starts doing the same (after making a string of nonsense edits to their own talk page to get around semi-protection), I am naturally skeptical. All good Wikipedia editors should be skeptical of edits that are not sourced, come from new accounts and are in topic areas like that one.
And then there is the above It is hard to find Korean-English administrators -- why do you care? Are you trying to find admins to help you push a Korean nationalist POV? Are you simply not comfortable communicating with people who don't read Korean? Or do you think ethnically Chinese admins like Alex are "biased" against your edits? No matter what the answer is, it doesn't look good, so stop it.
Very well said, Hijiri 88. Thank you for taking the trouble to explain these things to the new user. Richeaglenoble, please read carefully what Hijiri has told you here. You can learn a lot from him about reliable sources, neutrality, and avoiding copyright violations and (especially) nationalist editing, if you try to learn in good faith. If you fail to learn, I'm afraid youre likely to end up blocked from Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk00:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC).
I tried to use google translate/korean for an afd-discussion a while back, apparently the subject stated that "When I meet my buttocks, my sleep comes up." So, not perfect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know. That sort of sounds like a riff on the old advice for passengers on an out-of-control airplane: "Put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye". Maybe that was it, and the Google Translate version just wasn't very idiomatic? Bishonen | talk14:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC).
Was your comment along the lines of I think we should put this half-arsed discussion to bed now? Now that's a possibility. Irondome (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sorry to post here again, but the subject of the thread kind of shifted dramatically and then was closed before I got a chance to respond, and it actually went into an area that does concern me entirely aside from the main issue (which started slowly reaching a conclusion at the original ANI thread after I opened a subthread). Basically, while the OP, Bish and a number of the apparently tongue-in-cheek later comments were focused on how laughable K-E MT results can be, in this case Google actually got it exactly right on the only part that mattered: the OP was looking for a Korean admin because he was uncomfortable with the Chinese admin he was dealing with (I think i can find some Chinese-English administrators easily but It is hard to find Korean-English administrators). "old user" may or may not have been meant to imply that I was impersonating an admin (the OP dodged the question), but that was really kind of peripheral. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
(And somewhere in Shizuoka, User:Curly Turkey unconsciously face-palms and doesn't know why, but has a sneaky feeling it has to do with my tendency to become a really awkward straight-man in facetious Wikipedia discussions coming to the fore again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC) )
Well, if we could convince CU-enabled users to run checks when we are 100% certain there's socking afoot, that would go a pretty long way. I sympathize with the motivation for not telling run-of-the-mill editors exactly why CU is allowed in some circumstances but not others. But it still makes keeping this kind of article safe really difficult. Sometimes I kinda feel like an ARBPIA3-style extended-confirmed protection for all articles related to Sino-Korean relations would not be a bad idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
If it's still unreviewed tonight my time (it's noon here now), James J. Lambden, I'll try to get to it. I've just hastily replied to Darkness Shines, and I'm afraid that's all I've got time for before I run. Bishonen | talk10:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC).
FYI regarding AN3 close
Hi Bishonen. Thanks for closing that AN3 report. Goodness knows you don't need the headache, but I thought I would be remiss not to notify you... I didn't know this at the time of the report, but Darkness Shines was indefinitely blocked, and agreed to conditions for unblock in May of 2017. One of those conditions was a restriction to 1RR for the following 6 months (expiring November 28th 2017). Make of that what you will. AlexEng(TALK)01:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, I noted the same on DS' talkpage too, but apparently he doesn't want it there (which is fine), so I'll paste it here for you once more:
Please see my reply above, AlexEng and Fut.Perf.. No, I had no idea of those unblock conditions. Pity they weren't in the block log, but of course there's limited room there. I don't think I want to handle this anyway, frankly, and I don't have time to check the circumstances. I suggest you take it to either ANI or AE, depending on the context, Alex; or feel free to deal with it yourself, Future, if you're uninvolved. Bishonen | talk10:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC).
<Redacted>
Just curious, I mean, I saw a block coming a mile away for something, but apparently there's a cultural reference here I'm missing... uhblock? TJWtalk21:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Space. I don't see much point in topic banning, as it's pretty obviously a CIR issue. I have blocked indefinitely. (Hey, did you see MONGO's bison bull in the edit notice? Isn't it great? I wouldn't want it staring at me.) Bishonen | talk14:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC).
Not sure if you're seeing my latest Commons uploads such as Mount Gould, Grinnell Point and Mount Wilbur beyond the Many Glacier Hotel, Glacier National Park, Montana, USA?--MONGO01:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't, but now I have, MONGO. They're wonderful. Unfortunately, I can't find the list to put them in for my edit notice, see [49]. But all will be well when RexxS comes out of hiding. I'm thinking of changing the length of display from 12 hours to 24 hours, too, which is something I can do without help. I keep telling people to look at the wonderful horse, and then they see a fish instead. (I like the fish, but nobody else seems very fond of it.) Bishonen | talk16:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC).
And now it's the ursus americanus... it probably changed so quickly because both RexxS and I have fiddled with the list. (He with aplomb, me not so much.) Anyway, MONGO, the images are stored at Module:RexxS, and now there are some glaciers too. Take a look at the list, see what you think. Bishonen | talk20:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC).
Not to take over your inspiration plans with just my images...but are these just grabs from the uploads I have done or taken from what I posted on my userpage at Commons? A few listed are now quite ancient actually...but whatever works is fine and I'm honored you enjoy them as much as I did taking them.--MONGO03:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes, some of my favorites are quite old. The pelicans! The horses and thunderstorm! You can see the new ones I just added in thesediffs. Feel free to add your own favourites to the list, MONGO. I had some problems, so you'd better follow RexxS's instructions here. BTW, speaking from unassailable ignorance of photo equipment, you must have a really good camera now. Bishonen | talk12:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC).
You are too kind, but flattery will get you everywhere! My camera was borrowed actually...and while more than adequate, it is now out of date, (darn technology is out of date so quickly). I also had optimal photography weather...low humidity, clear skies and mountains don't move vary fast! My pictures pale in comparison to some one like Wsiegmund's unparalleled imagery...and he has added an incalculable wealth of photographic documentation, especially on the biota of the U.S. Pacific Northwest.--MONGO13:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
A call to the admins' noticeboard
Hello. I noticed that you have been active recently on the administrators' noticeboard's edit-warring cases. So, may I ask you to follow this case? The user's behaviour is really enervating, and he is continuing on his line through reverts and exhausting WP:BLUDGEONING, instead of operating constructive syntheses, and therefore damaging Wikipedia's content.--Wddan (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I can say the same thing for you, your behaviour is very problematic and the source you used to replace all of the other one is not reliable, as I widely explained but it seems that you don't want to understand it. There is clearly no consensous in the talk page of Religion in Belgium. Also, you shouldn't messaging Admins, they will resolve the matter theirselves.FrankCesco26 (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
(talk page stalker) Sorry, BU Rob13, but Orphaned "keep local" file is not grounds for deletion. Not every editor wants the trouble of keeping track of images on Commons that they have uploaded to Wikipedia, so 'keep local' means that a local copy is required to be kept. Consensus does not favour the view that all PD images must be transferred to Commons, so I'm going to ask you to change your prod to an acceptable reason (like higher resolution version available), or I'll remove the prod as a matter of principle. I shouldn't have to remind you that prods are by definition "for uncontroversial deletion" and orphaned files with a keep local template are not uncontroversial deletions. Giano, for example, often creates images of floor plans of houses in preparation for writing an article somestimes years in advance – there is no deadline. I'm also going to ask you nicely to lay off your current spree of prods using Orphaned "keep local" file, or at least make absolutely certain that each and every one isn't something that has been uploaded in preparation for future use. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@RexxS: If you find these controversial, I'll take them to FfD instead going forward. "Keep local" most certainly doesn't require us to do anything – see WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia is not a file storage website, and WP:FFD quite clearly lists orphaned as a rationale for deletion. (Note that these were files that may or may not be present on Commons, but are not in use anywhere on the site. I did not nominate any which were marked with {{Keep local}} and in use.) ~ Rob13Talk05:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13:. Yes I find using "orphaned keep local file" controversial, and I'm certain I'm not the only one. Using that rationale means that you are deliberately targetting files that have "keep local" added to them, and not other files that may be unused. Presumably, you wouldn't care about WEBHOST if they allowed the images to be stored on Commons? That amounts to discrimination against many fine content editors. Editors who take the decision to add {{keep local}} are exercising their right not to have to keep checking a second watchlist on a different site just to please you. Please try to explain to the audience here how it improves the encyclopedia to delete these images:
Yes, the last three are replaceable or re-createable, but why would you want to make Giano duplicate his work? Have you any clue about what WP:WEBHOST is about? "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted" It's there to stop fly-by-night editors from dumping their holiday snaps on the encyclopedia. It most definitely is not intended just to allow petty little bureaucrats who have never written an article in their life to get rid of the hard work of some of our best content contributors, simply because they choose to keep their work on Wikipedia, not Commons. Editors like Giano sometimes create floor plans years before they use them to write a new article. It's not your place or anybody else's to demand that he uses them immediately or to impose a time limit on his contributions. Have a good think about the real consequences of your deletion nominations and the impact they will have. Are you really serious about taking those files to FfD, despite the obvious intention to use them in encyclopedia articles? If so, bring it on, and we'll see which view is most compatible with creating an encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I endorse every word RexxS says above. Demanding other editors become active at another project—and a project which fairly regularly blocks en-wiki editors, so there are many cases when editors couldn't comply with your wishes even if they wanted—just because you happen to prefer things that way, is the very embodiment of disruptive editing, and using the WP:PROD process in these circumstances is clearly inappropriate. If you want policy changed to ban local hosting of images, then get policy changed to ban local hosting of images (and be prepared for the immediate exodus of editors which such a step will trigger); don't try to enforce a non-existent policy and then act upset when people complain. ‑ Iridescent17:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
Please also consider updating other files you created or uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you.
ShakespeareFan00, I don't understand what details are missing. The image page already describes it as an image of a tulip with a face (which is in any case hard to miss, but I was trying to be obliging), created by me and based on File:Tulip-blossom.jpg which was in turn created by User:Geogre. What kind of further description or other details can I add? I have added the {{esoteric file}} template, as a generally good idea, though not what you asked for. Bishonen | talk17:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC).
Can I appeal here for the wisdom of you and your watchers? I've raised some potential problems with an article - see Talk:Khonds#Problems_with_citations and the following section - but am not getting any input, despite mentioning the thread at the India Project talk page. If it continues to be devoid of responses, where else might be a suitable venue to raise the matter? It's a rather tricky situation. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I've left a comment there (didn't see the post at INB). If there's insufficient response after a while, I'd suggest RSN, as that's what the issue ultimately seems to be about; but is there a reason the dodgy stuff can't just be removed pending verification? Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I see Davidgoodheart created that userpage, but there is no such user registered. Perhaps he was trying to create an article about Kelly Wilson, rather than a sock. I'll try to explain tomorrow that that's not the way to do it, unless somebody else does first. Sleep beckons! Bishonen | talk23:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC).
Thank you, Mr Emir. BTW I remember your username was listed at WP:UAA when you were new, because somebody thought it implied authority. :-) (I declined blocking you with the argument that anybody who thinks Wikipedia is run by an emir shouldn't be editing anyway.) I don't think it matters much, no. I realized I had the spelling wrong when my link on the user's talkpage came up red, and fixed that, but the damage was already done in the log. Not a big deal. So much detail isn't necessary in the log anyway — it would be pretty standard to put just "disruptive editing and edit warring". Anybody who is really curious can find the relevant article/s by checking the talkpage and/or the user's contribs around the same date. Bishonen | talk16:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC).
Repeated disruption and personal attacks in Lingayatism for a few weeks
Hi Bish: A hopping IP 117.242.*.*, 117.246.*.*, etc has been personally attacking for several weeks now editors Arjayay, I and others with some choice terms such as holocaust escaped prostitute / slut / bastard / etc. I have ignored it, Arjayay and others have been patient too, but given the persistence requesting a watch. I don't know if a range block is appropriate in such circumstances or would be overly broad, but possibly protecting the Lingayatism article for 6 months may help reduce the disruption a bit (given their elections are due in early 2018, the disruption is political plugging/soap and removal of scholarly RS). Where is MONGO's new treasure box of pics? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow, very "choice", Ms Sarah. The range is unfortunately too big to block. I can semi the article and remove the offensive edit summaries, and I've done that. Can you suggest anything else? Do any user talkpages need protecting? The whole box of MONGO's goodies is here, and you can see the glaciers I recently added at thesediffs. Bishonen | talk11:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC).
Thanks. Arjayay got legal threats I see, but it seems unrelated. Other editors who have reverted 117.* IPs since early August seem unaffected. You had semi protected my talk page for a few months for third or fourth time, earlier this year, may be it is time to extend/indef semi protect it. MONGO is a good photographer, I must say, love how crisp his pics come out. Just back from traveling in Asia since mid August, admiring their monasteries, the temples and the manuscripts collection there. My pics unfortunately are nowhere close to MONGO-quality! Those Jackson glacier and other pics by MONGO... nice, the fluffy clouds and all. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Ms Sarah, I see my last semi of your page, from March, expires on this very day of today, at 22:41 UTC to be precise. I've extended it to a year from now, since you know such lovely people. Bishonen | talk16:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC).
Right..whatsah matta wit the looosers dat harass editers? Had to type something so I could see one of my pics the mighty Bishonen is so kind to display...not sure what mood of an atmospheric nature...maybe bad mood, maybe good?--MONGO16:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I would like to appeal to your warning, which I believe is a mistake. Who should I contact?
Please get back to me ASAP. CobraSA (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Reason for appeal :
You said "the link you keep inserting is promotional rather than a source".
First I am not in any way affiliated to the link. Secondly I have myself cleaned up the article from all promotional links. [[50]] Third, I had to appeal to an admin for the removal of a spam link to an open wiki.
You said "As people have pointed out, no source for the statement is needed".
Please explain how giving a figure does not require a source. If that was the case I could say indifferently thousands, millions, billions, and everyone would have to accept it, that doesn't make any sense.
You said "a forum wouldn't cut it in any case".
The link is not showing a forum despite the misleading url, but a content repository. The article explains thousands content items exist, and the link points to a content repository that displays a counter that backs up this statement.
I think you might not have analyzed the situation accurately, so please either reconsider and protect the page after restoring the valid sources, or kindly point out who I should contact to appeal to your decision. Thank you. CobraSA (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you explain how the source is "blatantly unreliable"? Because the source appears perfectly factual to me, it provides a content counter that directly confirms the content figure in the article statement. You'll need to explain why the source is unreliable, please detail as if I was 6 years old. CobraSA (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Because it's an internet forum: Anyone can say anything on a forum. (I used those exact same words in bold to explain it to my son when he was 5, so I think that fits your criteria. He certainly understood.) In this case, anyone could have uploaded a copy of an existing character under a new name. Now, I'm not suggesting that has happened. Indeed, I think it is rather obvious that it didn't happen (hence why it doesn't need a source). But the admins at that forum don't have "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy", nor are they third -party sources; they're affiliated (as affiliated as one can get with such an open source project) with the game, and indeed are a forum for volunteer developers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I stopped at "it's an internet forum". It seems you haven't even checked the source, because it's NOT a forum. It seems the issue is you just checked the url, seen 'forum' in the url and assumed it would lead to a message board page. Stop assuming things and start doing proper checks. Otherwise please don't waste my time anymore. CobraSA (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I stopped at "it's an internet forum". Well, that was a mistake because I explained why your objection is meaninless right after I said that. In the future, you should read someone's answer in it's entirety before making assumptions about they're saying, because you clearly have not addressed what I told you. A repository's statistics are only as reliable as the people adding to and maintaining it. I would also like to remind you to watch your tone: I'm trying to help you here and you are assuming bad faith on my part and casting aspersions on me in response; all based on your own admitted ignorance of what I've actually said. This is an admin's talk page, and you can be blocked for engaging with a battleground mentality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
CobraSA, you have by now received a lot of good information and advice which you don't seem interested in. Please get lost from my page (and don't go pester Mjolnir or Ed on theirs, either). As you have been repeatedly told there are a couple of noticeboards you can appropriately take your complaint to. Either pick one of them or not, just as you please, but be done here, please. Bishonen | talk18:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC).
Hi, CobraSA. I'm not saying you're affiliated with the MUGEN community or with the link to their site. But you have edit warred against several people to re-insert it. As Calton wrote in his edit summary, the reference was "pointless"[51]: it didn't prove anything, and wasn't needed. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the content of the article; it strictly doesn't need references, since everything it says is supposed to be referenced below, in the article proper. I hope you have realized by now that calling other people's edits "vandalism" simply because you disagree with them is very much frowned on here. I warned you on the edit warring noticeboard to stop your slow edit warring at the article, because you'll be in trouble if you persist; but that's not a formal warning — I didn't write anything on your own page — it's more advice. You needn't worry about having been "warned" as some sort of black mark against you: it doesn't show up in your talkpage history. See also the comment by Floquenbeam (also an admin) below your post at WP:AN3. But if you want to protest more formally against my warning and have it noticed by other admins and experienced users, you can do so at the Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents. Bishonen | talk16:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC).
Hello, could you please explain why the source is "pointless"? I've tried to explain the problem as clearly as I could, if you post a statement with a figure, it requires a source, period. If you're telling me you can post random figures on wikipedia and providing a source is pointless, then I'm sorry to say I'm not going to believe that and contact the higher ups. CobraSA (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
CobraSA, if you are going to look for 'higher-ups' you may want to post at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If any mention is needed of the number of characters created by online contributors that data probably belongs in the 'Customization' section and not in the lead. Per WP:EL #10 and #12 we don't perceive that online forums count as a reliable source for anything. The content repository that you want to link to is created by online contributors and is not the product of a publication that has editorial control and a correction policy. See WP:V. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Again it's not a forum, it's a content directory with a counter, and there is no reason to believe anybody would have the ability to alter these counters as they please, it is an objective sum of items included in the directory. How can objective data be unreliable, you don't make ANY sense. The only explanation is you didn't even bother to look at the actual source and are wasting everyone's time. CobraSA (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Thanks, dear doctor. Having interacted with them on that article and talk page, it looks rather more like meatpuppetry to me, as their behaviour is reminiscent of what happens when a Wikipedia article gets discussed on an off-Wiki forum and the participants decide to come here to "fix the problem". All three editors seem very attached to the mugenarchive.com site, and CobraSA removed about a dozen other sites from the External links. On the other hand, CobraSA isn't a SPA like the other two, and seems genuinely interested in the broader topic of gaming, although I suspect that English may not be his mother tongue. I'm reasonably sure that if he reads and understands some of our policies & guidelines, he will be capable of contributing constructively. I'd be supportive of a sensible unblock request. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey Rexx, I just took the CU shortcut based on a reasonable suspicion; I did not look so deeply that I can verify meating. If there is something that doesn't require that one special tool but rather administrative judgment, then I'm sure Bishonen is the better person to ask. :) Oh, I'm always for unblocking people if they're reasonable. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: Without the benefit of the CU magic 8-ball (maybe I should ask for that too, haha), it was still obvious enough that this was socking or meatpuppetry that I was (and am) comfortable blocking. If you're telling me it's meatpuppetry, my thoughts remain pretty much the same. We sometimes talk about our policies being complicated and maybe newbies should be expected to know recruiting other editors is wrong, except... I cannot imagine going to some new website, accuse another established editor of sockpuppetry with zero evidence, and then think it's OK to get some of my friends to try to stack the discussion. He knew what he was doing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Obscure warnings in ill-fitting template-speak on this page
Thank you for your comments. Some people slap warnings without thinking. You put quite a bit of thought into your response on my talk page. That's good of you.
That discussion is getting more and more outlandish, Tony. Wow, did you see User:MONGO's waterfall in my edit notice? Bird Woman Falls. It's a switch kind of thing, I never know what it'll show next. Bishonen | talk22:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC).
Its intermittent in that once that snow above it melts, the falls sometimes disappear in later summer. They are easily seen from the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park. Thank you for adding it to the article.--MONGO23:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi TonyBallioni (and Bish) - These are Red Jammers and they are a wonderful way to see Glacier NP. They have canvas tops that they roll back when the weather is sunny. Riding in one of these is an all time favorite memory of a visit to this park. MarnetteD|Talk01:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Another Red Jammer bus this is number 88 though only 33 actually exist in the park. While they have been updated significantly, these buses were all originally built between 1936 and 1939.
I'm sorry if I dropped you in it at the Holly Neher AfD by suggesting the block. It wasn't my intention to escalate the fall-out there. It's just that you have one editor monopolising the discussion and it keeps going off track. I don't have strong views either way—I can't even remember how I go involved in the first place—but the salient points are getting lost in all the white noise which is a shame when people have taken the time to contribute. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Mmm, yeah. I saw but was too dignified to respond. ;-) I like U's "You have now been warned at AN" followed by an AN quote that was nothing like a warning. Or perhaps he meant it in the sense of "I have now warned you at AN". But actually U seems to be aware of his paucity of material; he keeps asking everybody else to supply him with diffs for an RFAR, so far without result. Bishonen | talk03:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC).
Well spotted, Sitush. Possibly a meatpuppet, but it comes to the same thing, so Ive blocked. Should I yell at Rashakhalifa too..? Possibly, but I don't see much point. They're indeffed anyway. Maybe tomorrow — I suppose there should be some sort of record. Anyway, it's my bedtime, g'night all. Bishonen | talk23:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC).
Inaccurate comment and character assassination
Bishonen,
I am writing because I want to address 2 statements you've made on ANI recently related to me.
You say Joe has made three edits to user talk pages in total since the previous block, Toddst1? That's very inexact; I make it seven, most of them to his own page. You are correct - I miscounted. Take a look at what I looked at. The edits on in the box were what I counted. The one month block from August 22 probably expired about Sept 22 depending on how the wiki calculates the month. I erroneously assumed that the Sept 24 edits were before release of previous block. It doesn't make that much of a difference in the context of Joefromradb's chronic incivility, but you were correct, I miscounted. It was an error and I would hope you would assume good faith. But...
Edit 2.
The first sentence is a correct point of order. Your second sentence is nothing but a bald-faced attempt at character assassination where you've brought heresay from what I can only assume was confidential ARBCOM discussions. How would you know? I am not acting as an administrator, haven't done so in a long time and how I did as an administrator has no bearing on my report about Joefromrandb. I see that as highly inappropriate and an abject abuse of power to use information you may (or may not) have gained in from several ARBCOM members to make an ad-hominem attack, in an attempt to discredit my report.
Sure, I had some problems towards the end of my time as an admin and I took myself out of that role. Discussing any issues I had as an administrator in this context - as they were not related to the issue at hand - is highly inappropriate - by you, or anyone else. An admin using heresay to make an ad-homenem attack, is unacceptable. It shows without a doubt that you are holding a grudge against me and should recuse yourself from commenting on anything I do on the wiki.
If you're going to be lurking around waiting to discredit anything I do here by bringing up that kind of stuff, neither of us have any place editing here.
Toddst1: you made a wildly inaccurate statement (2/3 is very different from 2/7) at ANI that resulted in a thoughtless admin handing out an indef to a productive (if uncivil) editor. It's obvious that templating an already upset editor is provocative, and why wouldn't anybody assume it was your intention to get an uncivil response so you could go scuttling off to ANI to ask for a block? I see you've not apologised for misleading the community, whether deliberately or incompetently. If you think that 'Shonen's statement is "character assassination", wait till I get started. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Not waiting around for Bishonen's permission, but I doubt very much she is "going to be lurking around waiting to discredit anything" Toddst1 does "here by bringing up that kind of stuff" and I think Toddst1 knows that. ---Sluzzelintalk21:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Toddst. I wasn't aiming to scandalize you; I commented because people in the discussion were saying you were an admin,[54][55] and Drmies, a current arb, even called you "a fine, fine admin".[56] I was surprised by Drmies' opinion, but I might as well have kept that to myself; it didn't indeed have anything to do with your report on Joefromrandb. It was irrelevant, and I wish I hadn't said anything about it. Anyway, I don't know anything of ArbCom's actions or opinions other than from public discussions. I referred to them because I remembered the pretty high-profile RFAR that was filed against you in 2014, which was accepted but never opened (because you went on a prolonged break). It was an unusual case and thereby stuck in memory. I've found a link to the RFAR, which I'll supply if you want, but perhaps it's as well not to open that window into the past. Look, you needn't worry about me lurking around gunning for you. I'm sorry I mentioned your old troubles at ANI. Bishonen | talk22:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC).
Todd, I won't hide that I was surprised at that warning about a comment on a talk page; I thought that was somewhat out of character. I remember you as someone who wasn't likely to have the rules overrule what's right for the project, and made a few courageous decisions. Bish is one of the good ones, really. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
IP Block
FWIW, I assumed someone would see my revert and block probably more quickly than an AIV report would have gotten answered. GMGtalk17:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't mean to criticize the people who warned, more just to express my anger at the IP. But actually I suspect AIV is quicker. Or why not do both? (Hey, did you see the hippos in the edit notice, aren't they charming? Who knew MONGO was an engraver in the 1870s? (All the other pics are really his, though.)) Bishonen | talk18:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC).
True, very primitive compared to Bigfoots. I put them in the edit notice with your images because Bishzilla was so pleased with the maternal body language and expression of Adhela — she could identify. Pretty ugly hippo baby, admittedly! Bishonen | talk18:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC).
Editors who are willing to sink time and energy into sensitively managing COI issues, or following and carefully reviewing difficult sources, as you did at Jacob Truedson Demitz, are few and far between. Thanks for being one of the good ones! Fyddlestix (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Blush, I'm very flattered, Fyddlestix. BTW, it looks like I was right about the ping problem, and it seems still ongoing; you pinged me at the AfD, but I haven't received the notification. Very annoying: people trust it, and it only works by fits and starts. :-( Bishonen | talk21:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC).
My pings fail half the time I think, even when the function is working. There's always a typo or some aspect of the syntax that gets screwed up so it doesn't work - it's particularly easy to mess up when you do much of your editing on a mobile (which is madening on a good day) while a couple terrorists toddlers are doing their best to distract you... Fyddlestix (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a bloody good thing :p it means I can go around swearing at Admins and nooooooo-one eveeeeer finds out! HA HA!
Wow. That lightning picture from Mongo really is gorgeous today. Yes, the no ping plague is a thing. There's a phab ticket in about it apparently. I thought they were working again for me, but who knows. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, today's edit notice, unusually, features a town (surely? or does all of the US look like that?), but it's an atmospheric nature picture for all that. Thanks for linking to the ping malfunction discussion, Tony. I had heard there was something about it on the Pump, but I was too lazy to dig it out for myself. It's not very helpful, tho'! What one wants to be told is that the... uh... I suppose, the developers, are working day and night to fix it. @Johnuniq and RexxS: do you have any thoughts? Ha, look at the poor naive woman, trying to ping people. :-( Bishonen | talk18:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC).
The description tells me it is over Sarpy County, Nebraska, which is not an area I am familiar with. My assumption based on the article is that it is a populated place, so a town seems reasonable.The technical discussion where the devs are trying to work on the solution is at T177825. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Definitely not lightning. I can see in the lower left corner Bishzilla attacking a suburb at night with her high-voltage breath. Godzilla used to do the same, but in Japan. Dr.K.18:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The techo discussion is at TonyBallioni's above no ping plague link (contratulations on the impending adminship btw!). Bishonen's comment at 18:05, 14 October 2017 above is very interesting because I received the ping and RexxS did not. That is weird! Bishonen's wikitext included the following and a standard signature:
{{Ping|Johnuniq|RexxS}} → @Johnuniq and RexxS: → <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] and [[User:RexxS|RexxS]]:</span>
@RexxS: Did you get a ping from me posting this message? If people haven't noticed, there are some new options in Preferences, see H:PN. I have the following ticked under Web: Mention + Failed mention + Successful mention (I will probably untick the last when it irritates me too much). When I recently sent a ping I received a notification saying "Your mention of Example was sent." Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
And when I saved the above edit, I saw this section as normal, but I also received a notification: "Your mention of RexxS was sent." Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Bish/RexxS/Any talk page stalkers. If I am reading the phabricator request correctly, all you have to do is make any change in your user preferences, and you will be able to receive pings again. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
(1) Any change? Even to something unrelated? (2) Should this fix not be sent to every editor, via a mass message delivery? (3) How did we communicate before the "ping"? I've been here 11 years, but I don't remember .... lol. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, any change. The VPT report contains a link with full information. In essence it says that a maintenance script recently broke the preferences for over a thousand enwiki editors, and the breakage causes notifications to be ignored because the system believes the preferences say that notifications should be ignored. The developer who found this has prepared a fix that he hopes will be deployed on Monday, so by next Tuesday there should no longer be a problem. Re (3), history is fake news which is only recorded at loser websites like Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey Bishonen - I assume you're watching it but just in case: can you check out the latest post on the Demitz AFD? An ip has shown up and posted a wall of text claiming to be Demitz - don't they need to verify that somehow before we take their word for it? There's also dome vague reference to having emailed some people to ask them to intervene in the AFD. I didn't think this whole thing could get any messier but I guess I was wrong... Fyddlestix (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the IP is the real thing, Fyddlestix, but I agree we should ask for verification. I'll do it if you like. As for e-mailing people to interfere in the AfD, I don't think he meant that. Not sure what he did mean by the sentence about "having a link emailed", admittedly, but surely not that. Perhaps it actually referred to identifying himself? Anyway, I'll post something at the AfD. Bishonen | talk19:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC).
That's correct. I wrote to them to identify myself. Only that. Regards, Jacob Truedson Demitz "Lars Jacob" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.109.2 (talk • contribs)
Hi. Im sorry för the pseudo debate in the deletion discussion. That was not my purpose. I just wanted to be transparant and show here that I asked others on svwp agree Other sources. This because I know from experience that all I write on svwp is checked and often tried to be used against me on discussions here. That makes it hard sometimes when my Only purpose is to make a Good thing here. (It also makes me angry upp sometimes when He Always talks about me as haunting him. But I Will not step Into that trap again). Best regards Adville (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, if you avoid those traps and keep your cool, nobody will have any reason to talk about you, I hope. And, as I said, I'm sure you edit in good faith, to improve the encyclopedia, and also that you spoke in good faith at the AfD. Bishonen | talk14:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC).
Thank you very much, Gerda. Ha, look at the American Black Bear! I'm not sure if it's more scary or more wonderful. Here's hoping MONGO didn't go as close as it looks. Bishonen | talk10:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC).
Likely, yes, William Thweatt, but they didn't restore exactly the same list, so a little more rope, perhaps? I'm a softie, what can I say. (Going out for a few hours now, but if there's a storm of edits and reverts from them in a short space of time, I'm sure another admin will get it. Hello, little talkpage stalkers.) Bishonen | talk10:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC).
Bishonen, you gave me final warning of blocking without even trying to see what I edited. FYI: I just made letter 'a' of Ashram capital in my latest edit.
Why this much aggressive behaviour? Suhani 10:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked both TruthSupporter and ItsMonika for being sock puppets of one another. The similar edits made here and here (where the content is almost identical but not perfectly so) shows that this isn't an undo that restored anything; it's a clear case of one person using two accounts to try and add the same content to the article. I saw your final warning left on TruthSupporter's talk page, so I figured I'd message you and let you know. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)11:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Blocking idiots like that is one of the satisfying things about being an admin, DBaK. You'll notice I didn't give them a talkpage notice; I don't want to dignify them with the attention, and I prefer not having their username in my contribs list. Thanks for reporting. Bishonen | talk23:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC).
I was sitting here wondering what I should do with these, and then i saw our name and said,"aha"! I've deleted 4+ user pages with innocent sounding names and text in Portuguese referencing ext. links.
Here they are:
I hate to admit it, Dlohcierekim, but I've actually read the Letters from the Portuguese, in the course of a misguided dive into late 17th c lit. Crazy stuff. I feel unsettled too. Those are spam links, and did you notice Robtsteffey107 and LasonyaHarbison both registered at 22:40, 18 October, and both also posted their userpage text at 22:40, 18 October? They all talk Portuguese, and hawk books/internet services in Portuguese, but LasonyaHarbison says they live in the Netherlands and PabloOsgood5 in Poland. Why did you think of me, exactly..? I mean, I think its a spambot and they should all be blocked, but I dunno much about such things. Did you say there were more similar accounts? Maybe post on ANI, with links, and find somebody more expert? Bishonen | talk07:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC).
Thanks. FOr a reason now forgotten, I thought of WoW. I remember seeing at least one now deleted page before it was deleted. So I searched and found WoW for Admin. (Wikipedia was more fun and frivolous back then.) I saw your comment and realized I could ask you. Thanks for the advice. Yes, I did notice the striking similarities among the "accounts". Off to block.13:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Topic ban appeal and clarification
Hello, I would like to know how to proceed. The New York Times premier article about Breitbart News, which is entitled "What Is Breitbart News?", characterizes Breitbart News as conservative-leaning [57]. Thus, the lede of the Wikipedia article about Breitbart News is in clear violation of WP:BALANCE. How should I proceed? Thank you in advance for your direction. Técnico (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Reply to Técnico: the NYT piece that you have linked to so many times, Técnico, and that you based you argument on in the ANI thread I closed, and again based it on in your recent post to Talk:Breitbart News, was published in August 2016. I'm sure you know that Breitbart and Bannon are more famous now. In the development of recent American political history, a year is a very long time, and if you're really planning to continue your campaign, you need to look for newer descriptions. Picking one from over a year ago seems like obvious cherry-picking to me. I know you ascribe some special status to the NYT article as being a "main article" and a "highly prominent source for what Breitbart is", because of the article title ""What Is Breitbart News?". But that doesn't hold water IMO. No, it's actually a prominent source for what Breitbart was, over a year ago. There has been so much water under the bridges since then! In August 2016, the NYT thought it useful to explain what Breitbart was to their readers. I haven't seen them do that recently; my opinion is that they now assume that their readers know what Breitbart is. Whether or not, I've only seen the NYT refer to Breitbart is passing, as something previously known. Like here, five weeks ago: "Writing last week on the far-right website Breitbart News, Mr. Kobach asserted" etc etc. My bolding. If balance and NPOV are what you desire, Tecnico, you need to update your argument and your sources. (A better idea, IMO, would be to find a new interest on Wikipedia, but that's just advice.) Of course sources a year or two old, or more, are often perfectly fine for Wikipedia; it's all according to context. Your "New York Times Main Article About Breitbart News" is, in the context of your argument, badly out of date. You're likely to get topic banned again, for much longer, if you continue to gnaw that old bone. PS, I have however removed DrFleischman's collapse of the thread you started on the talkpage, because it wasn't a breach of your topic ban, as he apparently thought. Your topic ban was only for one month, from 30 June, so you don't need to appeal (?) it to me. Bishonen | talk15:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC).
Sorry, upon review I guess I did misread the duration and scope of the topic ban. That being said, Technico's recent comments here and at Talk:Breitbart News are more than just "the kind of disruption described by the community at ANI" for which they were topic banned. They are a continuation of the exact same campaign of disruption that prompted the ban. Same arguments, same sources. Evidently Tecnico sees the topic ban as just a pause in the action. They need to be disabused of that notion. An extended topic ban seems perfectly appropriate in this circumstance. And while I appreciate your very good points Bishonen, the last thing anyone wants is for Tecnico to pick a new single source to hang their hat on and then resume the IDHT campaign where they left off. If Tecnico is going to continue railing against Breitbart being described as "far right," they need to come up with a credible and substantially different argument that has not already been rejected by the community. That's not easy to do, since the issue has already been hashed to death. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Diwali and today's traffic
Happy Diwali....! (should have added this image earlier)
Bish / others: Today is Diwali / Tihar, a major festival there in India / Nepal / Mauritius / etc. The wikipedia article typically sees very high traffic (>200,000 views). There is a few weeks old new account too busy repeat mass deleting sources and sourced content. I have left them a note on their talk page, and invited them to the Talk:Diwali page. Their edit summary and edit hints this account may be someone blocked previously, but I have not done the digging. The article may benefit from a watch today and tomorrow for disruption. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a certain sympathy with their removal of overly feelgoody text, Ms Sarah. But certainly the user should participate on talk, and I see EdJohnston has warned them about that. Man... Diwali... that takes me back to my carefree Wikipedia youth when User:Giano and I used to vandalise Christmas. We never removed things, though, we added, er, some good stuff. [Drifts off into a reverie. Wakes up. Hastily:] Sure, I'll watch the article! Bishonen | talk19:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC).
Thanks Bish and EdJ. My dear Bish vandalised Christmas, don't believe it! But maybe there is this dangerous part of you (and Giano), I have yet to discover (or maybe better not!). The Diwali article is indeed not in the best of shape, but it is not too bad. Some large sections such as regional practices are unsourced, which is bothersome too. But that lead and main text, built up by earlier editors reads better than the newbie's replacement text. Will add it to the to-review list. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
......and very happy Christmases they were too. Alas, Cecilia, a traditional Sicilian Christmas goat, in all her finery clutching her Gucci handbag, was deleted a couple of years ago for being against the rules. Rather sad really. Giano(talk)19:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, wot larks! I know you miss Cecilia, as do I, dear Giano, but I think some of the baby Sicilian Christmas goats (Santa's or Satan's goats) are still frolicking at, well, in some little-known corner of Wikipedia. You can probably find the place — I won't imitate Mr Iridescent's indiscreet linking. Bishonen | talk21:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC).
Oh look! Sweet! I have just found one of the stray kids. Apparently in the 12 years since we last saw it, it has been visited just once - by someone who thinks it's a good image to be copied to Commons. That's nice.
No, sadly,I can't link to any of them; they all wandered off years ago, as poor, sweet, little goat kids do when unwanted and unloved. Wikipedia is cruel place and that's to those writing it, to little surplus fluffy animals is it positively carnivorous. Giano(talk)11:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, those links made me quite sad. All those (at-the time-funny but now meaningless) in-jokes and references to some great editors who are no longer here. Eleven years ago and most of them gone. Bunchofgrapes and the great Filiocht and, of course, Geogre and all the others, perhaps one day they might come back - it would be nice to think so. Giano(talk)14:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
It was never my intention to make you sad, Excellency. But rather you should rejoice that once upon a time you were part of Wikipedia's own Camelot.
The weight of this sad time we must obey;
Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.
The oldest hath borne most: we that are young
Shall never see so much, nor live so long.
I too miss so many wonderful editors, although you will be pleased to hear that Geogre does come and visit us from time to time, disguised as a refugee from Utopia. --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
About missing editors (I didn't want to start a new thread for another memory), that I said: Go meet Bishonen, and your life on the project gets bearable! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
That's funny, I've given Dipupandey80 a couple of discretionary sanctions warnings and am just typing a warning to CreativeEdit. But I have to go out now, I'll take a better look later. Bishonen | talk10:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC).
So much of my time is wasted on this crap. It creates a sort of paranoia and makes me suspicious of pretty much any new account that appears likely to be based in India, which is obviously unjust stereotyping. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if the bad apples are beginning to glimpse yet that it's a bad idea to attack you on your page? You see how I and others knew about it before you came here. I'm kind of busy, but if nobody else has done the SPI by the time I get my head above water, I'll do it. Bishonen | talk14:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC).
That file might could be useful anywhere. At the same time, for files preferably kept only on Wikipedia (the Bishzilla portraits come to mind), I prefer to use Template:Esoteric file. Do you know if they've ever tried to delete an image tagged with that, RexxS? But I agree, that move to Commons —> delete on Wikipedia pas-de-deux is, yes, an end-run.
That Demitz guy
Hello Bishonen ! Long time no see. I don't really understand what has happened with Demitz. Are you about to recreate the article once more ? Perhaps some people cannot differ between Serge and Demitz. 6-7 "voters" had less than 250 edits here. Unfair, doubtlessly. Now swWiki has opened up for further deletions here. The principles were not considered, in my opinion. Thanks for your efforts, and I hope some article can be restored. Thanks! Boeing720 (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Boeing720. Recreate it? No, I can't do that. Were you reading the deletion log at the redlink Jacob Truedson Demitz? There, you can see me both delete and restore the article on October 16. But all the actions I did there, including the recreation, were purely technical, for the purpose of moving SergeWoodzing's draft over the original article and then merging the histories of the two pages. The only "real" action was by BD2412, who closed the discussion on 23 October and found "substantial consensus" that the article subject didn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and then deleted it. He's right, you know. There was substantial consensus. Speaking personally, I'm pissed off at the amount of notability we demand for people like this, when I compare the kinds of sources we treat as reliable for some types of BLPs, such as say porn stars. I clicked on one BLP at random in the porn stars category, and found that Xbiz, Fangoria, AskMen, the Howard Stern Show, Badmouth interviews, Klixxx.com and Glamourcon are apparently OK sources with a reputation for fact-checking. But Borlänge Tidning and Dala-Demokraten are dubious, "local", etc. That's simply anglocentric. Or maybe porn-aficionado-centric.. grumble. But you know how it goes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS yada yada. There was consensus. And most of the deleters' arguments were, properly, about notability, certainly when they re-posted in the second round. Bishonen | talk08:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC).
Why did you remove my addition to the For Britain entry? Your comment stated that Youtube is not an "acceptable or reliable" reference, but the Wikipedia guidance permits Youtube references subject to restrictions such as copyright and authenticity. Since Anne Marie Waters is a readily identifiable public figure, and the video shows her explaining the launch of her new party in front of its banner, it would seem spurious to suggest that the video could show anything other than what it purports to show.
Hello Paul. Solely you-tube videos alone isn't reliable. Rarely, at least. Haven't you got some more source (I'm not up to date with the matter, but have recently experienced the same). But look here Erich_Linemayr - "orchid task", first reverted, but you-tube together with an other source might just do it. Best of luck Boeing720 (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Paulddaellis: Bishonen didn't remove your addition. She only set WP:pending changes for the article For Britain. Your edit was reverted by Velella. In any case, the problem is not that Wikipedia forbids the any reference to YouTube, but that you doubled the size of the article based on just that YouTube video. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and we require that articles are primarily based on secondary sources, which generally means sources where an expert is giving an analysis or summary of something, We won't base large parts of an article on primary sources like that YouTube video. What you should be looking for is a report or analysis of Waters' speech in a quality newspaper, for example, where we have the benefit of a respected journalist and editor drawing whatever conclusions are pertinent. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you RexxS for your response, and apologies to Bishonen for misrepresenting their action. I have now redirected my original query to Velella.
Since the length of my addition was not mentioned by Velella as their reason for undoing it, may I ask how you (RexxS) conclude that that was the true reason for its deletion rather than the stated reason, the nature of the source?
Since the subject of the article is a very new political party with virtually no history and predominently negative media comment it seems reasonable that the article should at some stage mention what the party itself states that its purpose is. How else might that be achieved but by quoting from the launch speech, the principal available source?
Yes, but what a party claims to stand for is supposed to be a very small part of their Wikipedia article, if any, Paulddaellis. If you look at the articles about other parties, you'll see that they're based on what reliable sources say about the party, not on their self-description. That's how Wikipedia does it. Why, you may ask? Because what a political party, or a commercial company, or a pop group, or a person, says about themselves generally sounds great. It tends to promote them, and be slanted in their favour, whereas articles in an encyclopedia are supposed to be neutral. Bishonen | talk10:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC).
Boeing, without commenting on the rest of this: it looked like you were drawing a link between someone's wiki account and a real life identity here - not sure if that was your intent or not but I redacted it as a precaution. See WP:OUTING. And for what it's worth, if that was your intent I'm 95 % sure you're incorrect about who the person behind that account is. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Skottniss was reelected as admin. I congrats him. One year ago Skottniss was outed and called a lot of things by an old user which led to a block and it was not sure he wanted to proceed. Now he has been reelected. I am happy. He needed to hear we are strong together (that means if someone calls another user psycically ill and should not be allowed to be an admin then we other admins suport that user who is called things). Adville (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Fyddlestix, this was not about anything of that. (neither about the receiver) But as of NOW I just want to end 'a greater matter'. Hopefully that is already done/solved. Boeing720 (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Bish/others: The Radha Soami article needs some attention. It was recently checked and cleaned up by Diannaa for copyvio issues. I thereafter added RS and RS-sourced summary. Now a hopping IP, 47.8.14.* and 47.8.15.* is edit warring it back to non-RS website, deleting RS and sourced content, leaving sweet edit summaries such as "are you an idiot or stupid" with the disruption!? I twinkled their talk page, invited a talk page discussion yesterday, but all that is going nowhere. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi,Ms Sarah. Well, it's just two IPs, 47.8.14.41 and 47.8.15.205, and luckily they're on quite a small range, which can be blocked if needed. I see @Huon: is talking to them (very patiently), and they have said they'll refrain from editing the topic further. If they come back with more edit warring and fresh insults, I'll warn, unless Huon does. Bishonen | talk19:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC).
SailingOn
Is this an appropriate username? Thanks! Wasn't trying to be disruptive or anything. Sorry for the hassle.
Cheers, User:SailingOn
Yes, that sounds OK. Per the block message I gave you, it's OK to create a new account yourself, so I think we're all good. Note, you can sign your talkpage posts by typing four tildes, ( ~~~~ ). That will be automatically converted to your username + a timestamp. Happy editing! Bishonen | talk21:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC).
(edit conflict) (talk page stalker)@SailingOn: the number of colons at the beginning of a line determines how many steps (virtual tab-stops). I believe this originated as an ‘off-label’ use of a feature intended for glossaries and such, like this—
Term
Definition of the term.
—but without the semicolon that marks that line as an entry with boldface. Where the indentation in a long thread has grown annoyingly deep, but you want to directly address the last point made, you can use {{Outdent}} to maintain the threading, like this:
@Bishonen @Just Chilling I was pretty salty that my account was banned(despite only making positive contributions to the site) so I filed the appeal, then I just decided to make a new account. Forgive me though, thanks for everything. I still don't understand what was so bad about the "WikipediaMadeMeChangeMyName" username. Again, sorry for the hassle.
RexxS Please keep in mind I was correct about the John Daly article, if you actually view what I added(his educational background) you will see that. Using YouTube as a source is permissible under certain circumstances which this video fulfilled. ( SailingOn (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC) )
@SailingOn: no, you weren't correct about the edit you made four times to John Charles Daly. First of all, the show is undoubtedly the copyright of CBS TV (1960). The copyright in the USA is described at Copyright Act of 1976 and Copyright Term Extension Act and you need to read and understand those before you start making reckless claims that a TV is "in the public domain". The copyright term for works of corporate authorship is 75 years after publication, and you can work out when the copyright will expire on a 1960 TV show. So you were linking to a copyright violation. We don't do that. Secondly, you inserted the words "Italic text" at the top of the article four times. Don't you even look at the edits you make? Haven't you learned where the preview button is yet? You really need to shape up or ship out. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@SailingOn: You've offered absolutely no evidence that the copyright on What's My Line? has expired. The Wikipedia article What's My Line? #Episode availability lists episodes that still exist – that meaning of "availability", and says nothing about the copyright status of the show you linked to on YouTube. The Project Gutenberg source looks reasonable, until you realise that the title is actually "Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing Press". All of the content there is self-published, or user generated content. Go ahead and check the description of "World Heritage Encyclopedia" content at the bottom of the page – it's all UGC. The page is littered with errors, such as the muddled headings for Venezuela, UK, etc. Frankly, if that's what you're relying on for your contention that What's My Line? is public domain, I suggest you start saving up for your legal costs now, as your ideas on copyright are sooner or later going to prove very expensive. Check the precautionary principle to understand why Wikipedia takes a very conservative line on copyright.
And what about the edit-warring to keep on inserting the words "Italic text"? Do you have anything at all to say about that? --RexxS (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I find the out-of-copyright claim fairly plausible, because in that era the US made authors jump through notice & registration hoops to secure their rights, and there exist many works that have fallen into public domain due to defects in this regard. However, I also agree the anonymous evidence above is insufficient to satisfy the precautionary principle. There are some denizens of c:COM:VPC who know where to look up the copyright status of pre-1989 works; it might be worth asking for help there.—Odysseus147919:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Very odd. Yeah, it does have PC1. I mean, it's not just that somebody put a PC icon on it. And yet nothing shows in the log. I'm very touched that you turned to me in my quality as technical expert! Try the Village Pump, perhaps. Unless one of the little talkpage stalkers has an explanation to share? Bishonen | talk17:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC).
The protection logs are here: [58]. The page was moved. Still a puzzle, though, because either the logs should have moved with it (I think), or at least there should be something in the move log for this name. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Bish! I've created an LTA page for a globally locked editor who returns virtually every day as a different IP. It's basically only Justlettersandnumbers and I who chase him. A lonely job . It would be helpful to have his modus operandi recorded for other editors to use and indeed other Wikipedias. His cross-wiki abuse with IPs, especially at Simple English Wikipedia, is appalling. Anyhow, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson, and if you think it's appropriate, change the status parameter from pending to active in the infobox at the top? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, I think they added that "status" thingy to prevent abuse of... er... long term abuse. The trouble is, no one really patrols or clerks there on a regular basis and mine had been languishing for two weeks. Although not as long as this one. And complimenti on the cute hippos! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Mind you, I don't see any suggestion on the page or in the template that it has to be an admin that activates it, still less a designated "clerk", as long as it's not the person who filed it. Just anybody respectable. (I don't understand why Jayron first begged at noticeboards, etc, instead of just doing it.) Bishonen | talk10:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC).
How about anyone unrespectable, like MONGO!!! (oh and hey when did a drawing of mommie hippo an her calf get attributed to the dreaded MONGO???)--MONGO17:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps indiscreet? I know the little MONGO is quite secretive about his engraving career in the 1870s. Our image page even lists the author of the charming mother-and-baby piece as "unknown". ("Calf" is a pretty charmless word, please don't use it!) Bishonen | talk17:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC).
Hi, a while back you declined an unblock request from Special:Contributions/Dapi89 here: [59]. An IP has recently brought the matter up, stating that the block was at my "insistence"
and alluding to my "agenda": [60]. I wonder if there may be a connection, as Dapi89 frequently brought up the topic of agendas; sample: [61].
Hi, K.e.coffman. I've taken a look, and commented. There's certainly a likelihood that an IP who is extremely interested in a) you, b) Dapi89, and c) Dapi's block in April, is being used by Dapi89. I can't be sure, though, and there's not much I could do about it if I was. Anyway, whoever it was, I'll eat my banhammer if it wasn't someone with an account, that they preferred not to use. That much is obvious, and is pretty cowardly in my book. I was surprised that the anonymous attack had been simply left on the page by the people who watch the article, and have said as much. If it had been on a page where I was more at home, say WP:ANI or WP:AE. I would have removed it myself, but when I come as a guest, I daren't quite.
Also, I noticed another attack on you close by the IP post that I thought pretty unconscionable, from a MILHIST coordinator, and have posted on their page to say so. Bishonen | talk20:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC).
You've got mail!
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 06:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC). 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.
I was editing a new section when a small power surge hit (I'm guessing, based on the wind gust). The surge protector of the UPS tripped, and took down the CPU. When I logged back on, Firefox reopened the editing window, but the edit went through not for a new section, but for the entire talk page. I suspect this is something that could cause other problems. Anmccaff (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure it wasn't a broad hint that I need to archive? As for H*Tl^r, if the past few years of looking stuff up on Wikipedia have taught me anything, it's that everything's a group. Bishonen | talk18:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC).
Some students at USUHS made a t-shirt that kinda summed up the place: a caduceus (a pun, BTW; cad-USUHS. (I didn't say a good pun...)) with a rifle (? sword?) and syringe crossed over it, or thereabouts. Within a year, there was a garage band called the War Doctors.... Anmccaff (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
...because it's for such egregious cases of vandalism and violations of legal import that it doesn't need thinking about for a second. Presumably, of course, designed in the days before wanky mobile phone screens that stay still long enough to persuade one that it's finished loading, only to suddenly jump again. Ambush! — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving pings. Bizarre.11:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Uhh... that looks like computering. I'm not very good at computering. But if someone who knows what they're doing want to add that to my thingy-ma-bob so that I get a popup, they're more than welcome to. GMGtalk13:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: No-one can edit your .js files but you to prevent abuse that could harm your computer or interfere with your access to the site (except admins, technically, but we're really not meant to). Having said that, installing this is very simple. Go to User:GreenMeansGo/monobook.js and simply add importScript('User:Zvn/confirmwatchlistrollback.js'); on a new line. ~ Rob13Talk13:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I thought admins could edit other's settings there. At any rate, it doesn't seem to have worked. Still managed to rollback about a dozen of my own edits on my sandbox from my watchlist with no confirmation button. GMGtalk13:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Bish, I'm a fan of the bird picture today. Really nice. GMG, are you using Vector or Monobook? This script is for monobook. Also, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi there is some setting in preferences that requires confirming on mobile. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
No idea. I've only ever messed with that kind of thing once, to add the AfD helper, and only because someone was on IRC holding my hand as I crossed the street. I am fairly well aware of where the boundaries of my circle of competence lies, and this ain't it. GMGtalk13:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) @GreenMeansGo: I just added your sandbox to my watchlist, then tried to rollback your last edit(s). I got a nice popup asking me "Are you sure you want to rollback this edit? OK / Cancel". You could put the importScript into User:GreenMeansGo/common.jsinstead, if you wanted it to use in any skin. I seem to remember it didn't work for Giano initially, then it suddenly started working after a time. Possibly a page needs purging, or something is cached. You will certainly need to reload your watchlist before it can pick up the hook from the JavaScript. HTH. --T-RexxS (rawr) 13:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey. It worked. Awesome sauce. And it looks like we've managed to turn an accidental missclick into a permanent improvement. Thanks all around. GMGtalk13:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
That's just a cut-and-paste of the first line here - it's possible that it's a clueless but good faith newcomer trying to create a new page. If it is a spammer, it's a very odd thing to be spamming; if there's one company that we can safely say knows how to do search engine optimization both well and discreetly, Google is surely going to be it. (Plus they pay the WMF millions of dollars a year; if they wanted a change made, they have access to the back-channels.) ‑ Iridescent22:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Kautilya3! After I'd posted a nice offer to the user to help them with the unblock request, I noticed they had, just before, posted the sentence "tery kaali bunnd mei Bishonen ka lund" higher up on the page. Google translate doesn't know what it means; do you? Tony: a dress is a dress! Bishonen | talk16:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC).
Yeah, more obscenities. I will spare you. Best to revoke the talk page access as well.
(edit conflict) Well, thank you. I was actually going to revert you, and leave the comments on the page for the reviewing admin to feast their eyes on, but it's up to UTRS now, as I think I have enough info about it. Though socking is surely more likely than an unblock request in any form. Bishonen | talk16:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC).
Happy Thanksgiving
Happy Thanksgiving
A little early, but still...
Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness.
Thank you, Winkelvi! Celebrating Thanksgiving isn't part of my culture, no. So you want me to pass on the turkey to someone else..? [Pets the turkey.] No, I'll set it free! :-) Bishonen | talk08:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC).
Yes, by all means pardon the turkey! I had no idea you weren't American (pretty arrogant for me to assume, I guess). That's what I get for trying to get a jump on the holiday greetings this year - last year, I only returned Wikipedia Christmas and New Year greetings to folks who had given them to me. This time, I wanted to make sure I sent holiday greetings folks in the community who had been quite decent to me during this rough year for me Wikipedia-wise. Guess it kinda backfired! Thanks for being kind in your response. I'll catch you again around Yuletide! :-) -- WV ● ✉✓14:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Gosh - I literally misread that as "cool old tart" first time round. I was just going wtf when I realized. I really don't know whether I should book to see an optician or a psychiatrist first. Maybe there are multidisciplinary ones who do both for a discount. Sheesh, sorry. Happy everything, anyway. DBaK (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Bish! I was gonna wish you a happy Thanksgiving, but apparently someone beat me to it (I read the post above mine lol. It's all good).
Anyway, I was wondering if you would like to help me with an issue I first broached to you a couple of months ago. It concerns the move of James Mattis to Jim Mattis. You said I had a good case of getting it moved due to the strong impeccable sources I provided and suggested that I bring in to the talkpage, which was exactly what I did Talk:James_Mattis#Long_overdue_to_move_this_page_to_Jim_Mattis. Unfortunately, the talk page discussion quickly devolved into name-calling and a discussion about the "length" of my block log without any discussion about the merit of the move. An editor who disagreed with the move told me to "get off his lawn" in his edit summary and suggested that I "leave" Wikipedia altogether [62]. Only 2 other people weighed in and the discussion has died. I'm pretty disappointed by this outcome and I'm wondering if you could perhaps weigh in if appropriate.
As always, thank you SO SO much! You literally saved my wiki-life and I'll always be thankful for that (I know you said you don't celebrate Thanksgiving but still). It's like you're Dr. Dre to my Eminem, I Need a Doctor-style. Sorry I digress. But anyway, I would really appreciate it if you could take a look and perhaps make a determination on what should be done.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Boney, my man! Good to see you. Yes, I remember about Jim/James Mattis, and I do notice that you give sources and the other people don't. Chris Troutman's comment to you was certainly unkind. "We'd be fine if you left Wikipedia altogether"? That's terrible, and so is the "Get off my lawn" thing, which sounds like classic WP:OWN. However.. I can understand that people felt somewhat provoked when you started with "I'm going to go ahead and move it again". I think you did mean to start a discussion and seek consensus before doing anything — otherwise, why would you go to Talk at all? — but you put it a bit... hmm... overbearingly. I don't think that's a good excuse for starting up about your block log and saying Wikipedia would be better off without you, mind you. No. I might have commented, if I'd seen it at the time, but it was 12 days ago. We shouldn't, any of us, start complaining about anything in such an old thread, and I won't. I hope you have a great Thanksgiving yourself! Bishonen | talk16:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC).
Thanks for the advice, Bish. RexxS was kind enough to step in and I'll accept whatever outcome that comes out of it. Just a sidenote: I raised valid questions to Alex Shih on his ArbCom election page last night, and he responded by insinuating that I was "trolling" [63]and that the "community" was on his side. Can you ask him to retract the personal attack? I don't want to go anywhere near his talkpage due to bad blood with him and other members of the Ideogram fanclub a decade ago and I don't want to bring this to AN/I and blow the whole thing out of proportion, but I object to anyone baselessly calling me a troll.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
No.. I don't think I can do that, Boney. The bar for things you can say on these pages is pretty high. He should answer your follow-up questions, but I'm assuming he will. Bishonen | talk11:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC).
@Boney: Being older, I'm not so worried about time as 'Shonen, so I've gone ahead and make a requested move at Talk:James Mattis #Requested move 23 November 2017. That will be advertised more broadly than to just the folks who watch-list the page, so may attract more comments. I've notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history as well to get a few more opinions if possible. Please comment as politely as you can – in other words, take the high ground and pretend the prior ad hominems didn't happen – and then be prepared to accept whatever conclusion is reached over the course of the next seven days while the requested move should be left open. If you wish, I'll look for an uninvolved editor with some MilHist or Bio background to do the close in a week's time. You might have to remind me, though. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there a way that you can get my talk page protected? I'm getting sick an tired of an anonymous IP user making stupid posts on my talk page telling me to do this, that, and the other on another wiki site that I administrate. This has been going on for several months and I'm tired of it. King Shadeed 1:40, November 26, 2017 (UTC)
Hi Bishy! I figure I should start a new section since this is a new issue I've come across and the previous section was getting too cluttered.
In the process of gathering evidence and re-familiarizing myself with Alex Shih/AQu01rius' past associations as part of my in-depth investigation into his arbcom candidacy (still waiting for him to answer my follow-up questions...), I noticed that User:PalaceGuard008 has re-introduced personal attack against you and User:Geogre on his talkpage in November 2012 [64] (the attack is directly copied from his previous account User:Sumple. I would have noticed this right away if I were active at the time). As far as I know, consensus has changed and such objectionable material is no longer permitted on userspace on the principle that Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground (a good example is my old userpage getting MFDed despite numerous consensus to speedy keep Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Certified.Gangsta in the past in both AN/I and MFD).
Just to refresh your memory, this individual originally added the personal attack on his old Sumple account 10 years ago and there was quite a bit of a drama at the time on AN/I [65] that resulted in him getting blocked for disruption by Geogre and then he almost immediately abandoned his old account in favor of a new (in my opinion, a sockpuppet) account PalaceGuard008. He abandoned the Sumple account on 12:38 May 27th, 2007 and the PalaceGuard008 account was created less than 24 hours later on 8:11 May 28th 2007. Nobody knew he was secretly editing under a new identity until more half a year later on January 15th 2008 when he tried to pass himself off as a neutral observer and attacked my userpage on AN/I [66] in violations of multiple Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts. His cover got blown and his old account was indef. blocked for being a sockpuppet by User:Nlu, but was later unblocked on a technicality and on the condition that he publicized his old identity on both his old userpage User:Sumple and his new one User:PalaceGuard008.
Anyway, long story short, the point is the personal attack against you and Geogre had NEVER been on his new account until November 2012, more than FIVE years after the initial conflict, and it took another five years for me to notice. He also reneged his pledge to publicize his identity on his userpage somewhere along the way [67]. In fact, I didn't notice until 2 days ago. I removed the attack [68] and he restored it [69]. I just removed it again, but obviously this is an untenable solution. I'm wondering if you could perhaps get involved yourself (or get 'zilla involved :P) or bring this to AN/I to get a sense of where the community's consensus is on this issue (I would love to bring this to AN/I myself but I think people would just end up attacking my record instead of the merit of the issue). My understanding is that the community no longer tolerates such objectionable, low-brow contents on userspace in 2017 and it irks me a great deal when you get personally attacked like this. If he had attacked me, I would just make a persona non grata list on my own talkpage and put him on it. But you deserve so much better and NO ONE should personally attack you like this, especially some casual POV pusher with a political agenda and a net negative to the project. Let me know what the next step is and what I can do to help resolve this issue. Thanks as always :-)--Certified Gangsta (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern, Boney, but I don't care about nonsense like that. WP:DENY is best way to deal with trolling. Declaring a user who left the project 8 years ago (Geogre) as persona non grata? Pfft. Please just let it go. Bishonen | talk10:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC).
...but could you take a look at this, this and this? I wouldn't admin-shop like this but honestly I think this is one of those situations where a stern warning from someone with teeth would save everyone a whole lot of the stress that would come from opening some kind of formal request for sanctions of some kind, and your name sprung to mind since you were the one who weighed in on that ANI thread back in May. (Actually you lost a coin-toss against Yunshui, who weighed in last time I was accused of "vandalism" for adding a maintenance tag to an article.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
No.. I'd really rather not. Sorry, Hijiri, but a) TV series I've never heard of (shown only in countries where I don't live), b) Marvel comics movies, and c) enforcing WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, are some of my major non-interests on Wikipedia. The mere thought of combining all three makes me want to take a break. Hey, maybe Yunshui likes and enjoys all of them? Are you sure that coin you tossed was properly balanced? Bishonen | talk23:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC).
No, that's fine. It was an unreasonable request to begin with (hence the upfront apology), and that was before I knew about your aversion to a, b and c. I dunno, I guess I'll just forget about it this time.
Honestly, the only reasons I was looking at those articles is because (i) I was on a Marvel kick this week for various real-world related reasons and (ii) writing 70+ Japanese poetry (etc.) articles for WP:WAM has me kinda burned out on "serious" topics at the moment.
But being burned out on the reason I edit Wikipedia should probably be addressed with a short wikibreak rather than delving into to pop culture firepit: I'd happily invite your talk page stalkers remind me of this "epiphany" if they see the same thing happen again. (Not because I plan on asking you to intervene again, just because I know you have a lot of talk page stalkers, some of whom I'm pretty sure are also my talk page stalkers and would therefore likely notice.)
@Aunva6: Thank you for the advice, but I think even if I hadn't decided on a different approach (see my response to Bish above) I probably wouldn't follow it. Thing is, last time a comics-focused editor was harassing me I did ask Drmies, and while he dealt with it appropriately, he did not do so before Floq (apparently a talk page stalker of Drmies) commented that his preferred solution in such situations would be to block both of us (and presumably see whose appeal seems more genuine). I've seen Floq make similar statements elsewhere. And while it may be true that that would solve the problem (even though it's not a two-party dispute), and I don't doubt that it is a legit method (Floq is a good admin who's helped me out with non-CIVIL/NPA stuff in the past), I really don't want to be blocked. The above-proposed wikibreak would be at most a day or two, and after that I wanna get back to giving the Kakinomoto no Hitomaro treatment to another dozen or so articles. WAM was fun, but it effectively forced me to put all serious editing of pre-existing articles on hold for the last month. Most of the interesting topics already have articles. Even if many of them are sub-stubs that an admin once told me he'd happily TNT-delete -- that's why I never mainspace sub-stubs anymore, as I had done with an earlier, long-gone, version of Utsunomiya Yoritsuna. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Bishy! Thanks for taking the time to raise this [70] to User:Alex Shih on his arbcom question page. I just saw that another editor has confronted him on his talkpage as well [71]. By the way, I really don't appreciate the sarcastic, condescending, passive-aggressive tone he answered your question [72], especially the way he highlighted the word symphasise and assuming. Very uncalled for and classless! Hopefully, the community will see such conduct (and the fact that he continues to dismiss valid concerns about his record as "polemic" and "trolling", lash out against my record when I'm not even running for arbcom, and past membership in the "Ideogram fanclub" [73]) as disqualifying. Thanks again :-)
One of MONGO's great images, Boney — you'll see another one soon, so steal it while you can! Never mind the tone — I think you may be reading more into that than I do — I don't see much tone — but it wasn't classy to ignore you without even an "I'm not replying to you because", nor to deal with the issue on IRC, out of sight, a fact that was furthermore only revealed when I, not you, asked a question. But never mind, it told me a good deal. Bishonen | talk11:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC).
(edit conflict) (haven't read Bish's reply yet) (talk page stalker) (although I won't pretend that my happening to have this page on my watchlist is what caused me to notice this) As someone who was recently accused (on this page) by an unambiguous troll of being a Chinese nationalist POV-pusher with whom Alex Shih has a history of fraternizing (the above diff is a relatively civil example -- I picked it because it was the last time he did so logged in -- but some people feel so sensitive is a specific reference to me and Alex, and how we supposedly share anti-Korean Chinese nationalism), I gotta wonder if Certified Gangsta (talk·contribs) would be willing to name names regarding the "several unsavory characters", or if doing so would open them up to accusations of blatantly and baselessly attacking Wikipedians in good standing. I actually know very little about Alex Shih's history outside his interactions with me, so it might be fair to call him a Chinese nationalist POV-pusher who is cozy with other nationalist POV-pushers, and that might be a perfectly acceptable question to ask an ArbCom candidate (I know precisely nothing about ArbCom elections), but I'm curious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That said, after drafting the above I did check, and of Alex's top nine most-edited articles, only two -- Battle of Wuhan and Chinese Expeditionary Force -- relate to Chinese external conflicts. This is true even if one assumes Taiwan and China are separate countries, as most of them relate to the Chinese Civil War before the Kuomintang withdrew to Taiwan. This is not the case with CG, whose user page explicitly identifies him as a nationalist lists as one of his views on "ethnicity, nation, and race" a quotation that essentially amounts to "China sucks", despite six of his top nine pages relating to China and collectively accounting for about a quarter of all his mainspace edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Let's address this point-by-point. 1. I'm not familiar with the Korean user you have disputes with since I don't edit any Korea-related articles. 2. I've already named the "unsavory characters" Alex Shih patrionized by name in my arbCom questions to him Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Candidates/Alex_Shih/Questions#Question_from_Certified_Gangsta with numerous supporting diffs (Ideogram, HongQiGong, User:Blueshirts, a self avowed supporter of the fascist Blue Shirts Society, etc). 3. The fact that you called Culture of Taiwan, Taiwanese Americans, and Takeshi Kaneshiro "relating to China" put your objectivity into question. I have no interest whatsoever in China-related articles unless they pertain to the irredentist concept of Greater China (IMO no different from irredentist concepts like Caliphate and Megali Idea), namely their goal of invading/annexing Taiwan. 4. The high edit count on Taiwan-related articles is skewed by the fact that community-banned sockpuppeteer (Ideogram), who Alex Shih patronized (and supported in his arbCom case), baited and trolled me ten years ago, as summarized by admin User:Jehochman here [74]. My more recent contribution show a wide range of mainspace interests, most of which has nothing to do with Taiwan vs. China. Like Alex Shih, I have been largely inactive in the past decade. 5. The "nationalist" infobox on my userpage has American flag on it. Clearly, I identify as an American nationalist, not a Taiwanese nationalist, so you're sadly mistaken. 6. I harbor no animosity toward Chinese people and I'm not here to push a Taiwanese nationalist POV. My only concern is upholding and maintaining NPOV. The fact of the matter is most editors who gang-patrol Taiwan-related articles (even some of the admins) are Chinese nationalists that either explicitly/implicitly support the Chinese Nationalist Party (aka Kuomintang) or the Chinese Communist Party and the annexation of Taiwan. Their goal is to de-emphasize or (better yet) completely shut out the views of Taiwanese nationalism in the mainspace or even dismiss the fact that it is a force to be reckon with (funny because the dominant party of Taiwan, Democratic Progressive Party, is a Taiwanese nationalist party). Alex Shih was right in the thick of it and he made his own pro-China bias clear [75]. Bishonen knows my heart is in the right place and she probably summarized my position better than anybody with this quote "One basic disagreement is whether the ethnic distinction betrween Taiwanese and Chinese is a matter of self-identification or of biology ("blood"). CG says the former, his opponents the latter. Thus Ben Aveling: "Even if every Taiwanese citizen stopped speaking Chinese they would still be ethnically Chinese (aboriginies excluded). It's in the blood."[138] As far as I know, CG's opposite view of ethnicity is the dominant one today, when we don't talk so often about what is and isn't in the blood. See Ethnic group#Ethnicity, nation, and race: "While ethnicity and race are related concepts (Abizadeh 2001), the concept of ethnicity is rooted more in the idea of social grouping, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal affiliation, shared genealogy/kinship and descent, religious identification, language use, or specific cultural and traditional origins, whereas race is rooted in the idea of a biological classification."[76]. The so-called "China sucks" quote was taken directly from the source here. 7. I'm not running for ArbCom; Alex Shih is. Therefore, my track record is irrelevant while he has voluntarily submitted himself to community scrutiny by running. But feel free to shoot the messenger. I have yet to see any merit-based opposition as to why my questions to him are inappropriate, which is unsurprising given the detailed diffs and impeccable evidence I provided.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
1. That's fine. I never implied you were/did, just that your using the same language makes me very skeptical about your claims.
2. Maybe. I'll check those later. Per AGF I'm required to assume they are not unsavory characters who share Alex's nationalism until I see otherwise, and that's really peripheral to the point I was making above anyway.
3. Culture of Taiwan is a fairly short article given its topic, clocking in at a little over 3,200 words, of which 55 are either "Chinese" or "China". Ditto Taiwanese Americans, though it's a little less clear since it's only 40 words out of 3,474. Takeshi Kaneshiro is an article on an actor who apparently speaks three languages with native-level proficiency, of which two are Chinese topolects and the third is Japanese, which I can assure has no accepted genetic relationship to either the Sinitic languages nor any of the indigenous minority languages spoken in either Mainland China or Taiwan, and whose best-known film appearance outside Asia was probably House of Flying Daggers, a Chinese film in which he portrayed a character who was not implied to be anything other than Chinese. For me to claim these articles "relate to China" is not in any way subjective or controversial; for you to claim otherwise (read: that they have no relation to China) rather would call your objectivity into question if it wasn't already so.
4. Don't care. Irrelevant. You are allowed hold a personal grudge against Alex for something you say happened ten years ago if you so choose, but I am allowed to say it would be in the community's interest if you'd drop it. Your recent contributions (327 edits in the last eight months and nothing for more than four years before that) are so few as to be statistically insignificant.
5. Nothing mistaken about it. I saw the image in the nationalism infobox, as well as the Trump userbox and interpreted them both accordingly. Read my above comment again and you will see that I never called you "a Taiwanese nationalist". (Your putting words in my mouth like that makes me all the more skeptical of things you say that I don't already know are counter-factual.)
6. I harbor no animosity toward Chinese people The quote on your user page, and the heading you placed it under, indicate otherwise. I have no idea how this diff makes anything "clear" -- did you cite the right one? Either way, it is from more than a decade ago. If you have any recent examples of disruptive behaviour or nationalist POV-pushing from the candidate, you should cite those.
7. Yeah, but you are the one who voluntarily posted a string of really bizarre non sequitur attacks against him. No one forced you to do that. His agency in his ArbCom candidacy and your lack thereof in your own hypothetical candidacy for something have nothing to do with. Your repeatedly doing so in multiple fora (including a well-watched admin talk page) opens you up to the same kind of scrutiny, and I was triggered by the incredible similarity of your attack against him and some allegedly pro-KMT editors to another user's attack against him and some allegedly anti-Korean editors (namely me and a few other commenters in that ANI thread).
If you're gonna keep ignoring evidence and insist on saying stuff like "don't care. irrelevant" and dismiss legitimate concerns as "peripherals" and "bizarre non sequitur", then I'm gonna treat your post as deliberately trolling/baiting and won't even dignify it with a response. Are we clear? If anyone has violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, it's you. I'm using this page to communicate with Bishonen (and only Bishonen) and you're the one who chose to inject yourself into this discussion and baselessly attack me with name-calling and ad hominem attacks while ignoring all evidence that contradicts your pre-existing bias.
Your lack of objectivity continues to appall me. It would be one thing if Alex Shih has been active for the past 10 years and demonstrated that he has turned over a new leaf, but he has not. Frankly, he pretty much disappeared after obtaining adminship 10 years (many candidate guide writers have noted that) and has been just as inactive as me since our dispute ten years ago (when he and others from the "Ideogram fanclub" ganged up against me in our arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram as documented by admin User:Jehochman here [77] and Jehochman subsequently blocked User:Dengero and others in the same pro-China clique for harassing me). So yes, his conduct 10 years ago is entirely relevant and it is fair to question if he has an ulterior motive in running for ArbCom after only 4 months of hyper-activity following a 10-year hiatus, whether you like to admit it or not. What made it even more glaring is that the first thing he did after he came back was to REMOVE my name from the list of participants in WikiProject: Taiwan [78]. Does that seem like turning over a new leaf to you?
I don't care about your view on Taiwan since it is irrelevant to the issue at hand because this isn't a content dispute. I'm raising a behaviorioal issue. That's it. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of Taiwanese people do not self-identify as Chinese, especially younger generations and people who grew up under the Empire of Japan and most of them consider China (whether ROC or PRC) foreign invaders. It's also irrelevant how many time China/Chinese were mentioned in Culture of Taiwan and Taiwanese American. Both of them those articles need a lot of work (I haven't edited them in over 10 years) and frankly reeks of pro-China POV with little or no representation of the Taiwanese POV. On the Culture of Taiwan article, the lede used to read like this [79] when I was involved. But I'm glad you're also making your pro-China bias clear and perhaps that's why you're so worked up and emotionally invested in defending Alex Shih.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Alex Shih is actually the fairest and most neutral administrator I've seen in several years on Wikipedia, so I'd take these foolish accusations with several teaspoons of salt. Softlavender (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I neither mentioned nor implied personal interaction with Alex Shih. What I stated was, and I repeat, Alex Shih is actually the fairest and most neutral administrator I've seen in several years on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion; I'm entitled to mine. If you don't want to look at the detailed diffs/evidence I posted, that's your choice too. Regards--Certified Gangsta (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I was gonna point this out preemptively but decided against it. Softlavender has anything but a personal bias in favour of Alex. My first (I think?) interaction with the latter and my most recent (I think?) interaction with the former was in a context in which the two were on polar opposite sides, namely this ANI thread and its fallout. And as I said above, yes we are all entitled to our opinions, but not our own facts (I'm neither a Chinese nor Korean nor Japanese nationalist, and my multifaceted edit history bears this out; the same appears to be true of Alex), and sometimes the public expression of our opinions can run afoul of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as it appears to have done here, and again if it wasn't for the very specific context of an ArbCom election I would say the question of hard sanctions or at least short blocks should be brought into play. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
You want to talk facts? Let's talk facts. The only FACT is that I'm the only one who has provided evidence/diffs regarding Alex Shih's controversial ties to the Ideogram/HongQiGong/BlueShirts clique [80] in my questions to him while Alex Shih and his allies choose to ignore the issues I've raised and instead launch a smear campaign against me with no research/evidence/diffs whatsoever. I'm not Taiwanese myself, either. My only concern is upholding NPOV. Given the large amount of quality evidence I put forth in my questions to him, it is fair to ask if he's willing to recuse from future Taiwan/China cases due to conflict of interest. If you don't think arbCom candidates deserve scrutiny, then you're free to file dispute resolution against me and take me straight to arbCom.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
And your own past involvement [81]Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram#Statement_by_Kusma? You're hardly a neutral voice as you (just like Alex Shih) ALSO made one-sided statement and "evidence" in favor of Ideogram, who was later community-banned by User:Jehochman[82] where he was found to have baited and trolled me), in the very same ArbCom case. Coincidence? I think not. If anything, you're just reinforcing my point that this is a concerted smear campaign. If he doesn't want to answer legitimate, well-researched concerns from established editors, just say so. Don't shoot the messenger.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
A coupla quick questions (for CG, not Kusma): What good would Alex's recusing himself from cross-Strait issues do? (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "China/Taiwan", and not every topic related to either one.) What does that have to do with his ArbCom candidacy? Are you planning on opening a China/Taiwan Arbitration case as soon as he is elected to test this? Or do you mean he should simply accept a self-imposed TBAN from all edits related to the topic even though it has nothing to do with his being on the Committee? What do you mean by "conflict of interest? If you simply mean "editorial bias and personal opinion", that is not how that term is normally used on Wikipedia.
I'll admit that I could identify several editorial biases in at least one member of the current Committee, and these biases have not apparently affected their Arbitration work in the slightest. Having never interacted with you before the past 24 hours or so, I think I've successfully identified a bunch of your biases. We all have such biases, even if some of us are more competent in picking them out than are others.
If you think any current arbitrators have "editorial biases", you're free to ask them about it when/if they run for re-election. It doesn't mean Alex Shih should escape scrutiny. Two wrongs don't make a right. As far as I know, NONE of the arbitrators that have served during my eleven years at Wikipedia have shown this level of editorial biases, blatant off-site stealth canvassing, and so little experience in the form of FA/GA contribution and dispute resolution. Even many of the candidate guide writers have rightfully noted that his sysop status is essentially grandfathered in and he was barely active for ten years until a major spike 4 months ago. These are all legitimate questions. When you run from arbCom, you're voluntarily submitting yourself to community's scrutiny. Are you implying that Alex Shih deserves to play by a different set of rules and that only softball questions are allowed to be raised?--Certified Gangsta (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88 Is it really necessary for you to leave this parting shots in the edit summary [83] while REDACTING your own post? Kinda defeats the whole purpose of redacting/disengaging, don't ya think? Here's some free advice: Do yourself a favor and leave Bishy's talkpage alone. If you have a problem with me, we can take it to my page. And for the record, I've removed the "nationalist" and "Trump" userbox since they don't accurately represent my views and do not want further misunderstanding. I rest my case.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Please just drop it already. You came back, almost a full day after the rest of us had already taken Bish's advice to leave it alone, and posted multiple long comments that didn't seem to bear any relation to what I asked you about, and you vandalized my signature. I restored my signature, but felt the need to state why I wasn't going to respond to your comments. Now you've come back again three days later: why not just drop the goshdarn stick already? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88 So on top of calling what I wrote "nonsense" and implying I'm too "stupid" to comprehend what you wrote in your edit summary [84], now you're baselessly accusing me of "vandalism" against your signature? That's a step too far. Please retract. And again, take it to my talkpage if you have any further comments and leave Bishy's talkpage alone. Thanks--Certified Gangsta (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Everyone cut it out, please. Note I wasn't myself commenting on Certified Gangsta's criticism of Alex; I was merely opining that he, Alex, would have done better to show CG the respect of replying, at least briefly, to explain why he wouldn't respond in detail. I'm quite keen for us to have arbs that treat everyone the same, even people who do have a chequered Wikipedia past. Think Newyorkbrad. Bishonen | talk09:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC).
I'm going Zen, Bish, and will not be saying anything more about this subject. As I predicted, the discussion has quickly devolved into a concerted anti-Certified Gangsta smear campaign with people like Kusma (who wanted to me to be indef. blocked 10 years ago) popping out of the woodwork. Very disappointing but it is what it is. Thanks!--Certified Gangsta (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
}
ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.
Technical news
Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.
Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Hello, Bishonen. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Could you take a look at this SPI that I have been mysteriously included in. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kurtan~enwiki. Based apparently on a !vote at a AfD for C. Johan Masreliez. I have no association to that account and I learned my lesson years ago. As I have no association any IP connection should be easily established. I find this very odd.BabbaQ (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2017)
Hello, I have deproddedLucidity (festival), because 1) it has been to AFD before, and 2) it had recently been updated to add a lot of promotional garbage, which I have reverted. If you still believe deletion is appropriate, please bring it back to AFD. Thanks, —KuyaBriBriTalk06:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, in addition to this, please see the account User:Focus007. Its been almost a year since Peeta Singh's topic ban from Punjab related articles but his problematic edits are still being restored. Its really tiresome to time after time again to revert the same edits that are coming from a plethora of user accounts that have done absolutely no other edits outside of restoring Peeta Singh's POVs. (Check Portal:Punjab/Intro's history for some examples)
Regards, --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, that's a little too much for me, Salma Mahmoud, since User:Focus007 makes so many edits I have trouble finding the relevant ones. Would you like to file an WP:SPI? (Note, you'll need to provide diffs.) It's easy if you've got Twinkle, not so much if you don't, I guess. Bishonen | talk21:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bish, they did not merge - they deleted - I'm telling you the truth. They did not merge anything per AfD merge consensus, and held a local consensus instead that has yet to come to a fair conclusion of what to keep or delete - their local TP discussion is to delete all of it and not merge anything and that flies in the face of the resulting AfD merge consensus. There is no policy or guideline that I'm aware of that instructs us to ignore an AfD consensus to merge and simply delete everything instead by pretending to discuss what to merge at the TP and then suddenly informally deciding to do whatever they please which was to override consensus and delete all of it. They failed to request a review of the close if they opposed it, they failed to relist the article at AfD if delete was the result they were after, and they didn't even offer to call an RfC for wider community input from uninvolved editors which is what I did. Bish, they deleted the actual merge twice, so nothing was merged. You've warned me on my TP - I voluntarily relented after your warning and removed that article from my watchlist - it's simply not worth my getting into trouble over. Bish, I just wanted you to know what actually happened - I read the policy & guidelines carefully, please believe me - I followed the procedures. Don't be angry with me over this because I was not the one adding the redirects or causing disruption before a proper merge discussion had been held per the guidelines of AfD merge for controversial articles. I will heed your warning. Atsme📞📧18:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, everyone but you is following standard MERGE principles (which are exactly the same whether the agreement to merge comes from a WP:MERGEPROP or an AfD close result): propose sample(s) of text to merge, and ascertain consensus on the sample(s). That has been done, and of the two samples proposed (Neutrality's and Ca2james's), the one with the overwhelming consensus was implemented. No one deleted the source article; only an administrator has the tools to do that. At the AE a week ago you were officially warned against WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior [85], but your behavior since then has been nothing but battleground. You are perilously close to being topic-banned from American politics, as Bishonen proposed a while ago on this talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thiswas a "proper merge discussion" which had strong consensus, and which was obviously going to be closed and implemented very soon. (In fact, it was closed and implemented a few minutes after you posted the RfC.) That's why I say the RfC you opened, apparently to chew the whole thing over one more time, was mere filibustering. Thank you for walking away. I wish you knew to do that when consensus is against you, without having to be warned by an admin first. Bishonen | talk22:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC).
Merger proposed after a deletion discussion Merge is one of the outcome options that can be considered at a deletion discussion. See WP:ATD-M. Deletion discussions generally reach a broader spectrum of editors than a particular talk page. As such, talk page merger requests proposed after a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion, where the merge outcome option was raised by someone participating in the deletion discussion, should identify and overcome the reason(s) listed in the deletion discussion when requesting an action different from the outcome of that deletion discussion. This does not apply if a merge outcome option was not raised by someone participating in the deletion discussion. Alternatives to talk page merger requests that follow a deletion discussion include formally relisting the page for deletion through an appropriate deletion discussion venue or posting a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
Bish, consensus was to merge and based on PAGs, consensus is policy. Nothing was merged and after I read Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus which clearly states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, information pages and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay." my conclusion was that the editors at the TP were attempting to "override consensus on a wider scale" per our policy. They chose "locally" to not merge despite the wider consensus at AfD. Say what you will, but I was not filibustering. I was following consensus policy. If you are telling me that local consensus on the TP overrides the wider consensus to merge at AfD, then simply tell me because that is exactly what happened, and it is not how I understood our policy. I just need to know so I don't repeat the same mistake at another article. That's all I'm asking of you. Atsme📞📧01:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you are confused on what that passage you quoted (and by the way, that snippet is only a small portion of that entire page) says. It does not contradict anything that we've tried over and over and over to tell you: When the AfD close is to merge, the specific text of the merge is decided by consensus, which was exactly what was done. But you have been consistently unable to hear that or drop the stick. Please see Aircorn's comment at the RfC discussion [86]: "Redirecting, especially if it is the result of talk page consensus, is often the best (sometimes only) option for a merge close at Afd. No one in the discussion mentioned what should be merged and neither did the closer. Merge !votes without specifying these details are not terribly helpful and it is up to the people doing the merge to decide what should be taken from the article. Nothing is a perfectly valid choice, especially if it leads to WP:undue concerns at the target article. See WP:Merge what for more thoughts on this matter." -- Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (talk page stalker)@Atsme: I understand your frustration. From your point of view, you split off an article on a notable subject and it was immediately taken to AfD under the pretence of requesting a merger; and following the merge decision its content was deleted and nothing was merged into the parent article. However, if you look at what happened from the other side's point of view, they saw an unnecessary POV-fork and so requested that it be merged back into the parent article; after that they examined the content of your article and found very little that they felt was WP:DUE for the parent.
Let me try and be helpful: no matter how much policy you have on your side, you won't get your way when you are outnumbered, so the best thing is to walk away. If you insist on pursuing this, then you either have to challenge the AfD outcome with a WP:Deletion review (which I think won't go anywhere); or you have to go to the talk page with a proposal for an additional piece of sourced text and make your case for it. Win or lose, you then make your next proposal for an additional piece of sourced text; and so on, until you've brought up all of the content you feel was lost by the non-merge. That may lead to some content being added to the article, or it may not. Either way, you've done your best to improve the article as best you can under the circumstances. At that point, it really is time to walk away. If your arguments were good, you'll probably have other editors supporting inclusion of your text and that's the best you can hope for in the long run. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, RexxS - I have walked away from the article, and it's almost completely out of my head now. The only reason I brought it up here is that I believed my understanding of policy was on the mark. Maybe you can figure out why all but one editor voted either to merge or keep - only one redirect straight-up and not one delete - and then turn around at the article, stage a quickie local consensus despite my opposing it based on policy as I understood it, and end-up a day later not merging anything despite the merge consensus, especially in light of comments at the AfD like this one. I also never imagined an AfD or RfC that was closed by an admin could be overridden so easily by local consensus on the TP, but apparently that is acceptable as evidenced by what just happened to me. We're talking a short few days that this all took place. I'm keeping this discussion handy for future reference - makes me wonder why we even have a consensus policy. Past experiences taught me there were procedures to follow if I happened to disagree with a close (RfC or AfD) - #1 formally challenge the close; or #2 relist it at AfD after a reasonable amount of time; or #3 discuss on TP, then call for wider community input via an RfC. Apparently that isn't the case after all. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, RexxS - it is much appreciated. Atsme📞📧03:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see Aircorn's comment at the RfC discussion [87]: "Redirecting, especially if it is the result of talk page consensus, is often the best (sometimes only) option for a merge close at Afd. No one in the discussion mentioned what should be merged and neither did the closer. Merge !votes without specifying these details are not terribly helpful and it is up to the people doing the merge to decide what should be taken from the article. Nothing [merging nothing at all] is a perfectly valid choice, especially if it leads to WP:undue concerns at the target article. See WP:Merge what for more thoughts on this matter." (bolding and bracketed comment mine). Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Specifically, in WP:Merge what: If information you merged gets removed this should not generally be considered as going against the AFD consensus as it has now become part of the normal editing process.Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I tend to edit various areas in bursts. One of those areas is working on Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion although my last burst was a good year ago. I essentially emptied the category from a similar size that it is now. The majority of the merges I did at the start were simply redirects.[88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96] So I expanded on WP:Merge What? in an attempt to get editors to think of what a merge would actually entail and the effect it would have on the target article. Given the current size of the category it didn't really work, but I stand by my position that redirecting is a valid outcome from a merge close. AIRcorn(talk)07:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but you’re citing essays not policy. If you’re advising me that merge means delete, than please show me the policy that supports such an action, that’s all I was asking. I was warned, and local consensus was accepted over consensus policy - end of story. RexxS explained how it works. I will review the diffs Aircorn provided but I’m still of the mind that when editors participate at AfD, they should at least read the article, and determine before casting their iVote if the article should be deleted or merged, and if they choose merge, they need to know if doing so would create UNDUE because if it does, then they’re making the wrong decision. UNDUE actually supports the keep argument and why WP:CONTENTFORK is encouraged per WP:SPINOFF. As we now know, that isn’t what happened. After the holidays I may revisit Consensus policy with intentions of doing what I can to help eliminate issues like what just happened in my case. Maybe a Villiage Pump survey will produce positive results. Atsme📞📧12:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, do you really still not understand the difference between deletion and redirection? The article you created was not, repeat NOT deleted. All of its text and iterations still exist in the edit history. Please stop making this false claim. And please stop claiming that there was a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the Matt Lauer talkpage; you don't understand the meaning of that term. There was a standard merge discussion in which you were repeatedly invited to participate and suggest options. And WP:MERGE has never ever meant automatically "merge in toto" -- if you believe that, please cite the policy that states that. Lastly, a POV-fork such as your spin-off article creates as much of a WP:POV issue as UNDUE weight in the parent article would; see WP:NPOVVIEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, you told me at my user talk about this discussion, so I looked here. In my opinion, what RexxS said is very good. And in any case, it's important to remember that there is nothing personal about content decisions. In other words, nothing in the consensus of one group of editors or another is anything personal about you. Even Bish's warning is not, in a sense, personal about you. It's not a statement that you are a bad person or anything like that. It's a statement that the best way to get peaceful editing is for you to leave it to others, as in fact you are now doing. It's only a website, and frankly what our articles say matters a lot less than what most editors think (but don't tell anyone I said that!), --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Tryp - I tried to end it before Softlavender started yelling at me. She has an issue comprehending what I actually say vs what she thinks I said. The merge I executed to the target page per consensus is what I was referring to as being deleted, not the article itself so I don’t know she’s talking about. The merge was actually deleted (reverted) twice before a speedy local consensus decided not to merge anything. I challenged that decision after explaining the essence of the merge & keep comments, and the rest is history. Happy Holidays to one and all. Spike the eggnog really well, and make merry. Atsme📞📧15:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
No, Atsme, you have stated that your article was deleted instead of merged several times; on this page: [97], [98]; on the Matt Lauer talkpage: [99], [100]; and on Northamerica1000's talkpage: [101]. Please do not misstate the case. If you mean "redirected instead of merged", say "redirected instead of merged", or "redirected without including any of the article's content into the target article". Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Come on, let's not be coy about this. When you mean "all of the content overwritten by a redirect, and nothing merged into the other article", just say "deleted" because it comes to the same thing. --RexxS (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Do you really not understand the difference between deletion and redirection? They are two massively different things. In deletion, all of the article's content is wiped and is no longer visible. In redirection, all of the article's content is preserved, including every single one of its edits and iterations, and its entire user edits; they are all preserved in its edit history. That's why AfD !votes for Delete versus Redirect are two drastically different things, and why only an administrator can delete an article. It does not at all "come to the same thing". Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
You are being very combative, SL - please stop. You are incorrect about what I stated - your first clue: I never said "the article was deleted". I've grown weary of your relentless condescension and battleground attitude over your own misinterpretation. For the love of Pete, stop kicking the carcass - the horse is dead. Not one of the diffs you linked to actually support your argument. My statements are very clear, and a good example is the diff you provided regarding my statement to Northamerica1000: "the merge was deleted after a #redirect was added, so I'm reverting my redirect." What part of the merge was deleted are you not understanding? I'll type it slower...the. merge. was. deleted. Full translation: the merged material I added to the main article on December 9th was deleted twice on December 9th. It first suffered deletion by a thousand cuts by Galobtter, [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108]. He self-reverted at my request [109] - as you can see, the character count adds up to the merge count, shy 50 characters. It was deleted again in its entirety [110] along with a few more characters by Ca2james, who refused to wait for a proper consensus and wanted it gone right then. Are you now able to distinguish between deleting the merge VS deleting the article? Turn the computer off, go fix yourself a cup of tea, and relax. It's all good. Atsme📞📧04:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
On this page you stated "Bish, they did not merge - they deleted - I'm telling you the truth. ... They failed to request a review of the close if they opposed it, they failed to relist the article at AfD if delete was the result they were after" [111], and "If you’re advising me that merge means delete, then please show me the policy that supports such an action ... I’m still of the mind that when editors participate at AfD, they should at least read the article, and determine before casting their iVote if the article should be deleted or merged" [112]. On the Matt Lauer talkpage you stated "Those participating in the AfD did not vote to delete it - they voted to merge it. I merged it with what was there already. It was not a "merge discussion" - it was an AfD that resulted in merging because they chose to NOT delete" [113], and "You are the one continuing to argue against CONSENSUS which was clearly to MERGE, not to delete." [114]. On Northamerica1000's talkpage you stated "ignoring the current consensus not to delete but to merge which apparently means nothing." [115]. In all of those comments you are conflating/confusing redirection with deletion, or with a "Delete" !vote/outcome at AfD. Please stop equating/conflating/confusing the two. Please learn the difference between them so that you do not continue to represent redirection as if it were the same as a "Delete" outcome at AfD. If you mean "redirected instead of merged", say "redirected instead of merged", or "redirected without including any of the article's content into the target article". Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IPV6 Range Block
Hi Bishonen. We are having some issues with a block evading disruptive editor who has used the following IPs.
2600:1702:B20:3240:5CAA:D417:1174:D644
2600:1700:E5D0:A9A0:14B3:AC2F:BB54:1E15
2600:1700:E5D0:A9A0:F0A7:CE09:7604:F425
When I ran this through a range calculator it gave me... 2600:1702:b20:3240:5caa:d417:1174:d644/30. However I am concerned that this may be too large and have temporarily removed the range block for fear of excessive collateral damage. Alas range blocks are not my forte, especially IPV6. Is this a workable range? I don't want to block entire continents. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
which includes contribs links which can be investigated to decide how much collateral damage would occur. The second of the above /64 ranges is blocked so only the first needs to be checked. Johnuniq (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
John, you're brilliant, thank you. I checked the last fifty contribs by 2600:1700:e5d0:a9a0::/64 quickly; they're not editing in a field that I'm knowledgeable about, to put it mildly, so there may be something subtle to do with sources, but to my untrained eye they don't look disruptive. It's weird how fast they're editing, but I don't otherwise see anything wrong. You may want to look too, Ad Orientem, but my impression isn't that that range needs blocking. Bishonen | talk23:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC).
Ok. I just blocked the latest IP and I will leave it at that. I had gotten a complaint from an editor that he was unable to edit while logged out (why they would be editing while logged out was a question I chose not to ask) but in any case, I think I will just continue to play wack a mole for now. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Ad Orientem: The rule of thumb is that an IPv6 /64 range is usually a single allocation, so blocking 2600:1700:E5D0:A9A0::/64 is almost certainly blocking a single person. The same would go for 2600:1702:B20:3240::/64 (which could, of course, be the same person using a different connection). Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to say. If there are moles to wack in 2600:1700:e5d0:a9a0::/64, just block it, even if many contribs look harmless (to me). It's all one person. Bishonen | talk09:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC).
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk13:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:Twinkle explains what it is. It's worth having because it ensures that you don't miss any steps out when making reports, etc by automating the process for you. You'll find that so many people use it that you can be pretty certain it works as expected. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:Twinkle is a bit instruction creepy, though. N0n3up, you can also just go to your preferences and look in the tab "Gadgets", and find Twinkle under "Browsing". Tick it and you will have Twinkle. That means you'll se a bunch of new buttons, different depending on which page you're on. For instance, it you're at an article, you'll see csd (for "nominate for speedy"), prod (for nominate for proposed deletion) and xfd (for nominate at "Articles for deletion"). Choosing one of the buttons will give a popup window that guides you what to do next, and does much of the technical stuff. You can always try it out, it's easy to untick it again in Preferences if you don't like it. I probably shouldn't tell you this, but the first time I used Twinkle, I nominated WP:ANI for deletion. (I've never got so many thankyous!) But it turned out to be easy to get the hang of it, after that start. Bishonen | talk16:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC).
My dear Mrs Bishonen, once again it is that joyous time of year when those of us with very developed social consciences are compelled us to think of the less fortunate, so you immediately sprung to mind. As I sit here in the great hall of Scrotum Towers beneath my 7m Christmas Tree (with non-drop needles), listening to the village children's choir serenading me from the snow outside (I can't permit their cheap, little snowy shoes on my priceless Bokhara rugs) only the seasonal sounds of the 2nd footman wassailing the 3rd housemaid on the backstairs interrupts my flow of good thoughts and seasonal wishes to all the editors of Wikipedia, wherever they may be, scattered throughout the most far flung outposts of the Empire and Commonwealth.
As one reviews the past 12 months, it has been an interesting, but taxing year for me, as I am now forced to spend so much time in Washington, advising dear Donald on foreign policy. So many World leaders have said that they can now detect my perceptive influence, which I feel can only be a good thing. As a Christmas gift, I strongly advise all editors (looking for a long term gain) to buy real estate (which has not already been bought by De Burgh Holdings Inc.) in Jerusalem, which returns me neatly to my Christmas message; surely were the Christ child to be renaissanced it woudl surely be in Washington among all those dear little Amish, Mammarieonits and Armageddons and Whatnots, surely that is the new Holy City, the Lord is shining down upon it - unlike London (which I am ashamed to call home), it can only be minutes before Mr Corbyn and the Bolsheviks storm Buckingham Palace and I am erecting barricades before my own London home. However, I expect shall survive, I usually do. Now, it is time for me to dress for dinner, so I must leave you, but I wish you all a deeply holy Christmas. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.
Is there a messaging platform on which I can contact you to ask a question? (E.g., email, Facebook, etc.?)
I made an adit to "Jews for Jesus" to indicate that it is a Christian Evangelical organization (that targets disaffected Jews); it is NOT a Jewish organization. Nor has it ever claimed to be. It was founded by an Evangelical Christian minister, and the organization's stated goal is to eradicate Judaism. The source for my change is THE ARTICLE ITSELF.
The article states: "On several occasions leaders of the four major Jewish movements have signed on to joint statements opposing Hebrew-Christian theology and tactics. In part they said: "Though Hebrew Christianity claims to be a form of Judaism, it is not ... It deceptively uses the sacred symbols of Jewish observance ... as a cover to convert Jews to Christianity, a belief system antithetical to Judaism ... Hebrew Christians are in radical conflict with the communal interests and the destiny of the Jewish people."
Why did you delete my edit? Was it because I entered it incorrectly? Or because you believe that JFJ is a Jewish organization?
If you agree with me that Jews for Jesus is NOT a Jewish organization (nor has it ever claimed to be one), could you please make the correction?
If you disagree, could you help me understand your reasoning? I don't understand how a Wikipedia article can be allowed to be logically contradictory with itself.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THERE IS AN EASIER WAY TO COMMUNICATE. Is there a messaging functionality in Wikipedia? I'm also Jonathan Rotenberg on Facebook & LinkedIn.
(talk page stalker) Hi Jonathan. I hope you'll enjoy the fifty spam newsletters I just signed you up for. Just kidding, but please don't put your email on a Wikipedia page if you don't want that to happen.
Secondly, stop shouting or find out how your caps lock works. We don't do ALLCAPS here.
Thirdly, the content you changed at Jews for Jesus was sourced to a reliable source; yours was not.
Finally, have considered the possibility that people could be Jews (an ethnicity), without subscribing to Judaism (a religion)? Granted, the two concepts are strongly related, but Messianic Judaism is an obvious example of some Jewish people who don't follow traditional religious teaching. We all understand that many Jews don't accept that someone who converts to Messianic Judaism can retain their Jewish ethnicity, but that is a contested view and there's no way we're going to be stating that in Wikipedia's voice. --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Jonathan. I've answered on your own talkpage, both about your concerns above and about your biography Jonathan Rotenberg. Please let's keep further conversation there; I hope you'll find that an easy way of communication when you get used to it. The user talkpages are our messaging functionality. Bishonen | talk23:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC).
Hi Bish, I notice that you have been around today. Any chance of tying some festive ribbon round Tyagi? I'm not sure whether semi-protection or pending changes would be best but something needs to happen because the anons and newly-registereds are a damn nuisance there. Brahmins are supposed to be the educated elite, at least historically, but they show nothing but ill-informed self-promotion etc at that particular article. Peace and goodwill only extends so far with me. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
IMO, the edits at S.J. are straightaway vandalism and blockable.He seems to have taken a hiatus, after being notified about 3RR and if he's going to resume, I'm off to 3RRN.Winged BladesGodric11:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I figured you might prefer it if they didn't ;p, though I hadn't actually seen they'd already posted on yours. I thought it was a genuine misunderstanding. They're blocked now anyway. (And have been yet again told off about the article talkpage.) Bishonen | talk15:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC).
hi Bishonen, i am literally sorry for creating disruptive activities. but to clear it, it has mentioned that "Bhagat singh a sandhu jat" although i agree that he later on become Atheist. the "Jat" is divided into three categories Sikh jat, Muslim Jat and Hindu Jat. where as Bhagat singh was a Sikh jat. Here are the sources which clears it, please see [1][2][3]--Jagat jit singh (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Jagat jit singh, Sikhism is a religion while Jat, I think, is an ethnicity. When a Sikh becomes an atheist, they are no longer a Sikh. They do, however, retain their Jat identity. You can say "born to a Sikh family" but cannot call Bhagat Singh a Sikh. --regentspark (comment) 17:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
yes, i agree with you. but we cannot too call Bhagat singh a jat because he never too claimed that he was a jat and saying "Bhagat singh a sandhu jat" creates misleading among readers. so, we have to change it by editing he was born in a "sandhu sikh jat family" along with the sources given above--Jagat jit singh (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Jagat jit singh, I'm glad to see you have now posted your arguments on Talk:Bhagat Singh, where they belong. They don't belong here or on any other user talkpages. Sitush has replied to you on Talk:Bhagat Singh. If you're not satisfied, please reply to him there in turn, and explain further. More editors will see the discussion there, and if enough of them agree with you, your version will go into the article. That's how it works. Bishonen | talk17:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC).
My main thought about it is that it's important for you to listen to Sitush, who is something of a specialist in sources in this field. (I'm not, but even I can see your sources are weak.) Your latest response to him on Talk:Bhagat Singh is frankly disappointing. Please try altogether to focus more on learning from the advice you get from experienced editors, who are trying to explain how Wikipedia works. Bishonen | talk23:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC).
i don't think that he is more experienced and specialist in sources ( infact I am giving reason with a source and he is coming with an excuse ) . if he is then he would now have changed the article because bhagat singh never mentioned that he was a sikh ( i agree ) but he never too claimed that he is "sandhu jat" and saying "Bhagat singh a sandhu jat" (what thus it means) in more misleading. yet, but he was born in a sandhu sikh jat family and we can write it. here are the another sources which clears it (as you are founding above sources weak). please see[4][5][6][7][8][9]--Jagat jit singh (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't clear. Don't discuss the sources with me, here on my page, discuss them on the article talkpage. I have no specialist knowledge in these matters; I have only acted in them in my capacity as administrator. Please take a hint, now, and stop posting here. Bishonen | talk09:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC).
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
Apologies for this dumbness. My only excuse is that IPs adding or removing countries (especially US) from lists in that article, without edit reason, is the most common form of PoV editing. Should have thought more about this one!Pincrete (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Not to quibble, but the full protection has me hesitant to add a post urging MONGO to appeal to AN. They have a good case as I believe Sandstein acted poorly here. --NeilNtalk to me14:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it might be better not to, NeilN, especially since I just removed a post from a well-wisher who got there before the protection. If an admin posts now, that person might take offense, I feel. I'm glad you've made your point here, Neil; another good place for more eyes might be Sandstein's page. With e-mail to MONGO, perhaps? Bishonen | talk14:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC).
Lengthy explanation follows, not because you can't figure it out, but to save you time We have here an editor whose primary purpose appears to be highlighting violence targeted against Hindus, and minimizing that against Muslims, in the Indian subcontinent. That in itself may not be sanctionable. But, despite being notified about ARBIPA, has taken quite inappropriate actions in the last 24 hours. They reverted a CSD#G5 tag on four articles (which I then replaced). Following that, they have claimed to be "taking responsibility" for each of those four. To me, this means they need to be held accountable for the content in those articles. Take the revision they claim to be taking responsibility for. It includes a claim that a Muslim mob murdered two policemen (when the source clearly says that the circumstances of the death were being investigated). It includes the claim that "two radical Muslims" were shot dead (when the source says nothing about "radicals", or indeed about any political leanings). It includes seven sources, all of which contradict each other significantly: thus the article itself contradicts its own sources on a number of points. This particular article is just an example: they have done the same thing here, the problems with which I outlined here. As always, if you can't be bothered, I understand, and I will take this to AE. Vanamonde (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if the block log there is particularly relevant, but might be worth contacting an arb to see if there is anything else going on or conditions to the unblocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment Vanamonde93 you are only casting WP:ASPERSIONS here, since your first 3 sentences have no diffs and they sound superficial. But it is apparent that you have vendetta against Raymond despite he has been correct over you most of the times. I would mention a frivolous SPI that you had filed against Raymond.[119] You had also displayed WP:IDHT on an AFD,[120] by arguing against the scholarly and legal definition where he was involved and you had also threathened to "seek a topic-ban" against him[121] there despite AFD result and most votes favored him. 2006 Bhiwandi lynching meets WP:LASTING like Raymond has said, see [122], when it comes to deleting the article, we see the notability and the major issue here is speedy deletion tags over which you are edit warring. You need to sort out your content dispute yourself on the appropriate talk page and at least notify Raymond30233 while you are reporting him. Capitals00 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 should consider spending some more time on talk page than reporting without necessary diffs and without notifying me. I had already left 2015 Rampur riot[123] but as for other 3, there has been no indication why they should be deleted and not kept when they meet WP:LASTING and WP:GNG. As far as I know, WP:BANREVERT can be applied on G5 as well but unlike Vanamonde93 I didn't edit warred and contested on talk page instead. And @TonyBallioni: I had been blocked twice but those blocks were ultimately false that's why I was unblocked. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)X2 @Tony Ballioni: I have: an arb told me that the first was a successful appeal, the second a benefit of the doubt with respect to the CU findings (or at least that is how I understood it). Capitals00: any comments on my conduct are irrelevant here. If you think them sanctionable, feel free to report me. ARBIPA requires editors to be scrupulous with the content they create or otherwise take responsibility for. Raymound failed this requirement, as I demonstrated (a demonstration which had nothing to do with notability). What to do about that is up to uninvolved admins, such as Bish. Vanamonde (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
(Added after EC1); I am not formally "reporting" anyone, and am therefore not required to notify anyone. I am asking an uninvolved admin to take a look at something. Yes, Raymond "left" the Rampur riots page; but this only proves my point. He reverted a a G5 tag on a shoddy article claiming it had lasting coverage, then claimed to take responsibility for it, and only when I pointed out it's inadequacies did he investigate the topic in enough detail to realise that he had been wrong. IE he reverted a G5 tag without investigating the topic, or the article. Which is precisely the point. Vanamonde (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
No, both of the blocks were ultimately false. I don't think anyone would disagree that you are here seeking sanctions against me. Yes you should notify me when you are reporting me because even in edit warring and ANI noticeboards you "must" notify the person who you are reporting, then how come you don't need to notify or ping me here? You can't expect everyone to be perfect all the time, just like you had been totally wrong about things as well. Just say that you are not taking time to discuss things and have been too hasty, you can't use admin pages just to get rid of your opposition, but you have to show the actual disruption and this report certainly speaks much about you. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, for someone with ca 1500 edits you seem to have got a good grasp of arcane aspects of Wikipedia legalese etc but a less good grasp of how to represent sources. I've just reverted you here. I don't have a problem with you mentioning the mob but do not say that the mob did it. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Raymond3023: Not nearly good enough. You took responsibility for the entire article, including the falsely sourced material. Unless another admin objects, I'm thinking of implementing a three month topic ban. --NeilNtalk to me15:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes I did, and the first two references are relevant to the article.[125][126] They clearly speak about "Bhiwandi" incident and the burning of two cops by two persons. What do you actually find unsupported there? And for WP:LASTING you can read [127](already mentioned above) that provides more details, also matching the content of the article. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Well that hasn't been mentioned on the source I agree about that. Although like I said, I was mostly looking at the notability of the article, whether it can be kept or not. But from next time I would be more cautious when I would be contesting G5. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, roughly half of the sentences in the 2006 Bhiwandi lynching article appear to have misrepresented the sources. I've opened a discussion re: development of the article and possible retitling at its talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Wow, I'm preoccupied with family issues for a few hours and then I get "You have 27 new messages on your talkpage"! That's popularity! Thanks everybody. Your three-month topic ban seems appropriate to me, NeilN. Bishonen | talk17:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC).
My apologies, Bish: and I hope all is well. To be sure, I did not expect this to explode into a 27-post thread (or, indeed, to end up at AE within the hour). Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
No, no, you're always welcome here, Vanamonde. When I thanked "everybody", I might should have made an exception for the user who ridiculously attacked you (oh no! your first three sentences had no diffs! When I say "lengthy explanation follows," I always give diffs!). I don't in fact thank that person. Bishonen | talk20:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC).
Hi, you fully protected this talk page even though the user is not in fact retired but has posted an appeal at WP:ARCA. User talk pages of active users should not be protected because otherwise one can't communicate with them. Also, because of the protection I can't (or rather, mustn't) post on the talk page lift their topic ban in response to their appeal. Could you lift the protection, please? Sandstein 07:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Sandstein. I only just came online, and I see you sensibly didn't want to wait any longer, but have posted the note on MONGO's page. I plan to unprotect in a couple of hours, because MONGO's probably still asleep right now and I don't want his page filling up with the kind of bitching and bellyaching about the ban that he wanted to avoid, before he's there himself. I'm going out now. Any admin, please unprotect the page if you should hear from MONGO before I get back. Bishonen | talk11:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC).
Thanks, but actually an arbitrator unprotected the page, allowing me to post the notice. I don't want to edit through full protection except in urgent cases. Sandstein 12:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. Not sure I would still be around here if you weren't.--MONGO13:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Pardeeprorboy
Pardeeprorboy (talk·contribs) is continuing to insert at the Ror article huge chunks of info copy/pasted from unreliable websites such as jatland.com (that one is actually blacklisted). They've had various warnings, including of caste sanctions and 3RR, and they've even tried putting the stuff in their sandbox. I cannot revert their most recent effort because I am at the revert limit. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Good grief. Guess what, I found another one, Xpardeepror boy, cheerfully making a sandbox that was just the same. Both accounts have been here for years! Please see my posts on their pages. And yes, you certainly can revert copyright violations any number of times, they're not subject to 3RR. I've revdel'd them — hope I did it right — I really need to eat now. This crap took longer than I expected. (Two accounts... Maybe more? Why not?) Bishonen | talk14:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC).
I should have spotted the alternate account - the names in the history merged into one when I scanned through the changes. As for copyvio being an exemption to 3RR, yes, but some websites don't carry any form of copyright notice (or CC-BY etc) and some nitpicker once pulled me up for that. Personally, I'd presume copyright unless explicitly otherwise stated but I "lost" the argument on that occasion.
Sorry for the harshness, I was kind of "overwhelmed", if you will. My point still stands, however, that the section doesn't belong on ANI. SkyWarrior00:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear sir ,
I kindly request you to give me an opportunity to edit the page called as kulala .Sir I am from same community and I can provide more information about kulala.
Regards
I'm sorry, Roshani kulal, but I protected the article from editing by new and inexperienced editors because it has been disrupted by people coming here to promote their own caste, and also because there has been recruitment for editing the article on a caste forum. Caste promotion is against Wikipedia's neutrality principle. I'm not saying you are one of these people, I don't know you, but that's the reason the article is protected. I see you have found the talkpage, and Sitush has answered your question there. Instead of just asking on talk to be allowed to edit the page, you can tell the people there how you want to edit it, and if your change is approved, somebody else will add it to the article. Go to the bottom of the talkpage and type {{Edit semi-protected|<here, put the change you want to make, and why>}}. But note that your suggestion will not be accepted unless it's neutral and based on a reliable source. Your personal knowledge isn't enough, I'm afraid. Also, the website I see you recommend, http://yadavhistory.com/, is not a reliable source. Its first sentence shows that it's a promotional website: "This website is an encyclopedia on Yadav or Yadava History and is an attempt to broadcast the glorious history of Yadav dynasty." A neutral encyclopedia wouldn't talk about "broadcasting" somebody's "glorious history". Sorry. My personal recommendation to you would be to edit some non-controversial pages first (most of our pages are not protected) to get more of a feeling for what works here, and also to read our policies on reliable sources and neutral point of view. Good luck. Bishonen | talk17:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC).
That site is worse than just promotional, Bish. See this page. The notion on the home page that the community also ruled "every inch" of India must also be worthy of some sort of award for fiction. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful. Since it's clear recruitment ("What is needed is dedicated Yadav’s who can constantly edit the “Yadav” article on wiki"), maybe you want to post a link to the page on Talk:Yadav? Plus save it on your own computer? I already have. Might be useful if you make the mistake of posting on RFPP again. Bishonen | talk19:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC).
Ha! I may get the Wayback Machine to archive it, if it is not already there. The site's author seems familiar to me, so they're probably one of the many already blocked for glorification etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Louis. These matters are mysteries to me. I was able to give him that warning because he changed sourced content to something different which was not supported by the source — I simply looked up the sources and checked. But in the diffs you provide now, there mostly aren't any sources at all. For one, there is a book in Turkish... not for me. You'll have to ask somebody who's more at home in the area, or ANI. Feel free to refer to my warning. Bishonen | talk19:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC).
I just have a small question for louis. Turkmen is one ethnic group of todays while this ethnic group didnt raid persia rather oghuz turks were called turcomans and they raided. Now i wanted to change the spelling to turcoman which i am sure you would have issue with, so i just changed it to oghuz turks which includes turkmen, turkish and azeri people . Please note if you think i am wrong provide sources . In all the article it mentions oghuz turks made the raid but the title is turkmen. Do you want to snatch away the history of seljuks the turkish and azeris the safavid and ottomans the turkish and afsharid the azeris ?
Hi, Saladin1987. Please sign your posts. If you type four tildes, ~~~~, they will automatically turn into a signature and a timestamp when you save. Also, Louis may well not see this, here on my page, unless you ping him. Please tell him on his page instead. Normally, I would say please post on the talkpage of the article, but since it concerns several articles, Louis's talkpage may be the best place. Bishonen | talk09:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC).
Bish, Others: Strange is this case, pestering and disrupting articles in ever new incarnations across many articles. Looks like a duck to me of SourceOnly / MrSharma1 / etc. They opened several accounts today (see Kalki history, blocked by Ian.thomson etc, article semi-protected today by Favonian). A talk page message on User talk:Alanti.Muzamazi has triggered the reply "I bet you were sexually abused as a child". Alanti.Muzamazi may be same as Mhosi.kusiloco because both are new, both disruptive and both have left misleading edit summaries in the same article. They seem to be deploying hopping IPs too. What are our options in such cases, other than patience? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, I've blocked Alanti.Muzamazi as not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, because of the stalking and this comment. Mhosi.kusiloco is an odd case; they claim to have "undone bad sources" at Garuda, but all they actually did was add a wikilink. Probably related to Alanti.Muzamazi, who also talked about sources here, but actually merely added (useless) wikilinks. Yeah... I think I'll just block Mhosi.kusiloco per WP:QUACK. Actually, they're the older account, so I'll use the puppetmaster template. They may well be socks of SourceOnly, both of them, but I don't see much point in bothering with reporting them, as long as they're blocked. It's kind of annoying that reporting socks is so much more work than creating them. Anything else? Are there more articles? Do any of them need a short semi, in your opinion? (Patience? Ha, no.) Bishonen | talk15:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC).
Another duck.... Miss Sarah Welch. Same disruption. About ten days ago DoRD ran a checkuser on them and closed out a few. On semi-protection, Favonian took care of the bothersome case, others are not too bad over several days yet. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Another duck Miss Me1 in the same article. Third disruption within 24 hours, probably time to also semi-protect Kalachakra for a few days. Strange thing is that Kalachakra is a 1000+ years old esoteric Tibetan Buddhism tradition, one Dalai Lama talks about. The edit summaries make no sense, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No, the edit summaries seem quite random, and Kalachakra has never needed to be protected before. But the encyclopedia anybody can edit is bound to encounter <personal attack removed per Do not insult the vandals> now and then, I guess. Thanks, NeilN. Bishonen | talk23:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC).
Is there no legal steps we can take to stop such disruptive behavior? this is after all private use for select few like us. "laws of the State of California and, to the extent applicable, the laws of the United States of America will govern these Terms of Use" so is there no way to sue these people? or can they sue us for not allowing to let them edit and for removing all their work? We don't get paid for our work fair enough, we have nothing better to do but spend our life here believing this is what we will be remembered for even though no one care who we are, other than few of us who know each other for wasting our life here. Very unusual case indeed. These people are not stupid like the most we get rid off here so now let's just ignore them or keep blocking ALL the IP's until no ip is left to add anything on Wiki. We have all these powers that we can abuse including locking kalki page or should we stay off kalki page and we may not need to do anything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noramus.Detorytum (talk • contribs) 10:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I did, I did, I did see a waterfall. Hey, ah, this page could use an archiving a bit...maybe...if you want...up to you.--MONGO13:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, yes, and I wanted to archive some trolls. You see the symbolism of the new image? Not that the princess looks a whole lot like me. Bishonen | talk14:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC).
The trolls all know better than to besiege such a fair damsel...especially considering all the powerful friends and just plain mean, nasty MONGO-esque thugs that are about. How far that little candle throws its beams! So shine a good deed in a naughty world.--MONGO15:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Bishonen, et @MONGO: See, the daily-changing pics are coool :) but—very naughty I know to ask out of process—is it possible to have a similar thing on one's talk, but wit different pictures? If you can advise... Nice. Thanks! >SerialNumber54129...speculates07:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely, young Luna. Check out User talk:Bishonen/Editnotice in edit mode to see how it works, and inquire of User:RexxS if he will kindly put in a list of images for you into Module:RexxS, so that you can er... er... invoke! Ha! Invoke it on your own talk. Or, a cheap and cheerful alternative in case you want the "picture of the day": use Commons:Picture of the day. But I expect you'd rather have your own selection. (Is it "invoke"?) Bishonen | talk11:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC).
I would use "invoke" only to refer to code that runs to do something. So one could invoke a function, a subroutine or an algorithm, but not a dataset. From what you're saying here, it sounds like you'd be connecting or linking or possibly querying a dataset (though some might object to "querying" if there's no actual query language involved). But then, as far as I know, there's no universal standard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Nah, MPants at work We're not querying anything. We're invoking a function in a Lua module whose purpose is to pick the next filename in a list every day. That's all. No searching; no filtering; just the next one in the list.
@Serial Number 54129: As there may be more folks wanting to use the carousel, I've made a new version at Module:Carousel and allowed everybody to have their own list of filenames. Your list is at Module:Carousel/54129 and I've started you off by putting four filenames in there that I lifted from your page. There are instructions on how to change them and add more in the module.
You can edit your page notice (I think) to say something like:
[[File:{{#invoke:carousel | main | name=54129}} | upright=1.25 | center | thumb | Welcome to my page ... etc]]
which will result in
Welcome to my page ... etc
Change the size by fiddling with the upright parameter as usual. If there are any problems with that, 'Shonen is a fine coder and will fix it for you on request. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
We're not querying anything. We're invoking a function in a Lua module whose purpose is to pick the next filename in a list every day. Well, if there's a function in the module to pick the next image, then that makes sense. I hope your code is thoroughly commented and properly indented, else boring manager Rob will be along to tell you that while you may be very diligent, your output stink. ;P ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a function in the module to pick the next image; no "if" about it. My code is "thoroughly commented and properly indented", as you can see by examining Module:Carousel and its documentation – even you can read that. As for boring manager Rob, well I've been programming since his dad was in small trousers, so he can go fuck himself (my cheerful response to attempts from non-leet coders and script kiddies to criticise my work). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I see. You can dish it out but you can't take it, eh? For some unaccountable reason, I'm quite proud of the original work I do. Then you come along and throw insults at it - but that's just a joke, right? However, when I toss a couple of equally "playful" insults back, you accuse me of not being able to take a joke. Pot meet kettle. You need to get your head from out of your arse. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Chère, I should have mentioned that - by all means, carry on as normal using Module:RexxS. I created Module:Carousel/Shonen as an exemplar for others to follow, so no need to touch it. I also should have given you specific attribution - I'll go fix that now. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
You do me wrong to take me out o' the grave:
Thou art a soul in bliss; but I am bound
Upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears
Do scald like moulten lead.
Let Bish's TP threads rise like Lazarus :) @RexxS: I apologise for never thanking you for setting this up—indeed, I never even took advantage of the offer! I have now done so :) and it has brightened my talk nicely. Thanks very much! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room15:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
AN/I
I hope you saw my comments to you at AN/I and that they provided a little more understanding for where I was coming from, why I am willing to change my mind, etc. What you had to say to me caught my attention, but not as much as what Davey2010 had to say. Even so, it does bother me that you now think less of me, not because I will lose your support in the future, but because I think you have misunderstood my responses in regard to this issue, both at SJ's talk page and AN/I. Then again, I'm starting to wonder if, because of my deficiencies in grasping appropriate social communication, pragmatics, and nuance at times, I myself didn't misunderstand the whole situation from beginning to AN/I. I hope this makes sense and that we can still be "friends". -- ψλ ● ✉✓18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, OK, Winkelvi. I just don't see much room for me misunderstanding this attack on MastCell. Are you saying it was really "fact- and reason-based", and I just misunderstood it? I've read Pesky's essay (just re-read it, in fact), and I still have trouble with several things you said in this context. But I honor your readiness to say you might have been the one who misunderstood. We're still friends. Bishonen | talk19:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC).
I'm saying that in my own Aspergeriness that comes complete with a lack of good communication skills and at times not picking up on social/pragmatic cues, in addition to my non-Aspergers related right-brainedness, I was attempting to make lighter what appeared to be a mountain from molehill situation. I didn't agree with MastCell's take on SJ's comments and I really thought there was an over-abundance of sensitivity going on. At the time. Now, I think I may have been too hasty altogether. But initially, I was just trying to take what was a tense situation and try to inject some humor in light of what I've been seeing here and in social media on the topic of comments that are still just allegedly said, allegedly racist. People get soooo bent out of shape over dumb, petty stuff when communicating on the internet. It's disheartening and such a waste of energy. That's where I was coming from. Nothing sinister. -- ψλ ● ✉✓21:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
OK...Well, I strongly disagree with the statement against MastCell, and I apologize if I didn't see the humor in it. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
your comment on the STFU thread
I know I've been hanging around here a lot this morning, but I just had to add this. Your comment there gave me a chill and made me laugh at the same time. That deserves a gold-trimmed hammer britches seal of approval with oak leaf clusters. I think I might have to make a "Hammer of the gods" barnstar, just to give it to you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
For your unrivaled ability and willingness to kick ass and chew bubblegum,
and your amazing ability to consistently forget the bubblegum,
I hereby award you the
Solid Gold Hammer of the Gods barnstar, resplendent upon a golden field.
May your banhammer
be ever heavy
and ready to fly free.
Ha, my own Mjölner! Outstanding! ['shonen is flattered out of her senses. Looks around for somebody, anybody, to throw her shiny new åskvigg at.] Thank you very much, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. You're very clever with images! Bishonen | talk22:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC).
Might not be the same with every browser and skin, but the Impact font line was slightly too close the the previous. I hope you don't mind; I've increased the line-height of that line by 0.4em to balance it. See what you think. --RexxS (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
FWIW on my antique browser I don’t see any “golden field”, just a thin gold border, and the box hangs off the right edge of the page such that the word “chew” in the first line ends at the left-hand edge of the light-grey right marginal area. The horizontal space between the graphic and the type is at least as wide as the first line of text.—Odysseus147905:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The styling in the div uses some (relatively) modern CSS that a much older browser might not display properly. Not being a web guy, I don't know off the top of my head quite how to make alt versions without using media queries, which I'm pretty sure I can't do in a style="" attribute. But I might be able to add in some deprecated CSS properties or something. @Odysseus1479: could I trouble you for a screenshot and the details of your browser? (You can get the exact version number by finding the "help" menu and choosing "about".) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
First of all, I no longer expect my setup (Safari v5.1.10 on Mac OS 10.6 “Snow Leopard” —BTW on a Mac every program has a self-titled menu, first on the left after the Apple menu, and where the About is normally found), to be well supported, rather I’m impressed that most features of the WMF sites continue to work fairly well, the only problems I’ve noticed being more or less cosmetic. Anyway, I see the gold background now, and the main text is better positioned, fairly central, with the glow effect also showing. However, the box itself still the same size, protruding past the right margin, and the “May your …” text, which was previously superimposed on the image, is now near the right-hand edge of the box (such that I have to scroll my window rightward to read it), leaving a wide empty space between it and the main block. @MjolnirPants: I’ve sent you a message, but without screenshots because the “Email this user” form doesn’t seem to allow for attachments.—Odysseus147921:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Responded via email so as not to clutter up Bish's page too much. Suffice it to say the size problem is actually intentional, and I plan on scaling the whole thing down before making a real template of it, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.22:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Can you double check and make sure I did everything properly in this merge? I think I did but I would appreciate a double check to make sure I didn't screw anything up. Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm pleased my username tricked you into thinking I must know something about manga and anime, Tarage! :-) That's far from the case. But I took a look, and your merge looks fine AFAICS. I did a small superficial copyedit (you want to lose the bold when you merge). Nice job! Bishonen | talk22:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC).
Oh no, I wasn't tricked. I just figured I'd apply the old "When in doubt, ask an administrator you trust" policy. The rest was just a coincidence. Thanks for the double check/copy edit. --Tarage (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Editing problems
Hi Bishonen. I was editing my own sandbox and I noticed that the Architecture and Cuisine sections and the contents for Sports were missing [137]. When I click to publish the changes, there is a lot of missing contents. I think there is a bug or technical problem but I'm not entirely sure. (N0n3up (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC))
Not sure I understand, N0n3up. Did you copy an existing article, or part of one, into your sandbox, intending to edit it there? I presume that was it, since the history of your sandbox shows you added all the content at one time. Doesn't seem to have been Culture of Peru. Parts of Peru..? Maybe I could help if you told me where you got the text from, and why you expected it to have those sections. Bishonen | talk13:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC).
In the 60s and 70s and onwards, numerous artists contributed and still contribute to modern Peruvian art including Teresa Burga, a non-objectualist artists, sculptureCristina Gálvez<ref>{{cite book|last1=Wuffarden, [[Jorge Eduardo Eielson]], [[Jorge Piqueras]], [[Eduardo Tokeshi]] and [[Elena Tejada-Herrera]]. In the field of photography, [[Martín Chambi]] and [[Mario Testino]] made major contributions.
The result being that nothing was displayed until the next closing </ref> tag. Just add }}</ref> somewhere near the end of that paragraph and your text will reappear. --RexxS (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Daivadnya Brahmin
I am struggling against what appears to be a member of the caste at Daivadnya Brahmin. Their talk page suggests a troubled past and I've just added a sanctions alert but I have also previously warned them and tried to explain why this is inappropriate. I am reluctant to revert yet that edit yet again because this is turning into a slow-burn edit war. - Sitush (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I see NeilN has blocked them for 24 hours, and also, perhaps more importantly, poked them about the need to self-identify re caste. Bishonen | talk22:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC).
Thanks to you and NeilN. I apologise for pestering: I am trying to spread this caste-related stuff around various admins but some are not particularly active at present and, of course, a lot would much rather shy away from the entire topic area (not intended as a criticism of them). - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Sitush and Hindi-speaking talkpage stalkers, what about this recent edit after the block, where they removed the sentence "Daivadnya Brahmins in the state of Karnataka are classified by National Commission for Backward Classes as an Other Backward Class" and its two sources? He says they're "fake citations". I dunno. The first footnote doesn't in fact list Daivadnya Brahmin, unless one wants to be really liberal about what they might also be called, and the second is in Hindi. I'm sure your guy doesn't like the sentence, but is he right about the sources? Bishonen | talk19:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC).
Item 161 in the English-language sourced list - Daivagna. Alternate spelling, I think. I'm not sure that the information should be in the lead section, though, but the entire article is a mess. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Right. Well, the user can't be blamed for not finding the alternate spelling, I suppose, but it should presumably be put back, somewhere. Or so I suppose. Yeah, I see the article is a mess... ugh... I didn't actually read it before. Depressing. Should it be stubbified? I suppose there'd be outrage in the caste forums. Bishonen | talk20:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC).
I have struggled to get the thing into order because of the sheer number of non-English sources. I suspect many of them are caste-affiliated and thus fail WP:RS for most statements where they are cited. Proving it is another matter. As for the remover of the statement, well, I'd put money on them knowing it as an alternate spelling but I appreciate the caution. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
For whatever my input may be worth, I think you're right in calling for a clear close. I also think you are correct in the indefinite length. What concerns me is that I also think a prior pattern of gaming behavior is already playing out. Unscintillating has been called on their AfD disruption before. Each time it has previously happened, when the heat finally gets turned up to an uncomfortable level, they appear to flee the scene. Almost always this lasts no more than a month or two (with a longish 2015 absence that seems unrelated) and they then return to bothering and bewildering other editors in AfD-land. I am worried that their current three-day disappearing act after the sense of that thread quickly started to form is their way of again attempting to game the restriction. I would not be at all surprised for them to, in the very near term, strenuously claim that their restriction is unfair since they "were not able to respond". On the other hand, I don't know that there would be any benefit to expressing that suspicion in the thread so I have refrained from doing so. Do you think this is something that needs to be said or will the closing admin and whoever sees the inevitable appeals will be aware of this already? Thanks. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)21:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand the point of the "Analysis" you link to. Are you saying U has disappeared before when the heat got turned up, and has been given a restriction in absentia, and has gamed it? I'm not aware of any community restriction he ever had — hang on, I'll check here — no, nothing there. Anyway, no, I don't think there would be any benefit to expressing suspicions about U's still-to-come-or-maybe-not appeal. Not at all. Please don't do it. On the other hand, there might be a real risk of an admin closing the discussion with "Since the user is apparently taking a break, let's leave this until they return". It wouldn't be right, IMO, after all the trouble people have taken to have a discussion and sharing their experiences. But, well, I guess it could still happen. I remember once... never mind. So if you want to post to point out that the user does make a habit of disappearing when he's under fire, and that we nevertheless need a close per the consensus of the discussion, then I think that would be helpful. I for one wasn't aware that U has disappeared in a similar way before. You'd better link to at least one example. Like I said, the "Analysis" page didn't do anything for me — I'm stupid with those things, but other people may be too. Probably it's not actually necessary for you to post, though, if it's time-consuming. I don't think I'm the only one who'll make a fuss if the ANI thread is closed without a reasonable restriction. Bishonen | talk23:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC).
It all got very messy with PAKHIGHWAY and I lost track of whether they were formally topic banned, merely warned or got away with it all. Can you remember or work it out? I am concerned because of this. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
(Reluctantly remembers.) Ah, yes. I can't find any ban — I've checked WP:CASTE, WP:RESTRICT, and WP:DSLOG. They got indeffed in September, though, and were unblocked after a few days.[138] See here for block by John, followed by declined great big long unblock request, followed by second, accepted, great big long unblock request, with more discussion below. I remember how snarky they were about my warning, just above the block notice, but that's water under the bridge. The thing that's of interest is presumably the undertakings they made in the successful unblock request and below it: "I will not call out editors based on nationality from now on." AFAICS they didn't do that at Talk:Bhat. But I admit I lost focus a little, reading all the stuff on their talkpage. Bishonen | talk20:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC).
Thanks. I couldn't spot anything either and was wondering if my memory was playing tricks. Your check confirms it! - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Vandal at punk rock article
The last few days at the punk rock article an unregistered editor has been repeatedly making the same bad edit in the lead section from different IP addresses. Despite being blocked from some of them, the vandal persists. I was wondering if we could put semi-protection on the page, at least for a while, until the problem subsides. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Garagepunk66. I recognize that; the same vandal has been a problem over many pages, see this ANI thread. The IPv6 ranges have been blocked for a month by NeilN, and I have now blocked 99.203.11.112 for a month as well. I'll hold off on semi for now, but please let me know if other IPs arrive. Bishonen | talk04:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC).
See the ANI thread I linked to, Garagepunk66: it's not a troll, it's a self-promoter. Unfortunately those don't get tired as quickly, sometimes never. But I'm encouraged by NeilN's suggestion of a filter if it continues. Bishonen | talk10:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC).
Utkala Brahmin
I think Utkala Brahmin would benefit from your ministrations. Repeated big changes based on a caste-affiliated source. I'm guessing that the anon of a few hours ago has now registered an account. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
~Oh, I am quite the regular on this page. Bish and I practically take tea here most days, and most enjoyable it is, too. - Sitush (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
A short semi-protection at Jogi, pretty please? Anons reinstating info that is either (a) copyvio or (b) unreliable - it doesn't really matter which but someone has (correctly) explained the issues on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, it looks like just two IPs (= one person, undoubtedly) recently, Sitush, and I've blocked them for 72 hours. Please come back if it still seems to need semi. And have a glass of refreshing lemon balm tea! Bishonen | talk17:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC).
I'm not sure either, actually. I thought more it looked aesthetically pleasing with all the greenery. My real favorite is jasmine tea. also pretty! Oh look, it's Adhela and Guy Fawkes in the edit notice now! Touching representation of tender motherhood! Better than having a shitlist of enemies in the edit notice, isn't it. Bishonen | talk00:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC).
Ah, I now realise what it was that you were referencing. Bizarre but then there has been much drama percolating in that area of late. - Sitush (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Doubt on page deletion: Upasana RC
Hi,
The log for the page Upasana RC states that you deleted it. I remember putting in references for articles onto the page. Was there anything else wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishant.jeyanth (talk • contribs)
Hi, User:Nishant.jeyanth. There weren't any references about the subject, you know. I see you put in external links to GRT Jewellers and Chennai silks in the sentence "She got featured in various Tamil print and TVC from brands like GRT Jewellers, Chennai Silks." But they were just links to the websites of these brands (well, in the case of Chennai, not even that, really), nothing about Upasana RC. That's kind of pointless. Biographical articles need sourcing about the person, which shows the person is notable. Also, when you mention "references for articles", do you mean you added wikilinks, to Wikipedia articles? That's not sourcing at all, I'm afraid. We can't use Wikipedia as a source, it would be like a cat chasing its own tail.
If you would like to work on the article, and look for some better sources according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, I can put the text on a page in your userspace if you like. Nobody will delete it there, as long as it doesn't linger for too long. If you work on it with reasonable speed, it'll be fine. You don't have to worry about turning the references into proper footnotes, I can fix that for you, if you ask. BTW, please sign posts on talkpages by typing four tildes, ~~~~ , which will turn automatically into your name and a timestamp when you save. Bishonen | talk12:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC).
Ronz, it seems rather extraordinary that this Seattle Times article is used as a source no less than 19 times in the article, for all sort of harmless details (Jain grew up in Uttar Pradesh, he got an engineering degree from Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, he looked up to Bill Gates, he joined Microsoft in 1989, etc) — and yet what I would call the meat of the Seattle Times article is scarcely mentioned at all: the trickery and deception by Jain that the paper's investigation uncovered. The description of that is full of facts, as far as I understand facts in this field, and it doesn't pull any punches. Very long article, too — I have to stop reading now and go to bed — I'll look more closely tomorrow, and at other sources. But my sense right now is that the Seattle Times source is used in a very superficial way. I'll check some other sources tomorrow, as I suppose there may be those that don't necessarily imply Jain has been dishonest and ruthless, or that he has tricked investors and shareholders. Is there a problem at the article? I got the impression at BLPN that there might be some promotional pressure on it, and attempts to remove sourced negative information. Is that the case? Anyway, bed now. Bishonen | talk00:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC).
"Some promotional pressure" doesn't begin to describe it. Some of the worst coi problems I've seen, and continued SPA/BATTLE problems for some ten years now. The most recent SPA was blocked just a few weeks ago after just five total edits, Mike in il (talk·contribs). --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm an admin, I'm polite! (Some of the time.) I only read the post on BLPN, which worried me, since accusations of COI against editors who try to resist promotion, like you, usually only mean one thing. I see that user has now posted again, in a different tone. What do you think? Do you want to reply there? Bishonen | talk09:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC).
I appreciate your comments. I'm treating the article as a location of disputes that will eventually go to ArbCom. I'm trying to tread softly, be polite, and protect myself. The results are as you describe, reliable sources are used in a very superficial way. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Ronz, the posts from Jimbo to you in 2012 that Mike in il had dug up here are amazing! Now there's promotional pressure! "I know you hate Naveen Jain". Nice. If it wasn't four years ago, I'd ask Jimbo if Jain is a friend of his, because accusations like that usually do, yes, mean one thing. Bishonen | talk17:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC).
We asked Jimbo about his relationship with Jain. If I recall correctly, Jimbo was contacted by Jain directly concerning the articles, but didn't know Jain previously other than in passing at some event they both attended. -Ronz (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
EEng, technically it is an AE action, so it will need to be appealed (though I am pretty confident it would be granted). The quickest route at this point would be to file an AE appeal request. Also, Bish, nice mountain today :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm known for making sense, esp. if it involves a. not following proper procedure and b. just doing what smarter people suggest someone should do. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Still, EEng, I think it would be a good idea, perhaps even a grand idea, if you let that one go. You know I appreciated one of your comments, but the stirring one, not so much. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
A tagwill now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardizededitnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
I can see how the unsourced condition of the article makes it harder for the IP to understand why they can't add what they want. Semi'd for a week. Bishonen | talk16:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC).
Yes, indeed. I've updated the talk page. Somewhere, some time in the past, I wrote a footnote in another article about a related use of a term that is similarly pronounced but spelled slightly differently and I have a feeling it does in fact relate to this community ... but I am blowed if I can remember which article it was and therefore do something about it. I think it was something related to temple servants and have made a note here so that if I do come across it again (probably when someone screws up at that article, causing it to appear on my watchlist) then it will be picked up. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
12Dagge
Hi. I wonder if you could check the user 12Dagge and his contributions here on enwp. When I saw he got an article deleted and warned for the content, and he was warned in August I checked all his contributions. Almost all were reverted. I wrote a comment to him about that here, but thinks it would be good if an admin on enwp looked at it. Best regards, Adville (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the user is a net negative here, Adville. He doesn't edit much, but, well, there's nothing helpful there. The worst thing he has done since Neutrality's "final warning" on 17 August 2017 is indeed the recreation of Tobias Hübinette as a pure attack page on 25 January 2018. And that's pretty bad. Yes, I'll block. Thank you for alerting me. Bishonen | talk21:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC).
Sorry I never got to this, Leo. The fact is I have a tendency to avoid airport articles. I just dislike them. The disagreements about them never seem interesting, somehow. Sorry. Bishonen | talk21:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC).
I think you mean Courcelles? They reverted the spam additions. Anyway, thank you for the report. As I've just said on ANI, I may take almost too much pleasure in slashing and burning that kind of prose. 😈 Bishonen | talk21:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC).
Vaishya
You made me jump with the pic of the bison. Any change of a short semi-protection at Vaishya? A hopping anon keeps inserting a name that is not in the source and does so despite the inline note asking that people desist from adding to the list of examples. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sitush: Haha, mighty bison, isn't it? And it looks... thoughtful. As if it's thinking about starting for you like a railway train. You can blame User:MONGO if it startled you. Thanks for the semi, NeilN. Bishonen | talk16:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC).
No, I did what Jytdog asked, MjolnirPants. He wanted to avoid "drama" there. But he can change his mind any time, and I rather wish he would. He has done a lot for Wikipedia, to keep the wolf (the PR firms) from the door, and gotten scant thanks for it, and it's certainly frustrating if people can't even add a note to his page. I'm upset about this. :-( Bishonen | talk06:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC).
Okay, I was just making sure. Full protection of a user talk page is one of those things that raises a few eyebrows. But if it's at the user's request, who am I to argue with it? I agree with you. Me and Jytdog butt heads almost as often as we see eye-to-eye, but IMHO he's a damn good editor who does a lot of good for the project, and is a joy to work with every time we get together to improve something. I probably don't tell him that as often as I should, and now I can't, for the foreseeable future. :( ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Please remove full protection of JYTDog's user talk immediately. These are not privately owned pages, they are part of the Wikipedia communication process. He doesn't have the right to determine that "administrators only" can talk to him, nor do you have the right to enable this decision for him. Policy is quite clear on this matter.
Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier.
Users have always been considered by the community to have to right to request others not to edit their talk pages. Full protection amounts to a request to the entire community not to edit their talk page. The policy you quoted does not explicitly forbid full protection of user talk pages, so it's not applicable. Besides, community consensus trumps policy every day because policy is decided by community consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
That is an absolute misreading of policy and I had to pick the same thing out of my teeth once at AN/I when I was trying to get somebody not to use my page, so I know whereof I speak. Hopefully this out-of-policy lockout of all but the administrative caste from a user-talk page will be ended without escalation to that. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not that only admins can communicate with him, it's that he doesn't want anyone to communicate with him. FYI, this is all about this and ongoing discussions here. SmartSE (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Bish - hope you're doing well. Just kind of thinking out loud here - but IIRC, there were a few issues with user talk pages being protected some time ago (maybe 2012 - 2014ish?) and after some discussions at various notice boards it was decided(?) that a user could protect (or request protection) under the stipulation that a secondary page be established that common users could use to communicate (or at least leave a "non-vandalismish" or NPA message). I don't recall if it was ever codified - but just something in the back of all too foggy mind regarding an administrator who suddenly protected his talk page because people didn't like his sig. or something like that. Sorry I can't recall the specifics - but it may be a solution to this situation which is sure to escalate if some mitigating steps aren't at least discussed. On a side note - I do admit that you're one of the good folks that I do miss interacting with on Wiki Bish - say hello to the whole family for me. :-) — Ched : ? — 15:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users. [My underline emphasis]
A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page.
User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively.
Additionally, the full protection of a user talk page is highly irregular and there is arguably nothing under the policy that allows for it as nearly everything in the full protection section contemplates use of the corresponding talk page. They are also not used pre-emptively. Thank you for taking this into consideration. I should add that I understand Jytdog's desire for wanting peace and privacy, but from both a practical and policy perspective, the full protection of their user talk page is problematic. Mkdwtalk16:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
per my last comments here in WP at the bottom of the ANI here, I am done here. I emailed Bish to let them know and to ask them to fully protect my user and talk pages so nobody would have to mind it for vandalism and so there would be no drama. But sure enough... drama.
Bish, thanks for being helpful and sorry for the trouble. Please go ahead and unprotect it so that people will maybe go do something useful. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, hi, Ched, nice to see you. The point here is that Jytdog has left, so he's beyond collaboration at this time. Bah, Carrite. The pages "exist to make collaboration among editors easier" — yes — I'm sorry it wasn't clear above that Jytdog has left. Or only indirectly. His final message is here. If he returns, I'll consider unprotecting so he can collaborate some more. Also, no, it's not the case that "administrators only" can talk to him. Please note my edit summary for the talkpage protection: "User request. Please don't post on this page." Of course any reasonable admin will respect that, as they normally do when any page is fullprotected. It's kind of difficult to post my reply when more people keep chiming in - but what are you talking about, Mkdw? He doesn't continue to edit Wikipedia. He has e-mailed me to say he's gone, and asking me to protect his pages. And now edit conflict with Jytdog, too — shit — please don't post, Jytdog. You're wrongfooting me. If you do it again, I probably should unprotect your talk. Bishonen | talk16:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC).
Yes, you should unprotect his talk at once. He has not left and that communication channel is not his to open and close by snapping his fingers at a friendly administrator. Per policy. Please respect the rule of law, weak though it is at WP. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I need to think about it for a bit. Carrite, kindly take your big voice elsewhere. (To ANI or RFAR, if you like.) I'm tired of you booming "immediately" and "at once" here, and don't call me a fucking friendly administrator. Bishonen | talk16:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC).
Wow, just wow. Jytdog could still be reached via email I suppose...and its likely safe to assume the protection was temporary of course. What a cauldron. For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.--MONGO16:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no indication on Jytdog's talk page, user page, or in the protection log that he has retired from Wikipedia. His talk page still includes "click here to leave a new message" at the top. DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
(Bish TP stalker) If Jytdog plans on a long break, I think full protection is actually a pretty good IAR way to lower the temperature. If he's sticking around, not so much. Let's call last night's edits to ANI - and today's edits to this page - false starts, and keep the full protection unless and until Jytdog edits any other page, and unprotect then? (also, while I'm here... Hi User:Ched! And nice picture, User:MONGO!) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
If it's going to remain fully protected, then can someone remove the "click here to leave a new message" thing, and add a clear message at the top that a) Jytdog has retired, and b) it must be unprotected if he edits again? DuncanHill (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Not planning to jump into this further, but this action seems to be in line with the spirit of WP:NOBAN (which I haven’t seen linked yet). You can request that anyone not post on your user talk page, but you cannot a avoid notice of administrative actions. Admins can still technically post if need be, so there doesn’t appeared to be any problem with the protection (though unfortunate) as-is. Seems like a better to leave things be situation now that what’s done is done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Bishonen, the issues are resolved and I am no longer gone. Would you please unprotect my pages? I will wait to resume editing until people can talk with me at my talk page. thank you again. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I want to say that I think that Bish did the right thing here. As for the "rules", rules are never more important than treating editors with respect. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I know I'm getting the order wrong - but did want to pop in and say hello to a trusted friend. This really should have preceded my jumping into a conversation. I do hope you and the entire Bish family are doing great. I'm guessing they are still around as well? Anyway - good to see you. :) — Ched : ? — 12:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey there, Ched, lovely to see you! The family is just fine, indeed Darwinbish is starting to think it's too small, and aims to create a new sock "Dantebish", see here and here. As regards the protection of a user talkpage: I was complained of once, and in fact taken to RFAR, for unprotecting a user talkpage. It's a bit like the monkeys typing Shakespeare's collected plays, you know. I mean, if you stick around long enough in this place, everything happens. (Also, hey, shouldn't those monkeys be mentioned as candidates at Shakespeare authorship question? Pinging Tom Reedy.) Bishonen | talk16:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC).
As shop steward for the Union of Infinite Monkeys, I am stating our intention to go on strike for shorter infinite working hours. For now, one of my members has asked me to pass on his latest work to you:
Two arseholes, both alike in dignity,
In Wikipedia, where we lay our scene,
From recent grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil words unclean.
From forth the fatal keys of these two foes
A pair of cross editors take their leave;
Whole misreported comical overthrows
Do with their absence cause us all to grieve.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd posts,
And the continuance of the admins' rage,
Which, but the edits' end, nought could remove,
Is now the two weeks' traffic of our stage;
The which if you with flapping ears attend,
What here shall miss, we chimps shall strive to mend.
They've left? Again? No, I see it's not the well-matched arseholes who have left. Who, then? Cornelius, don't you know sonnets need to have diffs in them? Bishonen | talk17:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC).
I'm waiting for one of my infinite members to type up a BLP policy, before I can be sure it's OK to name names. That may take a little while. -- Corneliusthe Red17:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I haven't blocked the IP you're currently posting from. If you want information about a block, you'd better tell me what IP it concerns, so I know what this is about. Bishonen | talk15:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC).
85.167.120.156. Why did you block it for block evasion? If it's because the IP address changes from time to time, I have no control over that. 85.164.238.62 (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Aha, the Nordic Resistance Movement, right. I didn't block because your IP changes, per se, but because you were blocked on one IP and evaded that block on another. You used the IP 85.167.120.156 on 10 and 11 February to edit Nordic Resistance Movement, for which you were blocked for 31 hours for "disruption, edit warring, website spamming, unsourced edits". See the block log as well as that IP's talkpage. A block applies to the person, not just a single, apparently highly dynamic, IP, because that would be pointless. You, you the person, were blocked, and while you were still blocked you edited the article again, from a different IP. That's block evasion. Block evasion is easy from dynamic IPs, but that doesn't mean it's allowed. If you took ownership of your editing by creating an account (or using the account you have), this wouldn't happen, and if you didn't edit disruptively, it also wouldn't happen. Bishonen | talk23:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC).
Also, are you sure you meant 85.167.120.156? I didn't block that for block evasion, or ever block it at all. Drmies blocked it, see links above. I blocked 85.167.55.190. For block evasion. Bishonen | talk11:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC).
Hehe, glad you liked it, L3X1. :-) The reliable source was actually Guy's comment in the thread. I'd never heard "blockinated" before (only "banninated"). Bishonen | talk21:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC).
All too modern for me. But I was just admiring Hieronymus Bosch's platypus secret agent on skates in The Garden of Earthly Delights. Bishonen | talk21:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC).
Thanks, Leo. I'll take care of it after breakfast; I'm too hungry to do that fiddly tagging etc right now. I've changed your header, as it was the same as the one above, which messes with navigation. Bishonen | talk10:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC).
Not sure about the town, but that's MONGO riding the storm! Hmm.. you say there's nobody there? Well, in the 18th century, when I was born, they used to see people and figures in the clouds all the time, sometimes whole armies on horseback. So, yeah, I see MONGO up there. Bishonen | talk15:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC).
Thanks for the semi, Vanamonde. You need to stop lying about your age, Bish, pretending to be younger than you actually are. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't have any personal investment in the article or the AfD, but I thought consensus was very clear. And that's even before considering the quality of the arguments — with that consideration, it becomes clearer still. In my opinion. Anyway, I've posted at DR. Bishonen | talk20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen. You salted Priya Prakash Varrier after the AfD on it, which seems quite reasonable based on the AfD and promotional nonsense that was going on, but she seems to have become a lot more notable in the last day. In fact the deleted article is on the list of the most hit articles. I guess this could be some attempt to trick us but it seems more likely to be due to a court case which is getting a lot of news coverage in India right now. See Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Redlink in top 25 traffic report. It is probably too soon to make an article, as this may be a flash in the pan, but would you be amenable to redirecting to Oru Adaar Love which is the article about the film she is in, and which the court case is about, so that all the people hitting the URL at least get something relevant to what they are interested in? If nothing else, I'd hate for large numbers of people to Google her, see the Wikipedia link, click it, see that the article is gone and then think that there is something dodgy going on. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the change. I should have started out here, but got a little confused about the roles of you and another admin in this case – he didn't close or protect, but did reply to my request on the talkpage – my error entirely and I'll take this as a learning experience if this comes up again ☆ Bri (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Sitush isn't an admin, so I guess you're still confused. Yes, if you'd started out something like Daniel it would have been better for the goal you wanted to achieve and also for the tone of this place and its boards. FYI, neither Sitush nor I are "spiteful"; we do the best we can for the encyclopedia. If you're taking this as a learning experience, I'm glad. Bishonen | talk23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC).
Yup, egg on face. "Spiteful" wasn't the best choice of words, maybe "punitive" was closer to what was intended. I'll be more careful in future. Hope I didn't cause hard feelings ☆ Bri (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, if people who pass practically drive-by comment on India-related stuff actually tried editing it then they might gain a better understanding of why things are as they are. For the record, neither me nor Bish are "punitive". - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
So what your saying is...
Well first of all, I liked the picture in the edit notice. @Bishonen: I noticed you have closed a conversation today, I almost figured by his messages that he would be gone until Sunday, then I'd get a response. But that's not my main point. Considering you said that "FWIW it doesn't sound to me like there's anything you need to do.", that means I'm done with this whole thing. Now do you think I approached it correctly?Thanks Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 15:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Bishonen: Sorry, meant to say "how did I handle the situation on User:Situshes page". Just figured an opinion would help, becausethat ended up being the longest conversation I've ever had (except the map talk on VPT, it's longer because I inserted a mansion's worth of wiki-code there), and so I consider it a major step. Thanks in advance :).
To be brutally frank, Zanygenius, I think you talked too much on Sitush's page, especially since he had said he was going to be busy. That was your cue to slow down. It's overwhelming for any volunteer editor (as we all are) to find so many questions and comments on their page when they log in after a pause, and that was why I closed the discussion. My advice is to keep posts brief and not post again until you get a reply. That way, you won't be stressing anybody out. Bishonen | talk22:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC).
Abhinav686 (talk·contribs) is repeatedly reinstating unsourced content at various articles and, when reverted, going to the reverter's talk page to spout their qualifications to do so etc. The edits to Upper Caste are particularly poor.
They're new, they're misguided etc but even when things are explained - as in response to their post on my talk page - they seem to be continuing in the same vein. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sitush: Good. Their Wikipedia future doesn't look bright, I guess. So they're aware of your talkpage and also of article talkpages. Surely of their own talkpage, then? And yet have not done the normal unblock request on it, instead going straight to UTRS, which usually takes more than 24 hours. Oh well, we'll see. (BTW I know what "obc" means, or so I thought, but aren't they using it rather oddly?) Bishonen | talk12:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC).
Do you mean phrases such as Upper caste general obc? "Upper caste" is a somewhat vague term, however a community can be of high ritual standing but still traditionally impoverished/lacking in opportunities and officially recognised as OBC. "General" confuses things even further because in the form "General Class" it is another term for Forward Caste. I've no idea what they meant and, tbh, only skimmed the rant they kept reinstating at that article and its talk page. Sometimes it is not necessary for me to digest every word in order to figure out that we do not want it. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (wow I took a lot time to type this in!) Yeah, you seem to be offline. Missed you by seconds I guess. Katie took care of it btw. Thanks again :) This is the third attempt. I didnt hit "publish" while the tab was still open. —usernamekiran(talk)13:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Cahk. Correcting the misspelling (their own), thereby breaking the links... and further promotion in edit summaries... It's not heinous, but I suppose I'd better revoke tpa, yes. Something new every day in this place. Bishonen | talk10:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC).
Miller
Hi, I raised the issue on the BLP board because the discussion was about the issue of whether to quote Eliana Johnson/Nick Riccardi/Podhoretz. Should I have mentioned it on RS/N because that was where discussion about Salon & Wolff was opened? NPalgan2 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
See my note on your page, which I just posted before I saw this. Yes, you should have kept it on one noticeboard at the most — please don't keep people running between several pages. Also, what's wrong with the lively discussion on article talk, and your own RFC there? If you don't think that's sufficient, I recommend moderated dispute resolution. Bishonen | talk22:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC).
(edit conflict)This issue is getting discussed in way too many venues. And I say that as someone who is at least slightly sympathetic to your initial concerns. My suggestion would be that we close all of the discussions and open a broad discussion somewhere about our use of obviously negative descriptors for political persons covered by BLP. There appears to be very little consistency in the way this is being handled and that's a problem. You are not the first editor to note what looks like de facto different standards for subjects on the right and left. But this needs to be done right and we really need to have just one discussion that addresses not just Miller in isolation but the way we deal with negative labels in BLPs of politically controversial figures. My gut says BLP is the best venue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
No, it isn't. It's of a different character: moderated discussion. Please make sure you follow the instructions there, and note that other people don't have to take part unless they want to. Bishonen | talk23:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC).
If you find time for it could you take a look at the canvassing and votestacking situation at the AfD for Annika Connor. User Softlavender has pinged two editors [141] and also asked editor DGG on his talk page to come to the AfD to !vote. Especially the talk page message is basically begging for a Delete !vote [142]. I might be overreacting but I find it weird that three editors are basically told to vote at an AfD by one editor. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annika Connor.BabbaQ (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bish -- I've already answered all of BabbaQ's concerns several times over. I don't know why they seem to think I "told" three editors to !vote in an AfD, especially when all three editors I neutrally and briefly contacted (via ping or usertalk) are highly respected administrators with a lot of experience at AfD, and two of them (Megalibrarygirl and Cullen328) specialize in rescuing articles at AfD – in particular, rescuing articles on women and/or artists. Cullen328 also responded to BabbaQ on that AfD, but was ignored. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Editor :@Dennis Bratland: asked you yesterday to not continue what he percieved as canvassing. Today you contact editor DGG, asking him to join in. The results so far Delete, Delete, Weak Keep. I find this suspicious but could let it slide this time, but you as an experienced editor are fully aware that contacting editors for an AfD is inapproriate at best and canvassing at worst. Also that editor Cullen etc might not consider themselves canvassed doesn't really matter since they did join the AfD after you asked them to.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I've explained at least seven or eight times that pinging two knowledgeable, neutral, and respected administrators who specialize in rescuing articles at AfD, in particular, rescuing articles on women and/or artists is not canvassing. I've explained at least three or four times that leaving a neutral notice on DGG's talkpage was in no way inappropriate. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
It is not easy to predict in marginal cases whether I will argue for or against a deletion. I am interested in exactly those marginal cases, in the hope of better defining the standards, and I am very grateful for anyone who call my attention to them.When I go there, I use my own judgment. Whether or not the notice is worded neutrally, when I am asked to look at an afd,I do not initially pay any attention to who said what, but look at the article, and see what I think of it myself. I write my preliminary response, and then I look to see if any arguments in the other direction need to be taken account of. My talk p will show many examples of people who hope for support but where in the upshot I think otherwise, and vice-versa--in fact the very last response I wrote to someone else was just that. DGG ( talk ) 10:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the issue here is Softlavender contacting you on your talk page basically asking you to !vote. And that you then within hours did just that. Not how you voted, though the result Delete, Delete, Weak Keep amongst the three contacted editors are quite telling. You are not at fault here DGG, just wanted to point that out if you felt accused.BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:APPNOTE, and please note that as I explained on the AfD, DGG is an administrator who deals widely with AfDs and my message was neutral and mentioned only that the AfD was contentious. If the rhetoric by the IP and Dennis Brantland had not occurred, and the repeated accusations of canvassing made by you and Dennis had not occurred, I would not have felt to call on another administrator for additional clarity, but because of all that noise on this AfD, I felt that the administrator with the most experience with AfDs of any admin (and an ArbCom member to boot) would bring a careful eye to the matter. In terms of your assertion that "the result Delete, Delete, Weak Keep amongst the three contacted editors are quite telling": So if all three highly experienced administrators had !voted "Strong Keep" you would not have made these accusations (repeated nine times so far)? That is what is "quite telling". Softlavender (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
First off, I am stating facts not making accusations. Secondly, what my response would have been if it was Keep is irrelevant since you are the one cantacting these editors. The only response I have is, I doubt you would have contacted these three particular editors if you suspected their votes would have been Keep, Keep, Weak Delete. This battleground tactics does not work in your favour, quite the opposite. If two of them asserts that they made a objective review then that's fine, but it still does not change the fact that you contacted them specifically for this particular AfD. Both myself and Dennis Bratland has tried to reason with you, with the only response that you do not see any problem with this canvassing. Let's leave it at that. I have made myself and my stance perfectly clear, so I will not continue this discussion any further.BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
You are making repeated accusations of WP:CANVASSING and failing to discern the difference between WP:APPNOTE and WP:CANVASSING, as I've already mentioned to you at least three times. Furthermore you are engaging in blatant mind-reading in baffling contradiction to my repeatedly informing you that both Megalibrarygirl and Cullen328SPECIALIZE IN THE AFD WP:RESCUE OF ARTICLES ON ARTISTS/WOMEN, WHICH IS WHY I REQUESTED THEIR INPUT. The fact that you are digging in on your stance rather than taking that in, and you are instead harping repeatedly on the fact that they did not all uniformly !vote Keep is rather obvious confirmation that what you don't like is that they didn't all 100% agree with you. I really don't see any other way to interpret that, given that you have ignored both their history and Cullen's response to you and you have also repeatedly brought up how they happened to !vote on this particular AfD. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
My position on this kerfuffle is the same as DGG's. In my nine years on this project, nobody has made a credible claim that I am a deletionist. I learn about interesting and controversial AfDs in many ways and if I think that anyone is trying to influence my decision, I do not participate. I considered the ping to be a neutral notification. Cullen328Let's discuss it16:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland sums the situation up well here. Sadly non of you three seem to understand the issue at hand. You can not unring the bell. BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, guys, sorry I was away. The putative canvassing is a borderline thing IMO. Softlavender seems surprisingly unaware of how it looks, to put it no more strongly, to ping people to an AfD. I don't know Cullen or Megalibrarygirl (or AfD) well enough to have an opinion as to whether they specialize in rescuing articles on women and/or artists (though I feel I know Cullen pretty well otherwise; hello, Cullen!), as Softlavender has repeatedly stated. It's not apparent on their userpages. (Adding PS: I guess it is sort of noticable on Cullen's page, If I had read more carefully.) But I really don't think you ought to ping anybody with the argument that they specialize in taking a particular stand on the kind of article that's in question. That's an argument for not pinging them. Obviously your intentions were of the best, since it looks like you pinged people you thought to be, if anything, unlikely to share your own opinion — but such an attempt to manage an AfD isn't appropriate either, and it remains an argument for not pinging them. I hope none of the three people pinged/otherwise alerted think I mean to criticise them with that opinion, not do I think their input at the AfD should be discounted — by no means. They are, after all, highly skilled, highly respected, and highly neutral administrators.
@Softlavender:, I'm quite underwhelmed by your debating style at that AfD. To repeat the same argument verbatim five times, with apparently rising indignation — look at what you're making me do, I'm repeating myself! "I'll state a fifth time"! — looks like bludgeoning in my eyes.
@BabbaQ:, nobody has asked me about this, but in my chatty way, I'll still register my bafflement at your own Keep !vote. How on earth does WP:NEXIST support the notability of the subject? If there are better sources out there, which is what NEXIST is about, why don't you go find them? Unless you support your opinion with references, I have to say I would discount it if I were the closing admin. (Which I'm obviously not going to be, after all this discussion my page.) Bishonen | talk18:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC).
My rationales for Keep was just included in another editords rationale for Keeping the article [143]. Other than that I guess the best thing is for this discussion to die down. I don't see this going any further. Thanks for your input. Hopefully we can move on now. Let's await more reactions.BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The way I read WP:NEXIST, an article should not even be nominated for deletion, much less deleted, without its subject first having been checked for sources that may exist but have not yet been cited by Wikipedia. I think we are here to add relevant material, rather than delete it, whenever there is a reasonable choice. I also see nowhere that it would be the responsibility of one only certain user (I see that a lot) to find and provide better sourcing. Looks to me like the guideline pertains to us all. With a deletionist attitude seeming to have very highly prevalence at English Wikipedia nowadays, I can see how there could be differences of opinion about things like WP:NEXIST, especially since the last sentence there seems to negate the rest of the guideline, when positivism would be at its very most urgently needed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe you misunderstand NEXIST, Serge. It says that an absence of good sources in the article doesn't necessarily mean the subject lacks notability. There may be sources out there, and it's the business of anybody who wants to opine about notability to look for these possible sources. "However, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive". You have to either find them, or put up a persuasive argument that they probably do exist. BabbaQ did neither. And you don't like the last sentence, Serge, because it says it's no good just pointing to the possibility of some sources somewhere. Well, IMO the last sentence is needed for completeness. Bishonen | talk00:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC).
So we disgree. I have not given you any subtle pointers about misunderstanding anything, and having read the guideline carefully and competently (with English as my first language), I stand by my opinon of those words as expressed above. I basically agree with BabbaQ's interpretation of the guideline as it reads right now. "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article", etc. You may want to change the wording more specifically to your liking so as to encourage more deletions with little or no regard to sources that might possibly exist. In the meantime, you and I can respectfully disagree, without pointers about misunderstanding. Shall we leave it at that? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
You could, but I can't let your rather rude implication that 'Shonen's grasp of English might be in some way less than yours go without commenting. English is my first language, and has almost certainly been so for longer than it has been yours (but this isn't a pissing contest), and I read NEXIST just as 'Shonen does. Notability, if challenged, requires actual proof. It is not a defence to deletion to assert that "sources might/must/ought to exist" without supplying them. In other words, NEXIST boils down to saying that existing sources that prove notability do not have to be in use in the article. Of course we expect anyone who asserts that sources don't exist to have looked for sources before making the assertion, but the onus will always remain on those claiming existence to demonstrate it; it would not be sensible to insist on proof of absence. --RexxS (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why you chose to misinterpret my comment about language as a "rather rude implication that 'Shonen's grasp of English might be in some way less than yours". You couldn't be more wrong. I've taught English since 1964 (tho you'd never know with all my typos nowadays due to worse and worse eyesight and bit of brain damage) and that has no connection whatsoever with my opinion of this user's excellent command of English. When I read something in English and others who also know English people interpret it quite differently, I often explain that English is my first language, so they won't think I (I) am lacking in that aspect. No offense intended. You chose to try to pick a fight here. Other than defending my comment on language, I pass on that. I respect your opinion and this user's. You? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Rude implication RexxS? Touchy much? SergeWoodzing is trying to have a good discussion concerning a guideline, try to do the same please. Sandbox, get out of it.BabbaQ (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Pot meet kettle. Neither of you are trying to "have a good discussion"; you merely want to extol your faulty understanding of the guideline to score debating points. Take your playground behaviour somewhere else if you don't want to be criticised for it. --RexxS (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Just my two cents, but I get pinged all the time to look at articles about women. Often I find enough sources to decide Keep or Weak Keep. The bias in my !voting record is that I rarely invest my time in articles that are obvious deletes. I personally didn't feel "canvassed" because this is rather normal for me (Clean up on aisle 3 for Megalibrarygirl!). Canvassing--and dealing with articles by paid writers is a touchy issue on Wikipedia and I hope this can be resolved amicably, but I think that Softlavender acted in good faith here. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm the IP editor in that AfD. Seriously the two complaining editors (BabbaQ and Dennis Bratland) need to DROP THE STICK. There's zero positive outcome from their continued whining, and I say that not as something nasty but from the definition "To complain or protest in a childish fashion." Several very good editors of high repute in Wikiland have explained their position. Just take them at their word and move on. If you see it happening four or five times, you can make a case somewhere. But once-- what the heck is the issue? The way you put it, these editors may as well have been responsible for the Three Mile Island accident. Move along. Major waste of wiki time. If they cannot let this go, they should get sanctions, as it is really battleground behaviour.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Also here are some example phrases for BabbaQ and Dennis Bratland to use, which would save us all a lot of time. 1. "Thank you for your explanation. I was concerned at the possibility of vote stacking but your explanation satisfies me." 2. "Thanks for explaining that. I am not completely OK with such invitations, but I will take you at your word." 3. "OK I will accept that. Thanks for explaining. I do not accept the way you went about it, but I'll assume good faith." 104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, young Luna. I was sort of alluding to Sitush's suggestion that the small crew of people who attempt to do something about disruption in the IPA area — to empty the ocean with a sieve — are all jaded.[144] He's right. Hmm. That piece of jade might perhaps be worked into a hand bailer. Good! Bishonen | talk15:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC).
Yes, I saw that discussion: I wonder, would Sitush agree that, when one is in a hole full of water...one should find another hole! Hope you have a good weekend though, happiness over APIness everytime :) ...SerialNumber54129...speculates20:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
ARBIPA
Thanks for this; I was heading to their talk page to do the same, but Zilla's legs be longer than mine, methinks. On a more serious note: I think we really, really need to authorize pre-emptive EC protection on pages affected by ARBIPA. I've discussed this before (see here, and also elsewhere with RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff) but haven't done much about it. Thoughts? (and apologies if I've asked you about this before...). Vanamonde (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Bishzilla can jump like a kangaroo, Vanamonde! Yes, didn't we do that once? The way I remember it, it was so exhausting and complicated that we may have had no strength left to do anything much practical about it. (I seem to remember some contrarian spokes-in-wheels from users and maybe admins with no experience of the area, that made me very tired.) But we did drag it to AE and get some decisions, didn't we? Guys? @Sitush, RegentsPark, NeilN, SpacemanSpiff, and Utcursch:? Space is on a RL break right now, though. Bishonen | talk21:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC).
I would strongly oppose any Wikipedia:ARBPIA3-style restrictions. Arbcom made a mistake there, throwing out WP:NO-PREEMPT and turning admins into little robots and we don't need to dramatically exacerbate the situation. Vanamonde93, discretionary sanctions already give you the authority to ECP ARBIPA articles. Protect liberally but not automatically. --NeilNtalk to me21:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: I don't necessarily think we need automatic protection, but we do need to be able to protect something in anticipation of trouble; we do need pre-emptive protection. I asked Callanecc about the DS, and he said that ECP is not, at present, something which can be applied as a discretionary sanction, only as a normal admin action; and EC protection as normal admin action has a lot of restrictions. I want to be able to slap indefinite ECP on any page with any significant history of socking: and not just in the article namespace. There's a good many AfDs which would benefit from ECP. Vanamonde (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I have no idea why Callanecc would say that. Procedure states, "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." It does not limit what type of protection we can use, just that it be reasonable. --NeilNtalk to me12:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
So, young Callanecc, you cleaned up the wording after Vanamonde asked you about it in December. To be quite clear, then, the new wording presumably allows applying EC protection as a discretionary sanction. The previous version listed "semi-protection, full protection, move protection," per your diff, which might seem to exclude EC protection. Now it just says "protection", as Neil mentions, so does not exclude any particular kind of protection. Furthermore, the enumeration of types of page restrictions ends with "or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." I don't see how that could not mean that if the enforcing admin believes ECP, or incineration by Bishzilla, is necessary and proportionate for the page in question, then they can apply it. Including preemptively, though personally I think it would be rare that preemptively was necessary and proportionate. Yes? Bishonen | talk11:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC).
The Society of Jesus' various suborganizations (for a lack of better word), are frequently difficult to assess in terms of where they would place on Wikipedia i.r.t. notability. This is because a lot of their work walks a fine line between religious work and being an educational institution (and they would likely argue that no distinction needs to be made). I'd place the above institution on that line: from what I can tell, it isn't particularly prominent, even within Catholic circles, but the faculty there likely view it as an academic endeavor. Even after the RfC last year, our standards for schools tend to be lower than elsewhere. I'm not sure how I would !vote on an AfD about this, to be honest. Anyway, sorry if my musing is unwelcome or unhelpful, Bish. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bish. I accidentally made edits logged out of my account and wanted to know if there is any way I can erase my IP from showing, even if it means deleting those edits. (N0n3up (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC))
Oh, gosh... I seem to have banished that from memory, probably because it involved a good deal of heavy lifting and stress. Thank you for the alert, Calton, I will certainly take a look. Bishonen | talk20:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC).
Sometimes the last RfPP request turns up on my watchlist, and then even I can be fast; something similar probably happened here. Anyway, gå och lägg dig, Tom! I'm certainly going to. [Bishonen faller av stolen.] Bishonen | talk23:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC).
Memories of an old thread re: account creation/wiki outreach
I am sure there was a long-ish discussion in recent months concerning giving people account creator rights for outreach work. It involved a fair few long-term contributors but I am blowed if I can find it at ANI, AN or VPP. Do you or any of the watchers here recall it? - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
No, any rumours of me being nice have been greatly exaggerated. I would have removed those insistent IP edits myself, if the talkpage stalkers hadn't, but they were always too quick for me. Did you notice I thanked them, the tps, below? I really don't care for Easter greetings sent together with attacks on other editors. But I'll keep this one. Thank you. Bishonen | talk11:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC).
Thank you II
Thanks for the protection, NeilN, I was just considering doing it myself, to save the fingers of the watchers who have helped with reverting. And thank you too, kind watchers. Bishonen | talk15:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC).
I truly don't think the warnings with PME and myself were needed, particularly when there was an existing discussion about including that information. BR had not participated in it, there was no consensus to include it, so I'm not seeing why BRD doesn't apply here to him as well as those who felt it should be removed. The tone of your warning has made BR think he can run around, acting self-righteous and issuing threats as if he is now above question. I just looked. I've only made 1 edit to that article in over 2 weeks. Even if I did remove it, that would be the second in 2 weeks, with zero discussion from BR in that time frame. Not exactly a flaming edit war. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the warnings were needed, however, because there are other forms of battleground mode than flaming edit wars. You may only have made one edit to the article, but you made a strikingly aggressive and up-in-arms note on the talkpage. In particular, what was this bit about? "BTW, you know what else the Arbcom would probably notice? You making a controversial edit, then posting the DS notice in a what appears to be an attempt to intimidate editors." What DS notice did BullRangifer post, and why would ArbCom care? (You're presumably not referring to the DS alert on PackMecEng's page, which I posted myself.) It's ArbCom's very own alert, part of the DS system, and they definitely don't mind it being posted. Furthermore, I see you've added more aggression on talk after my warning (which was actually only a warning that I would formally warn you if you attempted to remove the content without giving a good reason — a bit absurd, all those layers of warnings, but I don't mind giving people a laugh). You think it's collaborative to call people a giant wanker? More like that and I'll block you without benefit of discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk17:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC).
There was an existing discussion that he never took part in. He was reverted and suddenly, there are warnings going to everyone but him. Around the same time he made an edit that he knew would be controversial, he posted DS warnings at the article page. It was a clear attempt to try to keep his undiscussed edit from being reverted by using a veiled threat. I say veiled, but he did go fetch an admin and get warnings thrown out. Then, after the warnings, he starts his smug posts, acting like he's swinging some authority around. So yeah, I did suggest that some people may view him as a big wanker. I have edited that comment, striking out the misunderstood material and replacing it with something softer. I honestly feel like you're taking sides on this one. I may very well be wrong, but it truly does give me that feeling. I don't mean it as an attack, I'm simply expressing that it looks like that to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I understand, and I'm sorry you see it that way. Thank you for striking out the abusive epithet. But don't give me "'misunderstood' material". I understood the material fine, see my discussion of paralipsis on your page. Bishonen | talk21:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC).
Revdel, please
Someone has just copied text from this site to Priya Prakash Varrier, over-riding the redirect. I've reverted and nominated the image uploads for deletion at Commons. Can you or one of your watchers please take care of the revdel? - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Done. Looking at their talkpage, there seems to be a competence issue. Please let me know if you should see them perpetrating further copyvios, now that you've warned them. Bishonen | talk21:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC).
😀 Well put, Kautilya3! Unfortunately, 117.221.187.23 and the other ones, 117.207.237.2 and 117.248.12.126, together comprise a huge range. So I've merely blocked 117.221.187.23 for block evasion etc etc. It's dynamic. Please let me know if you see need for semi anywhere. We may well be stuck with this daemon. Bishonen | talk17:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC).
I think we need to semi the article as well as the talk page for perhaps a week. I have asked for indefinite ECP for the article. If you feel it right, you might do that as well. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Aha, I see another IP sock has already popped up, after I blocked the first. Vsmith has already semi'd the article, but only for ten days. Yes, if the disruption/socking continues after that, I'll certainly consider longer protection, but I don't want to second-guess Vsmith to begin with. Let me take a look at the talkpage. Bishonen | talk18:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC).
Russian interference article
Hi, Bish! I don’t like to make admin decisions at articles I am involved in. Could you take a look at this edit by VM? As you can see from the history, they are immediately re-adding something that had been “challenged by reversion”. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Melania (as I understand you wish to be addressed these days), I have a personal policy against having anything to do with DS page restrictions, so please ask someone else. I dislike the page restrictions and think they're bureaucratic, hard to understand, impossible for newbies, and often confusing even for experienced editors, especially me. Oh, and sometimes gamed. So I don't sanction nor warn where page restrictions are concerned, and don't involve myself in AE reports on them either. Just a personal choice, and note that I do do other kinds of discretionary sanctions (do them to excess, some might say!), so please don't hesitate to ask about those. Bishonen | talk20:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC).
OK, thanks. I hear you. I basically came to you because you were online and several other people I might have asked were not. As for "Melania", I enjoy the joke now and then, but see the disclaimer on my user page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, various Bishes and TPSes. Would anybody be willing to venture an opinion on this? I think the references are problematic (YouTube vid a probably copyright vio plus IMDb unreliable), but being a dangerously unstable troll, I'm never sure about these things. (Nice mountain, by the way, but I was hoping for something sentient—maybe even cuddly.) RivertorchFIREWATER17:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, talkpage stalkers, should big Bishzilla have a bigger sig?
Bishzilla has been trying to add a link to her pocket to her sig, for hospitality. It looks like this: bishzillaROARR!!pocket. Lovely, in my opinion, and hospitable. But she had trouble pasting it into the Preferences signature field — it was cut off. :-( I have posted a question at the Village Pump.[146] Little talkpage stalkers are cordially invited to respond there. <subliminally>Support Bishzilla or perish!</subliminally> Bishonen | talk17:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC).
Unfortunately, my pet Dino can't tell the difference between 253 and 254, so I've had to finish the job for him. As it turns out his, code had 2 characters spare, so you can replace "red" with a colour that can be expressed in CSS shorthand, i.e. #A9E (that means #AA99EE), which I think is near enough to the #A7A0F2 that you wanted. At least I can't see any difference:
Possibly. [Disgruntled.] Some blowback about substitution and about <font> tags at [147]. But seems to have settled down. Make note of Dino's fine shorter version without the tags etc, [148] in case come with pitchforks later. [Bishzilla make little joke, trying not to laugh at thought of "coming with pitchforks". She likes to use pitchforks as dainty implements for fine dining, and as toothpicks. Feels gruntled again, starts energetically picking her gleaming teeth.] bishzillaROARR!!pocket12:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC).
As you suggested, I went to the talk page for Christian Science. There, I submitted a research-based request that 8 new words be added to an introductory sentence. However, I was given no opportunity to "develop consensus" as you said might be the case. Instead, my request was listed as answered, and denied under the basis that "we don't really have the space to unpack it." Adding eight words is a pretty simple. If an editor doesn't like my eight words, I would be happy to help her or him develop a different or shorter phrase. Or, editors could do some research on their own. Either way, the following is undeniable:
God is primary and central to Christian Science, based not on opinion, but pure research. To omit God from the introduction to Christian Science and to lead with a topic that is secondary is inaccurate.
Do you have any suggestions for how this inaccuracy can be resolved?
Hi, Sjostyn. Thank you for complying with Wikipedia's principles. I prefer not to discuss the wording you propose, though; I was talking to you purely as an administrator, to explain how things work here; I'm not well-informed or any too interested in the subject, I'm afraid. As for "develop consensus", there's nothing to prevent you from replying to SlimVirgin on talk, and we can also hope that other editors will weigh in. You realize everybody here is a volunteer, though; people edit and comment on things that interest them, and of course people who are Christian Science practitioners, like yourself, are going to be more interested than the run-of-the-mill editor. Now that you're here, incidentally, I'll just mention I'm kind of surprised to see you suggest yet again the phrase that I had queried particularly in my edit summary: "God, good, is" etc. It just doesn't sound like normal, or encyclopedic, English to me. Is "God, good", some kind of Christian Science term of art? P.S., with all possible respect, please don't bless me. It's against my religion. Bishonen | talk10:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC).
Thanks so much for your further direction. I am still learning the technicalities of conversing with people on Wikipedia.
Thank you also for your question regarding my use of "God, good..." That phraseology/style is actually used by Christian theologians. For example, St. Athanasius (one of the Church Fathers), in his treatise "On the incarnation of the Word of God", writes of mankind, "Three ways thus lay open to them, by which they might obtain the knowledge of God. They could look up into the immensity of heaven, and by pondering the harmony of creation come to know its Ruler, the Word of the Father, Whose all-ruling providence makes known the Father to all. Or, if this was beyond them, they could converse with holy men, and through them learn to know God, the Artificer of all things, the Father of Christ, and to recognise the worship of idols as the negation of the truth and full of all impiety." (p.52-53).
As you can see, it is pretty common practice to mention God or Christ, to add a descriptor afterward separated by commas, and to continue your sentence. In the quote I just gave you, Athanasius employs this practice three times in three sentences, thus identifying "the Ruler" as "the Word of the Father" and identifying God as "the Artificer of all things" and "the Father of Christ".
So, my phrase, "God, good, being infinite and ever-present..." employs this same format. If people don't like that phraseology, I will attempt to derive consensus on it in the Christian Science talk section. That being said, it is much better/more honest/accurate to mention God using an unfamiliar phraseology/style than to not to mention God at all if you are talking about Christian Science and the contents of Science and Health.
With great respect for your religious practices (I believe we are all brothers and sisters), Susie
I'm sorry, Sjostyn, but your quotations from St. Athanasius seem quite irrelevant to me. There's no reason why theological or for that matter secular writers shouldn't use descriptors after a noun phrase, separated off by commas, and then continue the sentence. That's standard English, not reserved for Christian theologians or for defining God or Christ, and the way St. Athanasius does it is perfectly cromulent. Your "God, good," is not. In my opinion. I'm surprised both at your opinion and your example, but I don't think we'll get any further with this, so I won't elaborate. It's hardly worth arguing about. All the best, Susie; I respect your religious practices too. Please take it back to the article talkpage. Bishonen | talk20:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC).
Oh, I dunno. This page is pretty catholic in its interests. However, I would have thought Athanasius wrote in Greek, so Susie's quote above is from nothing more than a rather old translation of his treatise on Logos (i.e. Christ as the Word of God incarnate), so not terribly useful as an exemplar of writing in English. As for the original question, I would hope that the OP has now figured out the difference between a noun phrase in apposition, which follows the noun in English, and an adjective, which certainly doesn't, other than as a poetic device. That is not the tone we use in writing an encyclopedia – apart from the User talk:Darwinbish page, of course. --RexxS (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I don’t know whether or not it‘s a named figure of speech, but I suppose it could be regarded as a form of ellipsis (omitting “who/which is“); it has a similar effect to that of an asyndeton. I agree such rhetorical devices are out of place in the encylopedic register.—Odysseus147902:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Such wisdom on Wikipedia - I'm so thankful for everyone's insight - thank you! I'm not Catholic by denomination, but I am a fan of "catholicity" in its inclusive, universal sense. I am a Christian theologian who has taken classes at both conservative and liberal seminaries, which means that I've read works by people that I agree with as well as disagree with. If people don't prefer this example of Christian language, I could provide others, but that's not the point. I believe that Odysseus has accurately identified the figure of speech. If people don't prefer to use it on Wikipedia, I'm sure we can find a different, acceptable way of phrasing the idea in question. I look forward to any insights you all may suggest on the Christian Science talk page.
Hi Bish, I heard that you block users who no longer want to continue in Wikipedia and ask to voluntarily be infinitely blocked. If so, can the user return in the future or not, and in the same or new account? Just curious. (N0n3up (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC))
Yes, what Capitals00 said, see the page linked to. My conditions are set up to make it very difficult for the user to come back during the block, since presumably they asked for a block to help with the wiki-addiction, but maximum is indeed six months. And I usually try to talk people down to three months. Bishonen | talk09:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC).
So is there an Admin who is willing for an indefinite unless unblock request? Or simply get a new account? (N0n3up (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC))
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Otara Gunewardene, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Dan arndt (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
BTW, I think that Greenangelstudios is most likely to be an employee of Otara Foundation/Embark rather than Gunewardene herself. And I don’t think they are necessarily a paid COI but someone who thinks they are doing the right thing by their boss. Anyway that’s my two cents worth. Dan arndt (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I may end up AfD'ing it, but of course I'll give you time to work on it first, Dan arndt. I hope you're able to find some references. You don't think somebody who's employed by Gunewardene's foundation is necessarily a paid COI? You mean they might just be doing their boss a favour, without being paid for it? That sounds dubious to me. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I didn't block Greenangelstudios per WP:PAID, but as a promotional account under a promotional username. And what alerted me to the connection between Gunewardene and Green Angel Studios was Gunewardene's e-mail otara@greenangelstudios.com given here. Bishonen | talk15:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC).
Far enough, have to agree that based on the evidence there is some sort of connection. It would appear that Otara Foundation and Green Angel Studios are one in the same, that doesn’t however mean the user is Otara herself. Anyway, give me a day or so and I should be able to get the article into a sufficient state to satisfy the notability requirements. Dan arndt (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Aren't you being a little difficult now? I don't know who the person is, and if I did know, I wouldn't say anything about it on Wikipedia, so please don't imply I did. What I said was "I see on the web that you represent, or perhaps are, Gunewardene". Please stop alerting me for typo fixes and pointless additions. Thank you for the message about the deprodding, and good luck with your article improvement. Bishonen | talk15:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC).
User:ThePierrasse
No, not me.
If you are still suspicious, then please subject me to whatever SPI/checkuser type procedure you wish, it will confirm that I'm not ThePierrasse
thanks 124.106.139.19 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
CheckUsers will never link IPs and accounts, for privacy reasons, so it's not about what I wish. But a CheckUser, Bbb23, has posted in the ANI thread stating that you are unlikely to be the same, which I accept. So you're just an unhelpful wikilawyer, not a sockpuppet. Do you have an account? Bishonen | talk18:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC).
Oh come on. "So you're just an unhelpful wikilawyer" isn't really called for. You have someone quoting policies that are not true and I called them out on it. I didn't defend ThePierrasse's edits. I asked an admin to clarify exactly what the rules were, while making it clear that I didn't think the right not to communicate applied in ThePierrasse's case. Not exactly wikilawyering. The only reason for it being considered wikilawyering, was because you thought I was ThePierrasse.
I could have been an ass about it and said that ANI isn't the place for sockpuppet accusations, but I saw it as an honest mistake and didn't see the need. And here we are, you've been told by a CheckUser that it's really unlikely that your accusations are true and still you have to make a snide comment? I didn't expect an apology, but neither did I expect something quite so negative.
Do I have an account? I had one, but I haven't used it in quite a few years. I'm not even sure if I still have the login details for it. Why do you ask? Just curious or some policy related issues? 124.106.139.19 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I usually consider that question more of an opportunity to be transparent. A registered editor in a discussion is rather like a contestant on Mastermind: they are speaking from "within the light" as anyone can see all their contributions, and their reputation is clearly discernible; whereas an IP is more like Deep Throat: someone speaking "from the shadows" - visible in outline, but essentially unknown. You can make a dialogue with registered editors more comfortable for them by stepping out of the darkness, and filling in a little of your background. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
That's an interesting perspective. I think that also relies on the registered user giving some personal information in order to make themselves seem more like a person, rather than just a supplier of edits. It depends how you want to be seen, I personally don't really have a desire to judged on my online identity, I've tried it - I didn't like it. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I've spent a lot of time meeting Wikmedians in person, and I find it enlightening to encounter a real person, rather that a "supplier of edits" (nice aphorism, by the way). I have a userbox that sums up my view:
This user believes that meeting other editors in the flesh makes it far less likely that they will be treated like a pile of dogshit online.
For some reason I happened to be rereading something on my talk page, when I noticed something ... suspicious. You (or your Bishy companions) seem always around whenever I've had episodes of what I used to think were simply my semi-addled misadventures in misclickings. See: Reverting trolling, November 2014, and What? Fat finger?. So are you secretly in control of my fingers? Paul August☎10:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Bishonen, Twitter is considered a "social media platform": [149]. I know you lost some respect for me when, for no good reason, you came to the assumption that I'm a flaming Conservative White Supremacist a couple of months ago, but please leave the LOLs out of your edit summaries when deleting content I've added to articles about Conservative subjects, okay? That's just rude. And, to be honest, lowers my opinion of the kind of person I thought you were. -- ψλ ● ✉✓22:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you John; that was my thought. I know it's a social media platform. My LOL was for the fact that Twitter being a social media platform is so well-known it doesn't need saying. "The social media platform Twitter" sounds to me a bit like saying "the breakfast dish bacon and eggs" or "the snack a bag of crisps". You really shouldn't take my edit summary personally, or as something aimed at you, Winkelvi. (Insofar as I thought at all, without doing any research, I kind of assumed Mr X had added the phrasing.) And now you expect me to research the edit histories of conservative subjects to make sure who added something, in case it was you, before I formulate my edit summary? Do you think that's a reasonable request? Bishonen | talk23:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC).
If I misread it, I apologize. As far as this: "And now you expect me to research the edit histories of conservative subjects to make sure who added something, in case it was you, before I formulate my edit summary? Do you think that's a reasonable request?", I made no such request. -- ψλ ● ✉✓23:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There's no "if" in an apology. That's just weaselling a non-apology to make you feel better. And don't you realise when you demand that 'Shonen "leave[s] the LOLs out of [her] edit summaries when deleting content [you]'ve added to articles about Conservative subjects" that she would have to check the edit histories of conservative subjects to see if you were the one who added the content she was addressing? Are you having problems with English or logic today? --RexxS (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
With that insipid bad-faith answer to RexxS's explanation, you have completely outstayed your welcome here, Winkelvi. Please go away now. Concerning your "apology", you might be interested in reading WP:NOTSORRY. Or not, of course. Bishonen | talk15:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC).
I'm afraid my civility on the issue has worn out, and in the interest in not getting myself blocked, I'm disengaging, but I strongly suggest some sort of action be taken here because this is not stopping. --Tarage (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Tarage. This popped up on my watchlist. I remember Bish from waaaay back in the day - always an editor to admire so I don't blame you seeking support from this quarter. violet/riga[talk]23:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, both. Always nice to see you on my page, Violet! A blast from the past indeed. I have commented in the ANI thread — perhaps not a good idea, since it seemed to be about done, but since you have both come to my page, I thought I might as well. Anyway. I note that BMK isn't calling for any sanctions, so I'm glad you're disengaging as well, Tarage. Bishonen | talk07:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC).
Could you please answer my question at AE? I'm genuinely curious as to how that exchange could be interpreted other than the way I read it. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Very well, but I will not be drawn into any protracted back and forth on AE, after I've already written my own analysis quite fully and bored everybody sufficiently. I'll answer once. If you have any further complaints after that, you'll have to come back here. Bishonen | talk20:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC).
I'm not interested in a back and forth. I was just curious. FWIW, the Debkafile thing doesn't mention money at all. He was responding to the other editor saying that Gazans would be better off if Hamas spent less donated money on tunnels and more on civilian infrastructure by saying that Israel gets more money ("misappropriated US taxpayer funds" I think he called it?) in absolute terms and per capita, so Israelis who are beneficiaries of this money (obviously the other editor) should shut up about Hamas. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
For ease of reference, this is the comment he was responding to. The Debka thing was about what Hamas is planning with the current protests, while he was responding to the prior sentence about the situation in Gaza in general and how Hamas uses the "billions from the world" it receives. I honestly don't understand how anyone can miss the personal attacks in the response here. Look at them together. It's not a subtle dog-whistle. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's the problem: the diff shown has three words about another editor out of 118 that focus on asserted facts. The three words say that the other editor spouted nonsense by pasting information from an unreliable and biased source. That does not rise to a sanctionable level. Why not engage with the 115 words that assert facts? Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
No. "Israel's beneficiaries of this misappropriation of US taxpayer funds" is also about the other editor. And most of the rest of the words are a buildup to that. Nice to see you once again come to Nishidani's defense. You're a good friend. I recall this conversation we had on my talk page. Good times. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I resent being trolled with "You're a good friend" and the other off-topic commentary. At Wikipedia, it is best to focus on content and engage with the points raised, rather than treating the exercise as a debating game. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is complicated. But that is part of the problem. Why do we need all this complicated stuff in a page on Slavery in India? We all understand what slavery means. His whole thing is quite twisted, so twisted in fact that he can't even say in his own words what is going on.
But the reason I brought it to you is because he stared throwing tantrums essentially. Here are the diffs: [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156].
And, most of all why is he writing about me on his own talk page?
I might take it to WP:ANI eventually if he gets to that stage. But, for now, a gentle warning from you that he does indeed need to generate CONSENSUS in order to new content might help. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, the writing to you on his own page is no big deal, it's a common newbie mistake. (I realise he's not that new.) But I've warned him about re-adding stuff without consensus, and about making nonsense arguments ("censorship"). Quite a sharp warning — sanctions will come next. Bishonen | talk10:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC).
On the other hand, I just realised the article has been protected for a week, so I'm not sure how useful my warning is. For the future, possibly. Bishonen | talk13:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC).
Yeah, I saw them on your page. Hope you enjoy the sweets. I admit I eat a lot of sweets, but at least I'm somewhat willing to share! Bishonen | talk19:12, 10 April 2018 (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.
OMG, that's complicated, I'm reading the deletion review to try to understand how it went. The creator, Felsic2, hasn't edited for a year, right? Several socks of a blocked user have moved it to WP space, it was several times deleted/moved back, as can be seen here It seems clear on the linked page that NeilN's and Berean Hunter's deletions per G5, "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban: HughD" were incorrect: the socks just moved it, Felsic2 created it.
You then moved it to Wikipedia space with the argument "Move well-developed user essay to Wiki space". Chris Troutman moved it to your userspace.. but Berean Hunter moved it back to Felsic2's space.
And your question is, were you wrong to move it into WP space in the first place? I'm not sure. It's an unusual situation, because the creator is apparently gone from Wikipedia. My feeling, looking at the page, is that I'm far from sure it was intended by Felsic2 to become a Wikipedia essay; it looks more like notes for their own use, and perhaps to refer others too. I believe it should be left in their userspace. On the other hand, I'm less than impressed by Chris Troutman's arguments in the conversation you link to; it seems pretty transparent that he mainly doesn't want it in WP space because he's ideologically opposed to it ("this screed"). Consensus is certainly not required for an essay.
On the third hand, if you like, you could create your own essay based on it (and credit Felsic2 for stuff you borrowed from them). A word of warning, though: the content is certainly controversial, ideologically, and once an essay is in WP space, anybody can edit it to pretty much mean the opposite. I generally leave my own essays in my userspace now, after some experiences of that. Bishonen | talk22:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC).
Thanks for the input. I was a bit taken aback by Chris Troutman's insistence that I self-revert. This is a difficult area and it can be hard to separate sock-fighting from POV-pushing. To set the record straight, my understanding is that admins reverted the sock several times by moving the page back to userspace and deleting only the redirects. BereanHunter's was the only true deletion.
Felsic2 did actually proposed adding it to WP:Firearms at one point.
Regardless of who said and did what, I think your approach of leaving the essay alone and re-using some of the content is going to be the best solution. –dlthewave☎01:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, he did want it in WP space? That makes a difference, but since he's not here to defend it, it's still best left in his space. The discussion that you link to certainly shows the deep divisions in this area. It's a good thing there are discretionary sanctions (though as far as I can remember, I've never yet used them myself). Bishonen | talk09:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC).
LOL, how dare you question a simple factual statement? What do you think of changing the first sentence to "19th Kushok Bakula Rinpoche (19 May 1917 – 4 November 2003) was recognized by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama as a reincarnation of Bakula Arhat" (from further down)? Would that help? Bishonen | talk09:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC).
That is what I am thinking of doing but prior to my involvement (and contrary to the source) it said he was a reincarnation of Kushok Bakula Rinpoche. I find this type of article very difficult to deal with: on the one hand, these things attract religious adherents and on the other hand they tend to be so confusing that if you are not an adherent, they are well nigh impossible to fix. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)comment: I feel that with ... they tend to be so confusing that if you are not an adherent, they are well nigh impossible ... you have probably stated an important and quite general fact ... best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, no; I do do self-requested blocks, but not longer than six months, which wouldn't be much use to you. If you want to stop yourself from editing, Writ Keeper's advice is good: set your password to something random (just hit some 15 keys or so) that you won't be able to remember and then log out. Good luck and thanks for the articles you have created. Bishonen | talk16:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC).
I'm afraid I don't. If you feel strongly about actually being blocked, take a look at the Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested_blocks that Writ Keeper linked you to. You'll see that the links on the category page are mostly simply to userpages. A few are to a specific page about an admin's conditions for self-requested blocks, for instance my own User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks, and there are three more like that. Those four admins all say they're not willing to place indefinite blocks — I just checked them. So those are no use to you. What you can do is appeal to one of the others. I'd suggest trying User:HJ Mitchell or User:Swarm, just from my feeling that they are obliging guys. Bishonen | talk19:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC).
It's done. The last time I saw one of these requests ignored the editor had the bright idea of vandalizing admin noticeboards. Better a block be done with "no hard feelings". --NeilNtalk to me20:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
An editor pinged you from ANI. They want an admin to look at the thread. I made the suggestion they ping an administrator mentioned three to pick from. [157]. If this was improper please no not sanction the editor for my error. Jbh Talk20:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I just didn't want to see someone get dinged if I screwed up. I definitely understand not wanting to dip a toe in there. I thought it was just a regular ANI mess when I stepped into it. Little did I know it would morph into such a rollicking shit show… Anyway, it looks like Bbb23 has an eye on it [158] if it does not burn itself out. Enjoy the weekend! Jbh Talk20:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Sir i beg you To Post Khaga History Article If you have any doubt i will give you screen shot pic proof or gazeteer proof
What? You're not communicating. Feel free to try again. For your header: I don't know know what your native language is. My point was that it doesn't seem to be English. You have said yourself that you don't speak very much English and can't understand warnings.[160] By the way, I'm sure the text you keep trying to add to articles is copied from somewhere else, since it's in much better English than the comments you write in your own words. Violating somebody else's copyright isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk16:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) The problem with using terms such as "native language", "mother tongue" and similar in a discussion with someone from India (and a number of other countries, for that matter) is that it's a Western concept that isn't commonly understood by people elsewhere (see First language#Mother tongue). - Tom | Thomas.W talk16:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Thomas.W. Pradeep Suryavanshi, if your first language is Hindi (but it may not be, I don't know), then please consider contributing to the Hindi Wikipedia rather than the English. I explained why on your page. Bishonen | talk17:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC).
I'm sorry, BullRangifer, I can't make head or tail of that mobile diff, I'm too old school. On my screen it doesn't even say who made the edit or what the article is. Talkpage stalkers to the rescue, please? Bishonen | talk19:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC).
Oh, sure, BullRangifer. You said "edit warring" — nice economic way of implying an IP too, when you have the misfortune to be typing on a phone — so I looked. If you care about the silly username, even though it hardly reflects on you, I can revdel it from the article history. Bishonen | talk08:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC).
Well, it's a collection of the user's contributions to discussions on various talkpages. It's kind of annoying that there are no indications of where the discussions are copied from. For instance, I tried to find this one and succeeded by checking Martinevans123's contributions, since the timestamp was preserved on Per's page, but it was rather a laborious method. But apart from that, I don't see the harm. What we don't want on userpages is material unrelated to Wikipedia, but these copypasted bits are undeniably related. (Even though less so towards the bottom of the page.) I wouldn't bother the user. On a good day, I might advise him to complete his records with links to the original locations, or indeed to replace the copypastes with such links, which is a more convenient and econonomical system. (I don't know if you would like to do that?) This for the sake of his own convenience as well as other people's. I'll just ping him, so he can see this discussion, and comment if he wishes: @Per in Sweden:. But you may feel I haven't fully addressed your concerns, @Tarage: in that case you may want to take it to ANI for more eyes. Bishonen | talk22:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC).
My concern was more using his page as a soapbox for his ideas, using comments that might have been deleted for soapbox reasons on talk pages and 'rescued' onto his own. But if you think it's fine I won't take it further. I was merely wondering if I was mistaken or not. --Tarage (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Philippine date-and-year-vandal still active
Seeing that JamesBWatson is currently "Away for a while", I dump this on you, since I have seen you tpstalking his tp. Referring to this conversation, I can inform you that the Philippine IP is continuing their irritating subtle disruption from addresses close to, but outside the currently blocked ranges. Some of the last IPs used are 49.145.167.176 and 49.145.165.41, possibly also 49.150.36.65, but that one has only one edit that is difficult to crosscheck. I do not have time to go through all their edits now or look for other IP addresses, but will try to find time soon to revert their disruptions. It is a boring pain-in-the-ass job... Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't include 49.150.36.65 unless I block a whole /13 range — not gonna happen, and it doesn't look certain that they're part of the malice anyway. I'll just do what James did and block 49.145.160.0/20 for two weeks. A /20 range is quite worrying enough for me! Thanks for your vigilance, T*U. Bishonen | talk10:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC).
Hello! I see you're online doing admin tasks and was wondering if you could block this IP 121.221.241.233(talk·contribs·WHOIS) who is disruptively blanking music pages without any explanation [161] and introducing deliberately inaccurate content see here. No one seems to be watching the AIV page and they are getting disruptive. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Done, 48 hours. @HickoryOughtShirt?4:I blinked when I saw you on my page just as my finger was poised to publish a post on yours, to thank you for your fast work at WP:UAA. You reported this one in the same minute it was created, and I caught your UAA post directly from the top of my watchlist, so I had some hopes for the holy grail, i. e. a block logged in the same minute the account was created. But it was not to be; I was one minute late. The seconds were probably already running out. But some day we may pull it off! Bishonen | talk09:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC).
I made a mistake in issuing this chap a very short term block instead of an indef NOTHERE, but for obvious reasons, I won't change that now, but can you keep a watch on this charmer? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff07:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
What, you have a problem with that expressive unblock request? In view also of their other contributions, I've indeffed. Bishonen | talk10:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC).
I tend to ignore most things outside article space and anything toward me, before or after a block but in this case it was just part of a pattern. Likewise there's this chap who has serious social competence issues, including in article space and talk space, but I'm not taking any action there as part of his passive aggressive nonsense has been directed toward me, but no single edit of his crosses over the line IMO, just a nuisance as a whole, wasting the time of many productive editors. But then, like an idiot I took to warning the chap instead of just blocking him when I first saw it. Oh well, live and learn! —SpacemanSpiff10:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Right. I saw it was somebody redlinked at one of them and didn't bother to look further, since I don't understand the technicalities anyway. I assume they're all likely to be different. Also, Katie, who commented on Twitter, is a CU herself. [Bitterly.] Everybody's smarter than me! Bishonen | talk20:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC).
adding Child euthanasia to Alfie Evans case. I'd like to point out the following diffs: on the TP [162][163] - this has BLP implications as well as some rather unpleasent innuendo about those involved in the decision and about Brits at large.
[164] calling a BLP " far-right American Jewish loon". Use of "Holohoax" (Holohoax, a portmanteau of "Holocaust" and "Hoax", is a coinage used to describe alleged media manipulation, distortion or fraud by the Israelis and other Jews designed to win the public relations war against Palestine.) - per wiktionary this is "(offensive, used by Holocaust deniers) The Holocaust viewed as an event which is fabricated and did not happen."
accusing another editor of bias and calling COI on IDF service:Isn't it a WP:COI for an editor who has served in the Israeli Defence Forces to vote on an issue like this which involves a controversy surrounding the conduct of the Israeli Defence Forces in the West Bank? Genuine question.. I'll note the article itself (created by this user) is questionable (as might be evident in the AfD).
Hi, Icewhiz, thanks for bringing this here. It all sounds awful, the way you list it, but I get a slightly different impression when I read your diffs in context. The user does a bit of soapboxing on talkpages, but, let's face it, so do many other people on controversial pages generally. The worst thing on your list, IMO, is number 8, the Stella Creasy comment, but that's a month old. I'll have to think about this for a bit, and read further; back later. Bishonen | talk10:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC).
@Icewhiz: I'm back. I'd certainly have considered blocking for the Creasy attack, if I'd seen it when it was fresh, but not after a month. I've removed it from the article talkpage. But I'm not inclined to sanction the user over any of your other diffs, either separately or together. Bishonen | talk14:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC).
OK. I dug a little bit into this after the comments on other users in the AfD and the "Holohoax", thought passing this over to your would be best. Note Soros is also a BLP issue (he was not Judenrat or a "Nazi collaborator" (which is quite an accusation) - he did hand out notices as an errand boy of sorts (as were other schoolchildren) - but this wouldn't be construed as being part of the Judenrat in any reasonable interpretation). Thanks for looking into this.Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Indo-Aryan migration
Edits on this page Indo-Aryan migration have been reverted by many editors. I don't want to cross the 3RR limot nor I want to revert again. Notably, there is a set of usual editors have made baseless accusations and seem to be removing my content just because they don't like what I add. It's not just me, another editor Wiki841 too has reverted them and restored my edit.
In the interests of avoiding edit-warring, I request you protect the article. I don't simply want my preferred version to be protected, so whatever version you protect is up to you. I am open to discussion but they shouldn't falsely blame me of copyright violation and outdated translation when there is none. They also keep using Wikipedia policies like WP:SOAPBOX which have nothing do with my edits. I suggest you tell them to discuss and prove themselves first and not make bad-faith baseless accusations. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I want the ban removed
Hi, I want the ban removed as I never added unsourced material to any of the articles. May I know how I can appeal?
Sharkslayer87 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Sharkslayer87: In fact, the template at the bottm of your talk explains everything you need to know...I advise though, that appealing the TB ten minutes after it was placed has a 100% chance of not being successful, I'm afraid. Try editing elsewhere for a few months, be productive, non-controversial, and then this can be revisiyed with more chance of success, perhaps. Just FYI. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room11:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Sharkslayer87. I have not banned you for adding unsourced material, but for using poor sources, and/or making claims unsupported by your sources, despite warnings and advice. The place you can appeal is the administrators' noticeboard. But Serial Number 54129 gives you good advice: you'll have a better chance of a successful appeal if you edit uncontroversially in other areas for a few months first. Bishonen | talk11:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC).
The first source says "Rajus (Kshatriya)" and the second source clearly says "The rajus are a small, close-knit community of the Kshatriya caste"
These are the sources that I used. I also used Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard who is considered by many as one of the greatest social anthropologists ever. He has more than a hundered thousand results at google scholar and he has been cited by thousands and thousands of scholars.
“The Raju caste, classified as the Kshatriya or warriors among the Twice-born castes, is the second highest in the village. The Raju are descendants of former rulers of the area and though their wealth and influence has declined they still bestow patronage in the form of land, money and political connections. Several Raju families have Shudra and Harijan field laborers attached to them by yearly agreements”.
He states in no uncertain terms that Rajus are classified as Kshatriyas.
Please kick me out if you want but please don't say that my sources are not good. I have never added bad sources. All my sources have been good. I might have been a little aggressive in my editing for which I apologize but I never used poor sources. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, Bish and Writ Keeper, this doesn't seem to have been logged. Think the block is fine as they were notified, but noticed the lack of paperwork and all when I was looking at the AN thread. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I got my respective South Asian discretionary sanctions log pages mixed up, sorry Bish. I should head over to BN, I suppose... TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the community bans are so much rarer than arbcom bans that it can get confusing when one is applied, especially because they are also called "discretionary sanctions". But even though we now have arbcom ds for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, which of course cover caste as well, it's somehow rather pleasing to have a special thing for caste disruption. It tends to be so... disruptive, and there are always new caste warriors arriving to tell us they're descended from kings. Bishonen | talk14:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC).
My "favorites" are those who try to add their descent from various gods as a fact. Yes, my great-great-...great-grandfather was actually Vishnu! --NeilNtalk to me14:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Kind talkpage stalkers ahoy
Oh, dammit. I've been trying to fashion a bright red obnoxious box to post at the top of Talk:Ghirth, with the text "This page is for civil discussion of improvements of the page Ghirth. Caste glorification, attacks on living people, and other irrelevant material will be removed." It's supposed to be used as a last-ditch attempt to manage without semiprotection of that talkpage, which is currently at the mercy of cluelessinexperienced caste warriors expressing their frustration at being unable to "improve" the semi-protected main page. Check it out, especially the stuff that Utcursch has removed. So, I have some boxes, that I've been trying to adapt, but it's bloody impossible. I probably keep missing out some really important dot or curl. Would a clever talkpage stalker like to create one for me? How about you, RexxS? NeilN ? Bishonen | talk20:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC).
Nice work folks! I wanted to add "... as will all posts from any editor who has a deity anywhere in their family tree" but eventually I managed to suppress the impulse. --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hehe. Utcursch has also pointed out that we have the template {{Not a forum}}, I suppose I may use that another time. The angry warning is cooler and more obnoxious, though. Bishonen | talk22:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC).
Young Luna, my plan with asking for a box was in fact to follow it up with blanking the talkpage. But then I felt hampered by the fact that Utcursch and another user have answered the SPAs in good faith, telling them things that they might conceivably benefit from. I doubt it, going by experience, but it's possible. And blanking Utcursch himself seemed just rude. Did you see this gem btw? The name mentioned, and indeed the account name, probably refers to the author of the main academic source for the article, just with a spelling/transcription variation for the first name. I thought of asking for oversight, but with the different spelling.. nah, bah. Bishonen | talk08:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC).
That comment was rather out of line, so I've gone through the page history and applied some revdel. Better safe than sorry. And FTR I prefer the angry warning; the other one gets ignored basically always. Vanamonde (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.
Technical news
AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Thank you, 331dot. I think you did right to reject the appeal, though I was ready to leave it to you. 24 hours isn't much, and I hope he uses them to review 3RR and dispute resolution. The "Shakespeare authorship question" is also under some of our less known discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk18:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC).
Thank you all for your recent vigilance on my user and talk pages. Much appreciated. There are some very odd and bored people around. Giano(talk)12:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
That won’t be necessary, thank you Mrs Bisonen. I am in town for the Royal Wedding, although quite why that silly Harry is marrying some American thespian of very odd and vocal family, when my own beautiful and very well bred daughter, Muriel, is still completely untouched by human hand, I cannot imagine. So I am very well placed to care for darlingest Giano. I cannot think what the world is coming to; I blame Donald Trump and Wallis Simpson. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, you are quite right Mr Evans. While I admit poor Muriel's brain is mostly in the heavens, her breeding is impeccable and when scrubbed up, sh is almost pretty. The people don't want a royal family who lectures them on rocket science, feeding the starving millions and developing their bodies. I can't help wondering if Ms Markle has not been sent by Mr Trump to undermine the Establishment. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
How interesting, and no I didn't know that. But it doesn't surprise me because the Battenburgs are riddled with morganatic marriages. Whenever the hands of my daughters have been requested, I have always insisted on 16 quarterings, just to be on a safe side. Once one has a reptile in the family, short of charging the public to view it, there is little one can do. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tex: I suppose that's Darwin himself (in younger days) in the picture, admiring the sensational new Darwincreature? Bishonen | talk20:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC).
I can assure you Mr Rivertorch that there is nothing homoerotic about the British Royal Family. I am fully aware that one has these gay people in all walks of society being gay and whatnot, but not in the Royal Family. Edward II, William of Orange and the Duke of Clarence were most likely all adopted, and the rumours concerning my own artistic brother, during his Capri period, are completely unfounded. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for clarifying, Lady Catherine. Got to love the atypical armour of their knights, though! Bishonen | talk20:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC).
"The bleeding from the stump of his left wrist was finally staunched, and the brave dinosaur whisperer recommenced his efforts." Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
(Disgruntled) Edit conflict! Little Martinevans much too fast for important cautionary hint from Bishzilla! HINT HINT careful crown right person! Little User:Jytdog caption king! No recusing! bishzillaROARR!!pocket19:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC).
Such a demanding dinosaur! Martinevans might be on the pooper for all we know, oh great impatient fearsome monster. Please pity our human frailities. Or he may be eating an icecream cone in the sunshine, away from glowing screen. While I do appreciate the nod for my effort, the best should win, with no claws on the scale. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
[Recovering her dignity, pats down flames starting to consume little Martinevans's hair.] Very well. Bishzilla crown little user herself. [Trudges off towards Jytdog's page.] bishzillaROARR!!pocket20:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC).
[Suspiciously.] Which one captured the Zeitgeist? The reptilians, was it? All right then! Right on topic, there won't be a Nobel prize for literature this year,[166] so Jytdog's caption prize gains all the more weight. Bishonen | talk20:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC).
Acroteriobatus "A woman needs a fish like Eric Clapton needs a bicycle"
The word has a way of showing up in a certain kind of book review - I can find no better example than this from the Guardian: "Refreshingly different . . . exhilarating . . . a compulsively readable, life-affirming tale told in direct, lambent prose, and Chait does a masterful job of juxtaposing a traditional African setting with a convincing depiction of a far-future alien society." [167] They left out lyrical and luminous: one has to use a lot of adjectives beginning with L in a review. Acroterion(talk)22:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I always thought I was some kind of Greek gargoyly thingum on the corner of a roof, bit a lesser guitarfish is even better. There's also the R review genre: "A roistering, rumbustious romp ..." Acroterion(talk)21:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Right.. yes, the caption contest was supposed to be closed, but the young Boing! said Zebedee is nevertheless awarded a special Bishzilla Order of Merit with Smileys for caption 15. 😀😃😄😆😊😍😈👽😸🙌 Bishonen | talk20:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC).
Hello, I have seen your comment on Cassianto's talk page "Please feel free to alert me on my page if you should see new infobox discussions being started where there's already a recent consensus." On Talk:Stanley Kubrick an editor has just started a "Straw Poll" on whether or not an infobox should be included when the last of numerous such discussions was closed on 4 April.Smeat75 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
But is there a recent consensus, Smeat75? The hidden edit-mode-only topnote in the article refers to a consensus against infoboxes from 2015. I asked Cass, in the comment you mention, if there was any more recent consensus, but he didn't reply. The discussion you mention was closed by Ritchie333 on 4 April with the comment "This is going nowhere. At least wait for the main Infobox RfC to finish and let the matter settle; doing it right after an Arbcom case is counter-productive." So, would you, or somebody, like to link me to this "main Infobox RfC" so I can take a look? If it's still not finished, I agree it's too soon to start a straw poll on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Sorry to be ignorant, but I'm trying to learn. Bishonen | talk21:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC).
OK, it's hard for me to act without information. I've been reading this page to try to learn what main infobox RfC Ritchie was talking about, but all I see is arbs complaining that there isn't such an RfC. So does it not exist? Re-pinging @Smeat75 and Ritchie333: I'd like to help, but I'll be going to bed soon. Still, tomorrow is another day. Bishonen | talk22:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC).
The Rfc-in-question, is at the Village Pump policy page. It's been stale for a while & has yet to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I think Ritchie333 must have meant the RfC on infoboxes at the Village pump [168], not one on the Kubrick article specifically, where there is no consensus. Never mind. This bickering is obviously just going to go on forever (even gets a long article about it in the Wall St Journal).Smeat75 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. I can most heartily understand the reluctance to close that. All right, so we're on our own at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. I'll try to craft a page restriction. Not sure whether that has ever been done per the "Civility in infobox discussions" discretionary sanctions, so I'll run it by WP:AE first. Though not tonight, as Wikipedia is down, up, down, up, down for me — it took 10 minutes just to get this posted. Good night. Bishonen | talk22:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) I've tried to summarise the previous debates and suggested a rest from the topic for a while. It might be enough to give the regulars a bit of a break, but if not, a page restriction carefully crafted to include a threat of incineration by Bishzilla ought to do the trick. --RexxS (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Bishzilla is with uncharacteristic timidity proposing a page restriction on AE. Clearly she has the discretion and the roarr factor to just impose it, now that we have discretionary sanctions, but I suppose she wants advice. Bishonen | talk07:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
There's a general opposition to arbitrators posting at AE, so I'll add a comment here that a) the DS are there to be used, and b) as someone entirely uninvolved with the article, the Stanley Kubrick page seems a good example of where they might reasonably be applied. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, an editnotice as well? Thanks very much, NeilN, I didn't realize. I haven't applied a page restriction before — indeed, I tend to dislike the regular "consensus required" and "1RR" restrictions, having seen the kinds of "gotcha" filings they give rise to. That's why I was so keen to have a really simple infobox restriction. And now we wait to see what kinds of wikilawyering it'll invite, because, for sure, nothing is ever really simple. Bishonen | talk15:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC).
Yes, it makes sense as a bold editor might unknowingly break a restriction because they haven't read the talk page. --NeilNtalk to me15:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I replied to "nothing is ever really simple" (further up, edit conflict), by mentioning an exception, wishing it could be the rule. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, okay. But I've found sometimes mentioning simple things on highly watched pages suddenly makes things less simple :-) --NeilNtalk to me16:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I might want to reply but was trained successfully (by restriction) to leave it at 2 comments per discussion. The simple case was on my mind because his birthday is coming up, and I think TFA would be nice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bish. Not wanting to ping the very people who've nurtured behaviour like this for the fear of harassing them (even though, IMO, they should be held accountable for the continuing bad behaviour on this subject) the editor of the edit I linked to evidently ignored the politely put hidden comment in the edit screen, asking for the box not to be uncollapsed, and they went ahead and uncollapsed it anyway. It is this type of pig-headed, rude, selfish and ignorant behaviour that is disruptive. Could you make this clear to them? CassiantoTalk22:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Neil. I've done the alert but not obnoxiously (I must be getting old and tired of the strife). Here's hoping, Cassianto, that you'll be able to get back to your usual productive self now. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Er, Neil, shouldn't your obnoxious box be on talk also? Thanks for not pinging the committee, Cassianto. There's hardly ever a good reason for pinging the lot of them as individuals, IMO. I note the user in question didn't even use an edit summary for his uncollapse. That's odd.. no, it isn't really, because he hardly ever does use edit summaries. I'm going to put a note on his page about it. Bishonen | talk10:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC).
Posting a talk page notice is optional. I thought about it, and decided in this instance, sticking an obnoxious note on the talk page for one specific template parameter restriction is overkill. What do you think?
Not sure. It's clearly a parameter that people feel strongly about. And I can understand them: the infobox is pretty big and ugly, sticking down below the lead. Anyway, they do feel strongly. I wish there was a better way of collapsing an infobox, something that would make it easier for the reader to unfold it. We're used to looking for the tiny "show" link, but most readers presumably are not. Bishonen | talk18:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC).
Sill, glad to know that re-litigating an idiotbox discussion and edit warring is something that ArbCom will frown on. How about re-opening a discussion less than 24 hours after another discussion had been closed, then adding the box back after 11 days, while the RfC is still open? Excellent news that ArbCom managed to sort all that mess out then. Once again I suspect that if the re-litigating and edit warring had been to remove the box, rather than force it back in, all hell would have broken out and it would have been ANI, blocks or ArbCom to ensure punishment was meted out. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Bish, you can obviously handle this however you want but I won't be looking at any complaints that use the term "idiotbox". Completely fed up with that nonsense. --NeilNtalk to me18:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
NeilN: Its a word: get over it (and after you've takenthe publishers of For Dummies to task, I'll take it more seriously). Personally I get completely fed up with people opening an idiotbox thread the day after it's been closed, then edit warring to force it back in while the RfC is still open. I guess the use of an inoffensive word is soooo much more disruptive than the continual re-litigating until the IB warriors get their own way, but I've seen so many gutter tactics used that I guess mileage varies. - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@SchroCat: As the Arbcom case was named "Civility in infobox discussions" and there was a finding of fact regarding baiting, I don't think I will "get over it". Admins can now take action to curb the disruption you describe. They can also take action to curb the baiting you self-servingly describe as "inoffensive". --NeilNtalk to me23:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not baiting, so please don't try to smear me again (and given the near-trolling by one user at the previous clarification thread, I would have thought that disapprobation should be directed in that direction, not towards something that doesn't even reach the level of For Dummies). Either way, I see no actual action being taken in the case I've highlighted. An editor has acted unilaterally to re-litigate a closed case and force back in what was agreed to look out, and yet no actual action. Still, if you think venting at me is a good use of time and effort, there's little I can do about it. - SchroCat (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, you got to see the nature picture then :)I got pinged before I could place a note on your talk page, but in the interest of keeping this together I'll be brief here: a 19,000 byte rant by an IP on a talk page that involves serial quotations and discusses how we are going to be judged based on our reporting of an article may not fall within the exact boundaries of NOTAFORUM, but it certainly falls within the spirit of it. If you don't like that, try the spirit of WP:SOAP, if that fails WP:DE and if all else fails WP:IAR.Re: templating I appreciate that you may have other conditions that affect the way you interact with others. That's fine, but we have plenty of editors who are somewhere on the spectrum, and while learning the social norms of this only community can be more difficult for them than it may be for other editors, they tend to get along fine eventually. A brief note saying "Hey, why did you remove this?" would have done the trick and encouraged communication. Templates have a place, but that place usually isn't communicating with experienced users TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. I have already written to Goodone121 on their talkpage, as I had no way of knowing the person here on my page, with a totally different sig, was the same editor that had reverted me. Please see WP:SIG, Goodone121: "A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page." Anyway, I was concerned about your revert, not because you reverted an admin, but because you reverted a user who had given an ample explanation of their edit, and your revert gave no explanation at all. Do you have an excuse for that? Bishonen | talk08:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC).
Well, if it's not a sock, it's a meatpuppet. I've blocked, and deleted the article. Thanks for creating the SPI, GSS. Bishonen | talk11:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC).
Please note that I have moved one of your comments to a separate section per the usual structure at arbitration case pages; threaded discussion is not allowed and an arb has asked that we enforce this strictly here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Yep. I am trying to recall whether I have ever known a Barry ("Baz") Turd. They will be back: long-term block evading sock. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
SitushTheBrahminbazturd is a super-sobriquet. The 'best' I ever received was "feminized nebbish" (he thought I was man), but it pales into insignificance. I file my brickbats as a special subsection in my talk archives. Modesty forbids me from adorning my user page with them . Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Meatfarm
Hi Bishonen.
You created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm. I have searched the Internet for a definition of "meatfarm" and all I get is thousands of references to places where livestock is raised; as an internet term, it appears to be uncommon and obscure, even when I use the search string "meatfarm internet slang." What do you mean by this term?
Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.
Arbitration
A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.
Just a heads up. Randfal2 popped up on my watchlist making 20+ single character edits at Misha Frid. I noticed TurnPike37 doing the same thing with a bit more subtlety elsewhere last night. I suppose they may simply be really obsessive about, yet not very good with, grammar but I bet they will be less concerned after they hit 500 edits. Jbh Talk16:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention, Jbhunley. Randfal2's little edits are mostly bona fide corrections, or at least reasonable expressions of comma fanaticism. (Though this one is simply wrong, and I just reverted it. A more careful look would probably find more like that.) Also, you notice they've been editing in exactly the same way for six months, which makes extended confirmed gaming inherently unlikely, I'd say. Those gamers are normally in more of a hurry. I'm more inclined to be suspicious of TurnPike, who made all their edits today. (!) That's a comma fanatic in a hurry. (How do you mean, "more subtlety"?) Anyway, I'll try to keep an eye out. Bishonen | talk18:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC).
Thanks for taking a look. TurnPike was only doing 3-4 rather than 30 edits on a page … not subtle, just more subtle than 20 Jbh Talk20:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Somebody like this?
Arrgh. I've just reverted two more: They think an Arts Centre is "based on a farmhouse" not "based in a farmhouse". Then there's the subtler one which changes"The Open University's headquarters are in the Walton Hall district, though because this is a distance learning institution, the only students resident on campus are approximately 200 full-time postgraduates." to "The Open University's headquarters are in the Walton Hall district, though, because this is a distance learning institution, the only students resident on campus are approximately 200 full-time postgraduates." The comma after Walton Hall district actually should be a semicolon because it's a run-on sentence. Somebody needs to ask Randfal2 to get the sense of what is being edited, rather than applying generalised rules indiscriminately. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Not me, sorry. I've finally reached the end of my tether with this place. The sheer stupidity demonstrated at Peter Southwood's RfA has convinced me it's no longer worth the effort. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Could the "home collection" be the collection and absorbance of drips that might arise, or rather fall, in the home?
"Writing instruments": Oh yes, tools to stick in one's top pocket.
I'd always thought it was a sensation one enjoyed. But this and the like have reminded me that it's instead merely things that demonstrate that income tax should be more progressive.
Er, where was I? Yes, conversion from "watch" to "timepiece" made me chuckle. Looking more closely at the article in question than I'd done in years, I found it was even worse than I'd vaguely imagined. For one thing, there are a lot of "Citation needed" flags that have been in place since 2012. Should one let the article stew in its obsequious juices, or apply editorial leeches to drain these out? -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you even say "luxury" nowadays without a fake Yorkshire accent? Also, even Cartier's own site calls them "watches". I've fixed the "writing instruments"; guess what they are? Come on, guess! But the "home collection" defeats me. I can't imagine what it is. Alarm clocks? Napkin rings? Bishonen | talk23:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC).
"[year]: Appointment as official purveyor to King [etc] [Somebody] of [Somewhere]. [Citation needed]". Again and again and again. Did the nob in question buy anything? Even if we have evidence that he/she did buy some bauble, is this remotely encyclopedic? -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Sometime in the 70s there was some fuss about vendors falsely claiming the ol' "By appointment to Her Majesty the Queen" distinction. One such was a manufacturer of hernia trusses. I clearly remember a palace spokesman saying, "What on earth would the Queen do with a truss?" EEng02:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
JuanRiley, long-time stalker and block evader
I'm afraid that I'm being stalked by an editor that has been blocked since November 10, 2016 by the name of JuanRiley. Even after being blocked this editor began creeping up on the talk page of his blocked account, then eventually mine twice one in May 15 and this one being recent as of today (yesterday). And if you look at these IP's they all begin with "75.161." and they all come from New Mexico [173][174][175]. This is really worrisome because apart that he was a troublesome editor, more than anyone I or anyone had dealt with, the fact that this editor has always been stalking my edits and talk page to a personal level even after being blocked is really frightening. (N0n3up (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC))
Yes, that would be great. At least temporarily till JuanRiley gets tired of stalking me, since I sometimes get messages from IP's as well. (N0n3up (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC))
N0n3up, sorry, I missed your reply, and I haven't protected your page. On the other hand, nobody has bothered you on it since June 1. Shall I leave it? Bishonen | talk20:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC).
Self requested block
Can you please block me with the expiration of the block being on the 19th of June? I have a series of important tests I must take and I wish not to be distracted. Thanks, 💵Money💵emoji💵💸19:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
If that account is banned and Kbb2 is allowed, isn't it also a conflict of interest for kbb2 to edit Mr Kebab? It's like he is hiding it's a banned account, should it not be completely locked down so kbb2 can't edit it? Govvy (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
No, not really. The Mr KEBAB account is indefinitely blocked for technical or "procedural" reasons (=to make sure the user does not have more than one account), not for doing anything bad. All he did was lose his password. See the block log: "procedural reasons". There is nothing to hide. Bishonen | talk14:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC).
And when Bish says "No" she means it! She has some very snarly allies, some small, some big, some look cuddly some really don't but they all mean business!MONGO14:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
David A's six-month topic ban, which he appealed at the halfway mark, has expired. So, naturally, he's gone right back to the same ways, dumping piles of links onto talk pages and asking that they be shoe-horned in somewhere:
I would greatly appreciate if we could please avoid that. I am under tremendous amounts of stress as it is, and do not want to be constantly severely attacked by lots of strangers on top of that.
All that I have done is to try to inform people about various relevant and reliable statistics that I have found, and recognised that I am not very competent when it comes to edit them into the pages, so I have avoided doing so, and asked for help instead. David A (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
David A, trying to get other people to edit the primary sources you have found "into articles" is not the way to edit Wikipedia. You have also gone to individual user pages and tried to persuade those users to work your material into articles. Please pay attention to the replies you get. NiklasBr took the trouble to write you a long, thoughtful answer, and I hope you read it carefully. I'm afraid if you keep doing the things that got you topic banned in the first place, it's unavoidable that another discussion will be opened on AN or ANI. I'm sorry your worries about crime, immigration, social security etc in Sweden seem to be your only real interest on Wikipedia; you haven't edited much while the topic ban stopped you from expressing these anxieties. I can understand you don't want to be "severely attacked by lots of strangers" (I don't altogether understand the "constantly" bit, I must say), and that that's what ANI discussions feel like for you. Please avoid these stressful experiences by avoiding the editing that gives rise to them. I'm sure there are other websites out there that would suit this material of yours better. If you do persist, I'm afraid I will advise Calton to start another ANI discussion. You're the one who can stop that happening. Bishonen | talk21:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC).
David A, both NiklasBr and Bishonen (of course) have given you good advice. You're repeating the same behavior what led to your topic ban, and if you can't understand why that's wrong and continue, that topic ban is likely to be reinstated permanently. And I will say, straight up, that I am a LOT more cynical than Bishonen about your claims of stress and autism: either they're excuses to continue your behavior and should be ignored, or they're reasons you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. In either case, they're irrelevant to your not repeating your behavior.
I will (obviously) take Bishonen's advice and wait. To use an English idiom, the ball's in your court. --Calton | Talk02:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
My claims of stress and autism are not remotely made up. I am far from some kind of political extremist, or even a right-winger. I voted for the Social Democrats in the last election, so in terms of purely economic policy I am likely to the left of the Democratic Party, and want elderly, sickly and disabled to get good social security, and everybody to get good education. However, I am moderately conservative in some other areas, so it seems to even out towards the middle, going by the political compass test, and since then I have read lots of news about how my country is collapsing in terms of crime, education, infrastructure, and social security that make me very worried, and that worry is increased by that I have limited mental filters, am fairly literalminded, and tend to focus on facts rather than ideology, likely due to the autism, and get severely fixated on things, likely due to the OCD.
In addition, I am extremely stressed out from managing one of the world's biggest entertainment wikis an average of around 10 hours a day, which includes withstanding lots of abuse from trolls and vandals, including one that uploaded over 2000 porn videos in my (user)name just so a few hundred of them would show up in a Google search, being very aware of various existential threats to humanity, such as global warming, environmental and animal species destruction, resistant diseases, artificial intelligence, overpopulation, and nuclear warfare, and in addition there is now the latest problem with the EU's new Article 13 law, which as far as I understand will illegalise news article links, quotations, images, and video clips, to turn Europe into a new China in terms of thought policing.
In the previous AN incident I felt extremely disoriented and assaulted by people who used my mental disabilities and worries as weapons against me. I am not very socially adept or well-equipped to deal with that sort of situation. It felt like being caught in some sort of Kafka novel where no matter what I said, or how politely I said it, it would be used against me by hard to understand bureaucratic standards, and my focus on reliable facts and statistics did not matter, as my concerns in themselves were treated as a crime, even though there are other users who freely go around systematically character-assassinating anybody they disagree with based on nothing but quoted opinions, which I perceive as far worse.
From my perspective the entire world seems to have gone insane, as it is far too focused on partisan ideology/personal preferences, rather than facts and statistics/what is actually real, and finds those who research and mention them far more offensive than those who do not and strictly go by personal opinion or even fundamentalist doctrines that happen to coincide with their own. I find all of this an extremely depressing tendency of humanity as a whole, but again, I am rather literalminded, so I do not seem to function in the normal manner in this regard. I wish that a much larger amount of humanity were literalmided as well in that case though.
Anyway, my current worries are technically not my only interest in Wikipedia. I have traditionally mostly focused on entertainment media, and I still need that to shield myself from the onslaught of horrible information that I have been assaulted with in recent years.
The fundamental problem here is that to me, facts and statistics are what is most important to form an accurate coherent picture of the world, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should ideally relay such information, so when people tell me that I am not allowed to mention such information, simply because I have turned very worried from reading it, and openly admit it, it gives me disoriented "does not compute" reactions, and feel even more helpless and despairing about being unable to help the state of society as a whole.
I will read NiklasBr's reply in any case. I had not noticed it given that he did not tag me in the response. In addition, if I am not allowed to even mention reliable statistics links in the talk pages, which I thought was acceptable, then I am almost completely crippled in terms of being able to get any important information out there, but there isn't anything that I can do about it, as I do not decide the rules, so I suppose that I will have to do my best to try to shut up to not get in trouble, as usual. David A (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The basic solution to your problem, David is not to become worried simply by reading statistics. By putting your own interpretation on statistics, you are creating problems both for yourself and for Wikipedia. There is good reason why Wikipedia forbids editors from publishing original research (i.e. your own interpretation) in articles.
If that is too abstract, let me give you a concrete example. At Talk:Immigration to Sweden #Help needed, you posted a statistic showing that "60% of students born abroad are among those with the lowest academic test scores", and I understand that the statistic worries you. But what if someone suggested that most students born abroad have a poorer grasp of the Swedish language than native-born students? and that it would be expected that they performed less well in tests conducted in Swedish? Perhaps if Syrian refugees took the tests in Arabic, they would score much closer to their peers? Similarly, refugees from a war-torn state are far less likely to have a school to go to, so perhaps we should not be surprised to find that many of them have not finished 9 years of school? Anyway, I'm not suggesting we debate those points. I am suggesting, however, that in order to give meaning to statistics, we need expert analysis. We need to find someone with a reputation for that sort of analysis who has looked at the statistics and published their views and conclusions. That is what we call a "secondary source", and it is what Wikipedia is built upon.
I would strongly recommend that you broaden your search for information about social issues by looking for high quality secondary sources. Does Sweden have a publication similar to The Economist, for example? or something else closer to your political tastes? Seek those out and you'll probably be reassured that despite all its problems, the world we live in is still a place that we can have some optimism about. Good luck to you in your search for enlightenment. --RexxS (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. Sweden is a small country, so we do not have any major specialist newspapers that I know of in this area, but I think that I have cited some of the ones that we do have in the past.
I am admittedly a very negative and anxious person, with limited mental filters and obsessive tendencies, so I act as a sponge for any information that indicates upcoming disaster. In addition, due to my mental disabilities, I am in need of social help from the state, so if the country goes bankcrupt, there is always the chance that I will die on the streets, so that increases my concerns considerably. David A (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 11:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC). 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! Could you please block me until 26th June (please also revoke talk page editing access)? I am having a important exam now and I wish to stop being distracted by Wikipedia. Thanks. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I'm sorry to have bugged you, but you're one of the few editors on Wikipedia I trust unreservedly: I knew I could rely upon your opinion, whether I was right OR wrong. If I were right, you'd tell me, and if were wrong, you'd also tell me, and I'd take your word in EITHER case.
How can you say it would have been fair to block me for reverting clear-cut BLP violations? Would you like me to walk you through them? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@DrFleischman: I said "fairer", not "fair". I'm never happy about blocks of constructive long-time editors, and I'd rather not see either you or Calton blocked. That's why I said "a block of both 'would have been fairer. In lieu of that, ... please consider unblocking Calton" (italics added). Secondly, no, I don't particularly want you to walk me through them, unless you insist. Presumably you already brought your best arguments on Talk:Richard B. Spencer, which I've read? You don't have consensus there for your view of BLP violations. That's putting it mildly. And no admin has agreed with you about BLP on AE. Is it possible that it's not everybody else who's wrong? Please think about it. You have now complained here on my page, and you have also, on AE, expressed shock that admins are criticizing your behavior, briefly stating that you're more than willing to explain it.[176] The AE discussion is still open. What I don't understand is why you haven't explained it right there, if you think you have good arguments. You might consider including an explanation of why you didn't warn Calton and give him a chance to self-revert, something I already brought up,[177] which you haven't mentioned anywhere. It's definitely best practice, and you may want to consider it another time. Bishonen | talk11:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC).
The reason I didn't explain the BLP violations at AE was because I didn't want to turn what I thought was a conduct dispute about edit warring into a much longer content dispute. I'll also note that Calton's edit warring wasn't in a vacuum; they were restoring edits by Steeletrap, who had also edit warred (and been warned by NeilN for it), and had called me a "clown" who was "spinning for neo-Nazis". No admins asked me to explain the BLP vios; they just decided that I was wrong without soliciting my input. If you think it would be helpful at this point for me to explain the BLP vios at AE, then I will do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The reason I didn't ask Calton to self-revert is because that editor has told me to leave them alone and has been about as intolerant my suggestions as any editor here, ever. Literally every time I have interacted with them they have told me to fuck off. I don't think I can recall a single time Calton has ever disagreed with anyone and behaved in a constructive manner. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
And I take offense to "fairer." Calton violated 1RR and that is undisputed. I did not. There would be nothing fair about mutual blocks for 1RR violations on one side and enforcing BLP on the other. Yes, a bunch of editors believe these weren't BLP violations. But I did and still believe so, and I'm one who initiated the talk page discussion while others were edit warring, refusing to discuss, and attacking me personally in their edit summaries, Calton included. So "fairer?" Not by a long shot. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The putative BLP vios are still being discussed at AE, see Neil's recent comment. To take part in the discussion seems the obvious thing for you to do, though I can't say if it'll be helpful — depends rather on whether you have anything more to say than you have already written on article talk, which I'm sure all the commenting admins have already consulted. I don't see how you can separate conduct and content in this case, since the BLP vios, if any, are at the heart of the edit warring dispute. Calton violated the 1RR restriction, but unless you can convince the admins you were reverting clear BLP vios, then you yourself will also be seen as violating it. Bishonen | talk16:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC).
Go to the talk page. We have a problem of tendentious editing by Dr. F, who has been removing RS that in his view create an unduly derogatory view of Spencer. Nobody agrees with him, and (until I pressed him) he wasn't even specifying what the allegedly problematic content was, just making blanket reverts while vaguely citing "BLP". Steeletrap (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved on the talkpage, because I want to be sure I remain uninvolved in the sense of being able to "admin" these articles, Steeletrap. You can take it to WP:AE or WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk19:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC).
@El cid, el campeador: you could have saved yourself and others some trouble by first asking me about my reasons and the situation in which I placed the sanction, rather than taking it straight to ARCA. I'd have pointed you to the AE discussion, which would hopefully have resolved your concerns. Also, were you even aware that the talkpage restriction is time-limited (four months)? You don't give any hint of it in your amendment request. Bishonen | talk07:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC).
A little light relief
I was glancing at my watchlist a few moments ago, when I noticed a change to an editor’s page (an editor whose pomposity always amuses me) so I took a quick look, as one does, and was startled to see, amongst his many little boxes, that he is a Grand Master of Wikipedia. I had no idea one could award oneself these things, it’s all explained here Wikipedia:Service awards. In order to preserve our well known modesty, rather than elevate ourselves, I thought we could award each other something. I would like to be Grand Warlock of Wikipedia, and I thought you might like to be Platinum Godess or something similar. Giano(talk)20:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Good idea. Now let's see if some clever talkpage stalker is up for designing handsome awards or plaques to that effect. <subliminal>hint hint RexxS</subliminal>. Bishonen | talk20:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC).
Civility in infobox discussions arbitration amendment request declined
Hi Bishonen. The Civility in infobox discussions arbitration amendment request filed 16 June 2018 has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 03:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I saw you left a message on my talk while I was away (I appreciate the thoughtfulness and I'm sorry I didn't see it before now). FWIW, I'm sort-of back, though I don't know for how long. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I got sick of the competing-POV-pushing that is American politics, and the oft-denied-yet-blindingly-obvious love of pointless drama shared by many Wikipedians. But I'll happily sit in the pocket. (I heard there's an XBox One in there...) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Nope. Completely different kind of box. Truth be told, if there are any infoboxes in that pocket I would run screaming from its warm, comforting embrace. I'll take a well-stocked fridge, though. (I am currently working on a "Platinum Goddess of Wikipedia" award, for the record.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, if you ever thought that the castes were just a Hindu thing, here is a counterexample. Despite my detailed advice, there is no change in behaviour. Some roaring from you would help :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. I would really appreciate if you could take a moment to participate in this. Your comments would be particularly valuable. It's not an RfC or anything like that. It would only take 5 minutes of your time. Just a few days left.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
This is too tempting, but I will just say that the admin I looked for amongst the replies isn't there. I'm not surprised as they don't do anything useful anyway. -Roxy, the dog.barcus11:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
[Bishonen escapes into pedantry.] You may be reading too much into the absence of any particular admin, Roxy, as it looks like Kudpung only invited some thirty admins. Well, unless I've missed another burst of invitations in his contribs. It's for a Signpost feature, so too many responses might have been overwhelming rather than useful. Bishonen | talk14:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC).
Right. The article is under extended confirmed protection, but it's clearly possible to be pretty pushy and time-wasting on the talkpage alone. I've topic banned for three months. Bishonen | talk11:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC).
Yeah; a time-sink on the t/p.The topic-ban ought to re-prioritize his editing goals, if he wishes to stay among-st the community.Thank you:)∯WBGconverse04:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The forest picture is nice too, it's more typical of where I live than of where Bish lives, though... - Tom | Thomas.W talk23:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)(the trees are European beech, Fagus Sylvatica, in case anyone wonders...)
I expect to see at least a dozen images here by this time tomorrow. Get to it, talk page stalkers, and keep the same formatting we're already using, with new images thumbnailed at the bottom of the stack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.02:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
That's very kind, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants and Tom. In case people are nice enough to look out images for my page, I'll just mention that I like a) landscapes, b) animals, preferably angry and/or dangerous animals, suitable for representing abusive admins. No kittens, please. Bishonen | talk09:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC).
@RexxS: "<center></center>" may be officially deprecated but unlike {{center}} it should work also for mobile devices (a big banner at the top of Template:Center says: "This template does not function for the mobile view and mobile applications"...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk17:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: There's no may about it. The <center> tag is deprecated and has been since html 4. Despite what that big banner says, the template does function perfectly on my mobile phone, on my tablet and on my desktop when set to mobile view. You really shouldn't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Check it for yourself with that photo of me taking a stroll in the park, and let me know if you can find any modern browser where it doesn't work. Why would anybody prefer a solution that can become unsupported at any time (and causes the page to fail html validation), when you can have a solution for which support is only increasing? --RexxS (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it's safe to assume that Bish will have changed image on her talk page before browsers stop supporting <center></center> (and a number of other deprecated tags), considering the huge number of old, but still very popular, websites that exist, and with all probability will continue to exist for many years to come. Adopting stricter versions of newer incarnations of HTML, versions that don't support deprecated tags, is also just a recommendation, a recommendation that no one seems to care about, judging by the fact that even the latest versions of Microsoft Edge for Win10 and ditto versions of Google Chrome still support the old "deprecated" tags... - Tom | Thomas.W talk21:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Latest version of Firefox still supports <center> tags, and the {{center}} works on every mobile device I have on hand (including a 3-year old smartphone). "Deprecated" does not mean "non-functional" or even "soon to be non-functional". First rule of programming (or indeed, any sort of creative engineering): if it works, it works. Second rule of programming: arguing over two different methods that both work is pointless and stupid. I once watched two guys come to blows over whether If (conditional) { statement; } was better than If (conditional) statement;. They both lost their jobs, and I rewrote both of their statements with conditional ? statement : null;ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.23:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
First rule of software development is actually "Don't make life difficult for yourself". Second is "Don't make life difficult for other developers". Latest version of Firefox still supports <font>...</font> tags, but MediaWiki software doesn't. Folks like me have recently had to spend time cleaning up shitty markup that "worked" before, but doesn't any more. So I'm frankly not impressed by your thoughtless reasoning. --RexxS (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Was it as unimpressive as an editor who can't take a hint to stop bickering like a child over something pointless, and instead starts bickering with the hint-giver over something even more pointless? I seriously doubt it was. So by all means, ignore my hint and let the temper tantrum continue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.03:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me, Home Lander. Their talkpage isn't for continued arguing — that's not what the talkpage access during a block is for — but even so, I hesitate to revoke tpa for that. It's not incivil — nothing like this crap, that I blocked for. I'll hold off and see what happens. I was going to say that if NorthBySouthBaranof is smart, he won't respond to the ping — but I see he already did. Well, I'm still not inclined to wade in and steamroll civil communication. Bishonen | talk19:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC).
I saw your post on my talk about the recent edit I made to Lauren Southern's page. I have no affiliation with Lauren Southern. My name is obviously a portmanteau of "southern justice" and "social justice warrior". My edits are to bring an even-sided information to the article which is written with hints of negative tone. It conveniently leaves out supporting information in many sections. SouthernJusticeWarrior (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Just a friendly note that you just responded to a question about a possible WP:COI by essentially declaring yourself a POV pusher by both describing your user name (which is actually very creative user name which I like a lot) and by declaring that you were attempting to change the POV of the article. Note that I'm not trying to come down on you; I'm just explaining that your comment here will not be seen as exculpatory, but as a sort of naive admission of guilt by most editors.
One last tip: some people have been subject to published coverage in a predominantly negative light. These people may be very good people, and they may sometimes accomplish very good things that get little coverage. One thing all editors here have to remember is that it is NOT our job to fix this. We can't balance it out, adjust our coverage or change our tone to account for it. We must treat all subjects in the same way that the preponderance of reliable sources treat them. If that treatment is negative, then our article must, by policy, reflect that negativity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, SouthernJusticeWarrior, thanks for getting back to me. What MjolnirPants said. So your name is nothing to do with "Justice for Lauren Southern"? OK. Since 11 out of your altogether 18 edits have been to Lauren Southern and its talkpage, I thought the account name might express a special interest in her. Bishonen | talk18:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC).
MjolnirPants, thank you for your response. It was very well explained. You essentially vindicated my efforts, not exculpatory, but as a naive admission that any attempt to turn the dial to neutral when the prevailing tone has been established as negative is not allowed, especially when the figure is controversial and has a political slant disapproved by many. It seems to me that it's first come, first served, and future edits can only be for additional information, formatting or grammar. Bishonen, Bishy, baby, if my other edits were constantly redacted by angry incels I'd probably have a more balanced editing history. Then again maybe not. Controversial articles are always the most fun. Have a nice day, chaps. SouthernJusticeWarrior (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Are you just a sock spoiling for a block? Don't call other editors incels, and don't call me Bishy or baby again, sir. I'd advise MjolnirPants not to waste any more breath on trying to clarify what was already very clear, but which you didn't choose to understand. Bishonen | talk17:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC).
@SouthernJusticeWarrior: You do not seem to have understood my response at all. The POV of any article should be the same POV as the preponderance of reliable sources, regardless of whether or not you agree with that POV. Attempting to change that is contrary to our policy and can result in the loss of your editing privileges. It is not a "first come, first serve" basis. If the first editors to work on an article give it a POV that does not align with that of the preponderance of reliable sources, that POV must be fixed, per our policy.
Additionally, referring to another editor as an "angry incel" is a personal attack and can also result in the loss of your editing privileges. Referring to another editor as an "angry increl" on Bish's talk page is functionally identical to asking to be blocked.
Here's my advice, as a highly experienced editor: Do not edit political or socially controversial articles. At all. Stay away from anything related to the culture wars until you have at least 2,000-3,000 edits under your belt, and then approach cautiously and with small, syntactic and grammatical edits. Diving right into that subject as a new editor with a username that loudly declares your political affiliations is the opposite of a smart move. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.12:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Probably too late. In this editor's short history they've already adopted at least two tropes of a particularly mean crowd ("SJW" and "incel"). Of course everyone is entitled to their own views, and we're not all angels by any stretch, but I've never seen any editor of that particular stripe accomplish anything useful here. Maybe SouthernJusticeWarrior can prove me wrong and be the first. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: File:Salt.sill.jpeg
You uploaded or restored , File:Salt.sill.jpeg, but for various reasons did not add an {{information}} block, or indicate your (user) name on the file description page. Media uploaded to Wikipedia needs information on the SPECIFIC authorship and source of files, to ensure that it complies with copyright laws in various jurisdictions.
If it's entirely your own work: please include {{own}} in the relevant source field, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, ensuring that your user name (or name you want used for attribution) is clear in the author field, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant (if such a license is not already used). You should also add an |author= parameter to the license tag, to assist reviews and image patrollers. You can also add |claimed=yes and an |author=to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).
If it's not entirely your own work, or the media is based on the work of others:
Please update the source and authorship fields, so that they accurately reflect the source and authors of the original work(s), as well as the derivative you created. You should also not use a "self" license unless the work is entirely you own. Media that is incorrectly claimed as self or {{own}}, will eventually be listed at Files for Discussion or deleted, unless it's full status is entirely clear to other contributors, reviewers and image patrollers. You should also read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission which details how to confirm any permissions you obtained for works by others that are still in copyright.
Whilst this notification, relates to a single media upload, it would also be appreciated if you could ensure that appropriate attribution exists for other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
Is that a template, ShakespeareFan00? It's certainly mysterious enough. I don't know which source field is "the relevant source field", what "the {{information}} added by a third party" refers to, and "change the license to an appropriate "self" variant" is gobledygook to me. And as for "You can also add |claimed=yes and an |author=to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate)"... You'd better just nominate the lot for deletion.
I don't understand your language and you don't seem to understand mine. It says "photo taken by uploader" in two places on the Salt sill file page. Did you not see that, or really not understand it? I think it's clear and simple source information. You probably think your template (unless that's the way you naturally talk) is clear and simple. You sound very tired of me, with your "And others dot dot..". Well, I'm tired too now. Bishonen | talk22:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC).
Well.. previously I would have taken lines like the ones you mention to mean 'own' work and added in the appropriate Own work line and author line myself. However, I got a note of concern about doing this, hence the approach of asking the original uploaders to confirm directly that something is indeed own work, even when such lines are added and placed as the source parameter of an {{information}} block. 22:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Three colons and four tildes, please ShakespeareFan00. I've already written on your page, in response to RexxS's post there. Another question, though: do you absolutely have to comply forever more with an obsessive-compulsive "note of concern"? No matter how many other people you disoblige and mystify by doing so? Please think about it. Bishonen | talk22:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC).
Noted. I've fixed the indentation on the previous comment, I've now moved hthe code that genrate the notification back to my userspace. If you as an experienced contributor can't understand it, an ordianry uploader is also going to have issues, this defeats the intended purpose of the template. I've also updated the other two templates {{Media by uploader}} and {{presumed self}} that suggested using it in specfic cirsumstances, until (and if) it's re-written. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't remember. But it's terrible quality, isn't it? I probably uploaded it (in 2004) for the purpose of illustrating this article. The article now has a better picture, File:Thomas Betterton by Sir Godfrey Kneller, Bt.jpg uploaded from NPG in 2009. Apparently NPG had to give up its claim to copyright at that time, see links on the file page. But in 2004 I still believed I couldn't take anything from them. Would you like to nominate the poor-quality one for deletion, as unneeded? Or I'll do it myself when I have more time, I'm on the run. Bishonen | talk07:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC).
It would be much appreciated if you could also re-examine some of you older uploads, so they can be brought up to the insane standard of proof Commons needs, (Most of them are clearly PD, but Commons can be a bit pedantic.) ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
Didn't exactly miss it, Jim1138 — I just had to do it separately, because the last edit in the history needs special treatment. Fixed now. Thanks for your care! Bishonen | talk08:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC).
Thanks very much for simplifying, ShakespeareFan00, I appreciate it. That's much easier to respond to, but "the {{information}} block" remains baffling, since the word "information" doesn't appear on the file page (not until one clicks "edit", and I might not get that far). It would help a bit if you used an edit summary when you added it; say {{information}}. Also, how about saying "review the {{information}} block which has been added to an upload you made and make it more complete"? "Review" is less than clear in itself. And you might say where to add the extended description. Because it does sound, the way you put it, with "also", as if that is something separate from the {{information}} block. Maybe "add an extended description at the "description" header in the {{information}} block, which expands upon", etc. Where to do stuff is generally the most baffling thing, and the way you worded it there might have me adding an extra descriptive paragraph somewhere else — at "additional information", or below the information template. You see how dumb an experienced user can be. Regards, Bishonen | talk08:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC).
User:ShakespeareFan00/un-claimmedia is the current version based on your feedback. I'd probably suggest there's other wordings that are possible for other situations (Maybe you can come up with some other wordings? (check out some of my recent requests on talk pages for customisations). Perhaps you could also help come up with non-bite wordings for the following situations
images that are not own work, ( like for example an old PD archive photo) , but on which the sourcing/authorship is lacking? ( I don't want to use F4 for these because using CSD on images that clearly are PD is bit confronantational.)
Images that are most likely the uploaderswork, but a self-license hasn't been used ( the original {{Media by uploader}} use-case)
Asking for an enhanced description whithout contesting the authorship ( sometimes the description is all that's needed to be changed).
Well, I really prefer "and make it more complete". I'm afraid I don't have time to engage in detail, or with your question below; I'm just packing to go on vacation. Again, type four tildes, please! If you sign with five, you only get the date, not the sig. Bishonen | talk08:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC).
The wording on this could be improved, I felt the initial stronger version was better than the current one, This was essentialy a Level1 warning, and it would be appreciated if stronger wordings for higher levels were drafted. The level1 verswion was essentially a friendly reminder not to wrongly claim self. The higher level wordings would be more like the No Permission wordings already used, but suitably customised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Kulbhushan Jadhav page needs attention.
Hello,
I need you to look at the Kulbhushan Jadhav page where a very important piece of information is under threat. Is it vandalism/edit warring, not sure. The report by the U.N needs to be told in the article. I'm new on Wikipedia so request you to please look into it asap. Thank you. Adding The Truth (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks...
I don't have the "thanks" function turned on, so this is by way of thanking you for your comment on the German WWII arb case. I completely agree with both you and Mastcell that the committee has almost entirely missed the boat, and that Cinderella157 needs something more than na admonishment. I haven't said anything because, frankly, I thought it would be useless effort on my part, so I was glad to see that someone of your reputation spoke out. Thanks again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed it geolocated to Yale. After I'd noticed your smiley at the edit filter reports page. At least it didn't take the "physical delivery of the excrement" to catch my attention! Bishonen | talk15:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC).
I can fully understand if you don't want to stick your head into that hornets' nest, Bish. I'm all for gun control, but discussions about gun control in the US should be kept to articles about gun control in the US, and not spill over to all articles relating to firearms. In this case it's a couple of editors who, judging by their edits, know absolutely nothing about firearms, who try to add pro gun control POV to a whole bunch of firearms-related articles, and even try to change longstanding, 70+ years, internationally accepted and used technical definitions to suit their POV (by making a certain type of military firearms, a type that can not be legally owned by civilians even in the US, also include some purely civilian types of firearms, apparently in order to make them seem more menacing...). Which is how I got into it. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk13:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Yesterday, a new user "Senator Begs-Ducks-For-Bread" was randomly adding a somewhat crass statement to several other new user pages. Examples:
"Yo, dawg, you don't wanna be messing with those teegers. I saw one bite my old man's leg right off. Now he just hobbles around on a stump. Senator Begs-Ducks-For-Bread (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)"
"Yo, dawg! Welcome to Wikipedia! I know you gonna edit it up real nice, so get to slinging, brother! Senator Begs-Ducks-For-Bread (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)"
I thought that the new users might be perplexed by these mysterious messages, and so decided to tell them that SBDFB has already been blocked for vandalism. David notMD (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@David notMD: Ah. Yes, I'd seen those messages; indeed, I was the admin who blocked Senator Begs-Ducks-For-Bread. Even as such, I didn't understand your acronym — I went looking for a user called SBDFB, if you'll believe me. ;-) (Editing before coffee.) I'd be willing to bet those new users could easily fail to understand you, too. You know how people always say "Don't spout alphabet soup at newbies"? Of course that refers to our policy abbreviations, WP:NPOV and the like. But you'd be safer not turning usernames into acronyms, either; it's a habit here, but may not be familiar to everybody. Anyway, it was all just a misunderstanding, for sure. Happy editing! Bishonen | talk11:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC).
Knole House to Knole!
For some reason ([184]) I can't move this page. Can you do it please. Most odd, I've always been ale to move pages before. Perhaps it about time I became an admin or something. Giano(talk)15:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, probably! The reason you couldn't move it was that "Knole" already existed, and not just as a common or garden redirect (if it had been that, you could have) but as a redirect that had been edited several times. (In 2004, no less.) In such cases an admin needs to delete the redirect to make way for the move. Done. It's so nice to see you around! Bishonen | talk15:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC).
Yes, isn't it nice to see us all around; we have returned to London for the escape the heat of Europe. Of course, I would have moved that page myself, but one doesn't like to interfere when one is a close friend of the owners (as, of course, I am). As a student of English literature, you may like to know that dear old Knole was "Chevron" in Ms Sackville-West's "The Edwardians." One of my all time favorite books as it depicts one of the happiest eras of my very tragic life, even if poor dear darling Vita was a little odd. I suppose today her problems woudl have qualified her to be a star editor at Wikipedia, what with all this Cis business and whatnot, but then if she had been patrolling gender disparity or whatever here, she wouldn't have had time to write he books, so it's an ill wind so to speak. So nice to see you again and thank you so much (on Giano's behalf) for sorting the page out. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear Lady C, how kind of you to pay attention to such a mishap. But you know what a pinko I am, I assiduously avoid news about royalty. Carl Gustaf lost some crown jewels? Who cares, in this heat? Bishonen | talk16:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC).
Well it made the BBC lunchtime news and is infinitely more interesting than that horrid Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump who otherwise hog the news bulletins! If you're hot use your parasol don't moan. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Here is a plate of Bebinca with ice cream for you. Traditional Bebinca has 16 layers, but you can make as many as you like The ingredients include plain flour, sugar, ghee (clarified butter), egg yolk, coconut milk and almond slivers to garnish. Thank you for protecting InfoWars and hopefully virtual ice cream can comfort during the heat wave. Thank you.
Thank you, PaleoNeonate, it looks delicious. The editing of InfoWars just today was something to see. There seems to be an unending supply of autoconfirmed users who don't care that [Bishonen attempts unsuccessfully to snap her fingers] for consensus, or indeed for the talkpage altogether, so I'm trying extended confirmed. Bishonen | talk11:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC).
I don't think it hurts to leave PC in place when applying EC. If at some point, the need for EC disappears, then it saves somebody having to look and see whether a different/lower level of protection was in place prior to the EC being imposed. not a big deal either way, of course. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
RexxS, in my experience, PC goes out the window in any case as soon as the article gets a higher level of protection, from semi on up, and if it's then wanted again, it has to be applied again. When the article was semiprotected, just before I extended-protected, it sure didn't look like it had PC. (PC gives the history a characteristic colour scheme, at least in MonoBook.) I only removed it because I thought it looked untidy for two different levels of protection to be marked as active simultaneously, when they actually can't be. Anyway, I doubt that article will ever again have less than semi. It's InfoWars! Bishonen | talk15:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC).
Hello, can you block me until the end of August to cool down? I recently noticed that I am abusing Wikipedia as a way to procrastinate after blocking other venues such as facebook, reddit etc.
I cannot block access to Wikipedia similarly to all these other time-wasters because i also use it for useful stuff, you know.
The bot is to start in two days and stop at the end of August 2018.
It is not in Wikipedia's interest for me to run such a bot, and blocks should be preventive, not punitive, thus you should block me as soon as possible, before the bot starts.
It is also not in my interest to actually run such a bot should you not block me, therefore I have to use the magic power of pinky swear to make you believe that I created and would run such a botmake me really run the bot against my future self's wishes.
I'm a brand new user and got a bit confused. I'm not sure exactly what the sanctions mean. I did not know I even had a "talk" page until a few minutes ago. Whatever they are, could you please remove them?
I was attempting to edit an article and thought that consensus was achieved after publishing. Someone decided to delete my work. I wasn't sure why. So, I put it back up.
I have no idea what the sanctions you placed on my page mean. I just noticed them. I'm a brand new user who tried editing the Alex Jones page. Someone took down all my work for not getting "consensus". Apparently, consensus is achieved after publication. I'm confused. Anyway, I put it back up and they took it back down again... and I put it up again.
Again, I'm a new user and confused about everything. I'm not even sure if this is the right way to communicate to you. Please respond.
Hi, Intellectual Property Theft, welcome to Wikipedia. The next thing for you to do is engage in discussion on the article's talkpage, Talk:Alex Jones, where PaleoNeonate has already started a section for discussion of the changes you wish to make. About the sanctions: I haven't given you any sanctions. The blue boxes I put on your page are only information about the possibility for admins to sanction users in the areas of biography and American politics. (The article Alex Jones belongs to both these categories, so I gave you both boxes.) Please don't worry, you're not in any trouble. Just read the alert boxes carefully, and, as I said, engage on the article talkpage. Bishonen | talk11:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC).
Hello Bish. What Atsme's claim about you being involved is based on can be seen in this thread on her talk page (showing what it looked like just before being archived on 30 June), and my comment about the "involved" claim in that thread can be seen here. Judging by what has been posted at WP:ARCA since you posted there I don't think there will be a need for me to comment there, but if there's a need for it I will. - Tom | Thomas.W talk21:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Tide rolls. I'd be OK with a warning, too. Yes, I find the syndrome to be extremely common, but my perspective may be skewed by the fact that I place many topic bans in the India-Pakistan area. Newbie editors there sometimes have poor English, and sometimes arrive breathing fire after being told on some caste noticeboard about Wikipedia's lack of respect for their great caste/social group, which is as everybody knows actually descended from kings, or maybe gods. The regular DS sanction template is no picnic for anybody, and incomprehensible for the average caste warrior. RexxS has helped me make a simplified, topic ban specific, template to use for them and others with limited English, but I can't say it has made that much difference. 😕 Bishonen | talk22:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC).
At least you and RexxS are trying and have skills. I get to plod through RCs and remove poop and derp9000 from articles. I'm checking into DS to find out if I have anything to offer. If you see me struggling there please leave me a note with any amount of clue you think necessary. See ya Tiderolls23:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.
Hello Bishonen. @NeilN: FYI, there's an unfortunate sequence of events at Stephen Miller (political advisor) that began with a DS violation by User:Winkelvi on the article page and that has continued on the article talk page, most recently with needlessly uncivil and pointless comments and edit summaries by Winkelvi there. In my opinion, this user is unable to engage in constructive content-and policy-based collaboration and has demonstrated that inability over an extended period of incivility and disruption on numerous articles related to American Politics. However, I'm here just to point out the current incident, which I've documented, and I don't expect any reply from you here and am not making any accusations or aspersions about my opinion of his history. Thanks for your volunteer efforts on WP. SPECIFICOtalk17:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
And now an edit conflict with Davey, fantastic. Davey2010, SPECIFICO didn't paste it, he accidentally transcribed it on to my page by using the template {{User:Winkelvi}}, i.e. curly brackets by mistake. Thank you, SPECIFICO, but I'm kind of tired of American politics right now. (Also please use preview.) Bishonen | talk17:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC).
(edit conflict) This is interesting. Especially when you consider I immediately did exactly what SPECIFICO requested I do,[185][186] after pointing out my error at the article talk page.[187] I think it should be further noted that I asked/encouraged SPECIFICO to add to the discussion "Do you have anything to say here that will support your contention that the content belongs in the article and will lend to further discussion and coming to consensus?" that I started there.[188] SPECIFICO chose to decline taking part in a discussion [189] re: their concerns "My valid and sufficient endorsement of the consensus text is fully stated in my edit summary. I will have no further comment...". Even after another editor stated they didn't have an issue with either my preferred version or SPECIFICO's preferred version [190] and another editor commented that they were not in favor of SPECIFICO's preferred version [191], SPECIFICO chose to retort with "BS"[192]. I do find all of these comments and actions at this particular article talk page ironic in light of their charge against me that I'm "...unable to engage in constructive content-and policy-based collaboration and has demonstrated that inability over an extended period of incivility and disruption on numerous articles related to American Politics". I think I've exhibited nothing but a desire to engage in constructive content and policy based collaboration as well as civility at this article and article talk page with SPECIFICO. Because of that, I'm puzzled by them coming here and posting the above. -- ψλ ● ✉✓17:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
And I'm puzzled by you posting the above immediately below where I say I'm of tired of American politics right now, Winkelvi. Please take it elsewhere. Bishonen | talk17:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC).
I didn't see that you said that. I only noted the edit conflict but didn't investigate further. Again, my bad and there was no malintent. What I posted was entirely of good faith. -- ψλ ● ✉✓17:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: Yes, you should. But your remark is amazingly apropos, because I just today got a civil e-mail from a user complaining that the text which appears on mouseover of the goddess can be intimidating, especially to new users. We don't want that, so I've asked the kind artist, Mr Hammertrousers, to see if he can change it to something more inviting. Bishonen | talk17:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC).
Do I need to file some kind of formal case to get Winkelvi to stop hounding me? Or can any of the multiple admins who are aware of what he's up to just act? In the last hour, the editor has gone to half-a-dozen articles that I created more than a year ago, and added tags to them. The articles are literally as far away as is possible from American politics, and it's obvious that Winkelvi is going through them as part of his daily harassment routine against me[193][194][195][196][197]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: Actually I see Winkelvi only took two minutes to tag five articles created by you. Yes, I regard that as harassment. I've warned him. Let us now await the troll IPs coming out from behind the open proxies. Bishonen | talk21:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC).
Good ban, Abecedare, and great to see you around. What an unusual thing — a Wikipedia mule! The scope should be large enough. Perhaps it would help the user if you gave a couple of examples of 1) edits concerning only India or only Pakistan, which are OK, versus examples of 2) edits concerning the conflict, which are out of bounds. For 2), preferably the kind of sneaky edits that are related to the conflict but which don't explicitly address it. The borderline cases. Bishonen | talk08:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen. Examples seem like a good idea. Will add them if the user still seems to be around.
By the way, Obaid is not the only account being used for such purpose: see User:مھتاب احمد who I blocked yesterday. Obaid and مھتاب احمد are active admins on Urdu/Sindhi wikipedias respectively, and there is probably ongoing coordination at one of those wikis (see this) or at one of the associated Whatsapp groups. Nauriya was another account used for complaints-muling, although they seem to have stopped since |they were warned. Abecedare (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear both, thanks very much for paying attention to these "mules". Unfortunately, they are hardly an unusual thing. There are dozens of them around. They receive the wikisource for an entire page from somewhere, and dump it on Wikipedia, tens of thousands of bytes of contents in a matte of minutes, all using a mobile phone! Look at this account for example. It comes alive on 9 August 2017, and starts making major edits. Major content dumping on 1 September 2017. Journal articles and scholarly books, with perfectly clean citations appear. Occasionally, some uncleaned citations too roll in, e.g., [198] and they tell us where the content is coming from. Australia!
Thanks, Kautilya. I guess I was naive in thinking it unusual. What a horrible swamp the area is. Abecedare, I saw your block of User:مھتاب احمد, and tried to investigate, since they have appealed the block, but I kind of gave up because I couldn't make much of your diffs. They seemed to lead to whole pages. Was there something I didn't understand? Bishonen | talk11:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC).
Yes, I see. I'm convinced; I've declined the unblock request, since I'd already started working on doing so before you mentioned it here. Bishonen | talk11:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC).
Incidentally, while keeping up with the Sarah Jeong reading last week (don't ask), I came across this Jelani Cobbquote, "They understand the current debate around free speech and social media not as an attempt to create parameters of decency around public dialogue but rather as part of a board game in which each side attempts to remove valuable pieces from the other’s team." The second emphasized part captures what is going on in the India-Pakistan area with the tit-for-tat complaints at SPI, ANEW, ANI etc. Anyway, enjoy the rest of Sunday! Abecedare (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Late to this party; good ban, for certain. Obaid Raza's editing has given me pause before. I've just been too swamped with RL deadlines to investigate. The Cobb quote is spot on. What I find most depressing is that none of these folks realize they are provoking the same behavior they are engaging in themselves; it's an arms race to the bottom, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor. Socking is met with socking, meatpuppetry with meatpuppetry, proxying with proxying, and so on and so forth. When will they ever learn? Vanamonde (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Good ban indeed, but what's to learn? Socking is cheap, as is meatpuppetry in some places. The benefits of POV-pushing are apparent to the pusher, and the downside of getting caught is almost negligible to them. Trying to keep the 'pedia honest is an increasingly difficult task compared to the ease with which those gaming the system can operate. That's what's really depressing. --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
My point though, is that the benefits shouldn't be obvious; most disruptive and/or suspicious editors in the ARBIPA area that I know of eventually end up blocked, and their contributions removed. In the long run, it really isn't beneficial; all it does is to drive admins and reasonable editors in the area up the wall. Vanamonde (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
And my point is what of the state of the articles in that area while we're waiting for the POV-pushers to be eventually blocked? Does blocking prevent them from creating a new account and getting back to their agenda sometime later? It does not. The greater the success of Wikipedia, the greater the reward for getting a favourable article about you, or your organisation, or your caste, etc. Thank heavens for folks like Sitush who shoulders so much of the task of spotting these problems and 'Shonen who's willing to use the measures available sensibly and fairly.
But we're just discussing ARBPIA here, which is high-profile and where we have extra measures available to shorten the time and effort required to apply sticking-plaster to the problems. Now multiply that by the hundreds of areas where there are big rewards available to anybody who can get "product placement" in our encyclopedia, and were we don't have DS available yet. Undisclosed paid editing is worse than it's ever been, and again, there's virtually no disincentive for UPEs. I'm full of admiration for admins like yourself who are willing to work on the front line to keep our project going. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
In some ways I'd say the problem of UPEs is ultimately worse for the encyclopedia, even if ARBIPA makes more trouble for the admins; the nationalist conflict that began this threat is at least localized, while UPEs are everywhere. You're right about the state of the articles while disruption is being dealt with. One of the reasons I write about speculative fiction on Wikipedia is because I need some stress-free content building after dealing with the appalling mess that some of our social/political/religious topics in South Asia are in. Thanks for the compliment, and thank heavens indeed for the platinum goddess and the mighty bishzilla. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, I am committed to a fully neutral Wikipedia and I am interested only in encyclopedic representation of politics. I do not intend to, nor have I ever, edited any content for purely political purposes. The vast majority of my edits are custodial fixes to apolitical pages, and any edits related to politics are treated in the same way I would treat any other edit. Please assume good intent - I am not a POV pusher and my edits to the Sarah Huckabee Sanders page were conducted under the advice of administrators at IRC.
@Dmezh: If you're committed to editing neutrally from now on, that's great, and I don't have any quarrel with you. However, it's no use blaming anybody else, including admins, for edits you make, especially when the advice is not publicly posted. Did somebody advise you to post this? Bishonen | talk18:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC).
@Bishonen: You're right, that was less than appropriate - POV pushers of any kind, no matter the political orientation, should not be welcome on Wikipedia. Happy editing - Dmezh (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Dmezh, I hope you realize that a "fully neutral" Wikipedia does not mean that all content and sources are neutral. Far from it. This is a common fallacy believed by many new, and even some experienced, editors. We aren't interested in only blah and boring content, because we're supposed to document the "sum total of human knowledge", and it's anything but neutral.
NPOV refers primarily to editorial conduct, IOW editors should treat (often very biased) sources and content "neutrally". They should not censor the bias in the sources, but faithfully document it. The result will be an article with content which documents bias, IOW the article may not seem "neutral". Wikipedia and its editors don't take sides, we just faithfully document the sides, and they are often far from neutral. I have written an essay on this subject you may wish to read: WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe18:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Tony. The article was moved in March 2017 without leaving a redirect to User:Koala15/Cruise (film), so I had some trouble finding the exact version that was deleted. I think it's this one. As you can see from the history, User:Koala15 did a little work on it in 2017 — not much. If you want it in your userspace, you might as well copy a suitable version yourself, since I'm not sure which revision you'd rather have. Bishonen | talk21:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC).
The way a history merge is done, it'll mean that Koala15's version disappears from his userspace. I shouldn't think he'd mind much — his edits will be preserved in the merged history — but I still don't like to do it without asking him first. So I've done that. Hopefully he'll notice my question despite the mass of bot image notifications on his page. When he has replied, I'll hopefully be able to take care of it. Bishonen | talk18:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC).
Thanks. However, I think the talk page history also needs to be restored. This article was previously a DYK (Feb 2016). That part of the talk page history needs to be restored. Could you please do that as well.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I did restore the talkpage history — look at it. That doesn't mean everything in the history appears on the page; the page shows the most recent version. I don't see why you shouldn't readd the DYK thing on the top page if you like. Bishonen | talk19:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC).
[Full of self-satisfaction.] Hey, T-RexxS, did you notice I got the history merge right this time? (Minor blip here, but I put that down to the pathological interfering helpfulness of the interface — hardly my fault!) I'm back in business! Bishonen | talk11:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC).
@LouisAragon: I've blocked the 31.173.80.0/21 range for a couple of weeks. There are only two IPs of this character at the article, so potentially a bigger range is involved. We'll see Bishonen | talk14:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC).
I’ve just been told by an automated message that I can’t edit your page as I’m not auto confirmed. Would you mind confirming me? Reminds me of an amusing story concerning the Archbishop of Vienna and Palermo Cathedral, best left untold. Giano(talk)20:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
PS, just had an edit conflict here, what has changed all this complicated form filling just to resume editing. I suspect I have obliterated somebody’s edit. Giano(talk)20:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Darling, if you have made at least ten edits and have been editing Wikipedia for at least four days, you are autoconfirmed. And in fact you do seem to be editing my page right now..? I think the automated message must have been a bug. Talkpage stalkers ahoy? Anybody understand this? T-RexxS? About the edit conflict, I don't think you obliterated anything. Bishonen | talk20:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC).
How extraordinary, but what a relief to know one has not been deconsecrated. Many apologies Gerda, as we say in Italiano: Wir mussen eine spaziergang in die biergarten haben. Giano(talk)20:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Giano, I'd love a stroll to a Biergarten with you! - Edit conflicts happen to all of us, no problem, really. Funny that in Swedish, it's the goat, and in German her male companion ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Talk page usage while blocked
Hey Bishonen, I have a question for you. I thought I had a clear understanding of blocking policy and how it relates to talk page usage while blocked, but I've had an admin tell me that I am incorrect. My understanding was that when blocked, a talk page should only be used to discuss the block and post potential block appeals. I've seen an indef blocked editor who is using their talk page repeatidly to post citations for other users to use, sometimes even with instructions/pings for said person to apply the edit. I went and looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors and the wording there seems ambiguous to me, seemingly placing the onus on the editor rather than the person who is blocked to not do the edits. Since I may have been misunderstanding this policy, I wanted to ask your opinion. Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Tarage. I know many people, including some admins, say the talkpage of a blocked user is only for requesting unblock. I don't agree with them. If that was a rule, which it isn't AFAIK, it's certainly being applied very patchily across the site. Talkpage access should only be revoked if it's being used obnoxiously, such as to attack others (though a bit of venting is allowable, too) or to make many frivolous unblock requests. As for edits on behalf of blocked editors, notice that you're linking to edits on behalf of banned editors — not the same thing. But in either case, the onus is on the user making the edit, yes. But I'm sure you didn't come to my page merely to ask a general question. What conflict is this about? Bishonen | talk20:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC).
(talk page watcher) This block by me (my thinking behind its somewhat unusual nature discussed further here). And Tarage, Bishonen is correct; I think you're confusing banning and blocking which are very different concepts from an administrative point of view (a ban means "you're not welcome here, go away", a block—which is what we have here—means "for whatever reason we don't currently feel it's appropriate for you to be editing"). This is very much the latter; IHTS is a valued part of Wikipedia who's currently unable to edit directly and not some kind of wiki-leper, and in such a case other editors are perfectly within policy to make edits at his request provided they're able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. This is not an unusual situation; The Rambling Man is probably the highest-profile recent example of a similar situation. ‑ Iridescent20:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
That's downright stubborn. Range blocked for three months. I can't see anything useful coming out of it; it's all of a kind. Bishonen | talk23:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC).
Spartaz, I'm sorry to see it has come to this. If you've read my selfrequested block page, you'll know six months is the maximum term I will consider. I'll block you for six months in 24 hours (please do read the page I mentioned, where this delay is also explained) if you confirm at that time that a) you have read User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks and understood my conditions, and b) you still want me to. Provided, I suppose, that JzG hasn't already blocked you by then. Any special reason why you asked two admins? Bishonen | talk20:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC).
@DBigXray: Yep. Nowadays, I'm more likely to T-ban indefinitely and encourage an appeal after six months, so that lifting the ban comes to depend somewhat on constructive editing in other areas. But I guess I thought differently back in 2016. We live and learn. Bishonen | talk22:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC).
Thanks for the kind reply. I was under the same impression that admins TBAN indefinitely which is why I assumed the same and asked in the first place. Have a good day, cheers.--DBigXrayᗙ22:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this essay and, if possible, add to it, correct it or tweak it?
Just so you know, I posted the following a WV's talk page:
Good block, Bish. The constant squabbling between these two is very disruptive to the project, and it always seems to be WV that starts it. I have wondered in the past why we don't impose an interaction ban - either one-way against WV, or two-way against both of them. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Hi Bishonen. Since you were the last admin to warn Thomas Paine1776 (talk·contribs)[209], I thought I'd see if you had comments or recommendations on his continued sanctionable editing [210]. I only quickly looked through his edits in BLPs since you warned him, and I think sanctions are long overdue. @Thomas Paine1776: --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Several of them fall under that. But not Boris Johnson, and perhaps not purely religious American figures, either. Also, the Am Pol alert will "expire" in November. Of course it doesn't have to be a discretionary sanction at all if the user continues to be uncollaborative; that's something that's sanctionable in itself. Thanks for alerting me, Ronz. Bishonen | talk19:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC).
Mail
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Bishonen. I understand your posts here and here. Your AN3 close, however, didn't restore the article back to the version without the infobox logo, so I've gone ahead a done that. If that was inappropriate, please advise. I'm willing to try and continue to explain to the IP as to why, at least currently, the image is not being used in the article, and encourage them to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page. At the same time though, I'm a little concerned that the IP isn't a completely new editor and might actually be connected to LivinRealGüd, but I'm willing to drop that if you think that's not likely the case with this IP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Right. Yes, the 93 IP is obviously the same person. (That one has actually written on their talkpage, so the concept of a talkpage seems to have gotten through.) I've blocked it for good measure, since it's not nice to abuse our good faith. I don't know about LivinRealGüd — itself a sock — that person's English is much better. Do you think they're disguising their competence when editing as an IP..? Anyway, thanks for following up. Bishonen | talk09:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC).
The article's now protected and the 93 IP at least did post a query on the article's talk page, so maybe things will settle down a bit for the time being. Hopefully, they now understand after being blocked twice that edit warring is not going to help them achieve what they are trying to accomplish and instead will try to do things according to relevant policy. In hindsight, my theory about LivinRealGüd might be nothing other then thinking I see smoke where there's really no fire, and there's most likely no connection at all between the accounts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't speak that much German, but I nevertheless come over all German occasionally. Very expressive language for some things. I'll go look, Vanamonde... Um Gottes Willen!! Was ist diese verdammte Scheisse!!! (Translation for non-German speakers: I have closed as keep.) Bishonen | talk17:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC).
"verdammte Scheiße" (damned shit") as long as you can control the vehemence of your typing ;) - while "ich schieße" means "I shoot" which is possibly not intended ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
And it's not just in German (scheissen/schiessen) that "shitting" and "shooting" are very similar but also in English, obviously, and other Germanic languages (for example Swedish skita/skjuta and Danish skide/skyde). Could it be because of many people shitting if someone starts shooting? Sorry for the "low level" joke, but it's Friday evening and I've had a couple of pints... - Tom | Thomas.W talk20:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Minor etymology nerd here: It's a coincidence that "shoot" and "shit" are spelled and pronounced the same in German, the two words are unrelated AFAIK. In both languages, I'm afraid. What's far more interesting is the etymology of the German words ficken and fick which are actually different words with different roots ("moving back and forth" and "pierce or penetrate") as far as I can tell, but both transliterate to "fuck" in English. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
It reminds me of a slogan from the roaring 1970s: "Illegal! Scheissegal! Wir ficken überall!". "It wasn't me who started it, mom!" - Tom | Thomas.W talk21:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
"schießen" and "scheißen" are NOT spelled and pronounced the same, the former has a vowel as in "sheep", the latter like in "shine", more or less. Got it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
... and to make it even easier to understand for someone who speaks English but not German, "schießen" is pronounced "she-sen" and "scheißen" pronounced "shy-sen" (if someone wonders how to get the fancy double-s on a keyboard that doesn't have it, try Alt+0223 if you use MS Windows...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk22:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to say this because my wife laughed her ass off. I learned to speak German 20 years ago, and there was about a 2-year period when I spoke it to one degree or another almost every day and wrote in it at least once a week. This thread, today, is the first time that I realized I've been pronouncing and spelling "schießen" incorrectly.
Your closure of Articles for deletion/Zahid Ali citing a supervote
Hi Bish, Can you please explain your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Ali (politician) KEEP on the basis of 1 person's unfounded nationalistic "rant" Please note that The Election commision of Pakistan has already nullified the victory notification. see
ECP withholds PB-41 victory notification .So This article clearly violates WP:NPOL, WP:GNG and WP:FUTURE. I am clearly dumbfounded here on what basis is this AfD been closed. Does this admin (edit:whom you quoted in your closure statement) has some kind of a super vote on AfDs where the policy can be trashed and AfDs can be closed on the basis of his rants ? --DBigXrayᗙ17:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote, it's based on the policy-compliant comments in a discussion — not the other comments. Please see WP:Consensus: "Decision-making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". I've italicized the important words. I closed as Keep based on Vanamonde's analysis. I'm sorry, but I don't even understand whether you're calling Vanamonde's comment, or my close, a "supervote". Your header suggests you're talking about Vanamonde. But of course only an actual close is capable of being a supervote, which suggests you're talking about me. Perhaps you can clarify. Bishonen | talk18:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC).
Some of the contributors have erroneously voted KEEP saying that he is NOTABLE because He has won the election. Other contributors including me in the AFD have clearly pointed that this person cannot be claimed as a winner of election since The ELECTION COMMISION has already trashed[211] its previous notification and called for fresh re-election which can have a new winner. So basically the sole ground for keep vote that "he is elected hence notable" is already void. Can you please explain why you are overlooking this simple fact pointed out by several AfD contributors. --DBigXrayᗙ18:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
(watching) He's still been elected. And if they have another election and some other guy wins, great—then he'll qualify for an article too. But, thank god, we are not yet in the position where our policies on notability are dictated by Pakistani election officials. Or anyone else for that matter. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room18:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: The Dawn article you have linked to, twice now, is dated August 7 and states that the next hearing will be held on Aug 19. In other words, events have obviously overtaken the "withholding" you speak of. (No, I see you don't even speak of it being "withheld", but talk of it being "nullified" and "trashed". Very misleading even according to your own outdated source.) So what happened at the Aug 19 hearing? And after that? It's September now. Why do you keep linking to obsolete information? Bishonen | talk18:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Here is the second link from Sept 11 [212] that ( I missed linking above) it clearly states the Hearing has already happened based on the petition and re-election has been ordered on the basis of the hearing.
So chronologically On 7th The victory notification of this candidate was cancelled. and on 11 Fresh polls has been ordered. The Winner will be decided on the basis of this repoll. This person is not winner, and hence the Keep arguement is void. This was already pointed out by Saqib and myself in the AfD --DBigXrayᗙ18:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
My point (which you refer to as a nationalistic rant, for reasons I cannot fathom) is that several editors, including you, are completely misrepresenting WP:NPOL. Your argument here is somewhat facetious, as the second sentence you posted to the AfD was "even if he is elected, he fails WP:POLITICIAN". This is just plain wrong, but was nonetheless repeated by several others. This is, to me, evidence of battleground editing, because I can see no other explanation for why several editors, many of whom have been censured for their behavior on articles related to the Indo-Pakistan conflict, would misrepresent a very straightforward guideline to support a "delete" argument on an individual elected to a Pakistani legislature. Vanamonde (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
VNM, Contributors were discussing on this AfD, the merits of the AfD. Among all of them, you were the only AFD contributor who first started bulshitting about your pre-concieved Nationalistic biases on the AfD page and then brought the same on Bishonen's talk page. Please note, I am not here to argue over your preconceived notions. I am here discussing an AfD closure with the Admin Bishonen who closed it, Kindly take your rants to the section above which you started for reasons known only to you. --DBigXrayᗙ18:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: Was ist diese Scheisse? It's not for you to order people about on my page and tell them where to post. Vanamonde is welcome to post in whichever section he chooses. So are you. But in any case, you need to stop calling Vanamonde's views "bullshit" and "rants"; it's not just rude, it's ridiculous. You are free to take my close to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you think you have a good argument against it. Bishonen | talk19:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC).
My take: He was elected. If the election is invalidated and someone else assumes the post via a new election, the article can be merged or redirected; or, if there is enough press coverage of the controversy surrounding the whole thing, the article might be able to stand with added material from RS, since overturned elections are noteworthy. Also, what I think was happening in the AfD is that some people were misunderstanding WP:NPOL, because they do not understand the difference between local (which would mean town or district) versus regional or provincial (state, province, or region). The two are very different, but people were conflating them. Softlavender (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't think the issue isn't as clear-cut as it is being out to be. Thee Election Commission gets to say whether he is "elected" or not, not us. If the EC has ordered a repoll, that means that he is not "elected" (yet). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
That is almost besides the point, K...the problem here, as I noted above, is one user making, and three users parroting, a completely incorrect argument. DBX now insists that Ali hasn't been elected, while the comment at the AfD that I really took exception to was that he wouldn't be notable even if elected. Also, as to the AfD; the arguments need to be judged on their merits; and the arguments were off the mark. Vanamonde (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, what is meant by "elected" is unclear and different people might be meaning different things. I am going by what Saqib wrote in the nomination: by 30 August, the Election Commission hasn't notified him as the winner. Now it has ordered a repoll, i.e., the previous election has been invalidated. In this situation, we can't go by what the old news reports said. They don't decide whether he has been elected or not. Only the EC can. And the EC seems to have said no. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes Kautilya3, Election commision already cancelled [213] the earlier result on Aug 7. So after that announcement itself it is fallacious to call this person a winner despite clear evidence that says he is no longer the winner. The sole reason for all the keep voters was he has won the election, hence notable, This is clearly a void argument. Moreover, on 11 Sept [214], Repolling has been ordered so a new winner will be announced later. This is exactly the reason why the article had come to AfD as per nom and the reason why folks have voted for delete. The central argument. --DBigXrayᗙ20:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure she saw my comment embedded above, So I will let @Bishonen: speak for herself if she saw my links and already gave her final reply . --DBigXrayᗙ20:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: Sorry, I was busy. I don't believe the article should be deleted, at least not yet. This article, from Sept 11, speaks of "re-polling on Tuesday", which is pretty confusing (Sept 11 was a Tuesday) but surely means the matter will be resolved pretty soon. We can wait for that. I agree with Softlavender above: "If the election is invalidated and someone else assumes the post via a new election, the article can be merged or redirected; or... the article might be able to stand with added material from RS, since overturned elections are noteworthy." Or if the election really is overturned, it can be AfD'd again, if people want to. Bishonen | talk23:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC).
Bishonen thx for the reply. The sidekicks here had kept me entertained while you were busy, so no worries.
nothing is confusing. The hearing was done on Tuesday 11 September. The result of the hearing was re-election. The re election will not happen "pretty soon". As of now Even the dates of re-election have not been declared. Rest assured It will take months for the process of relection to be completed and new winner to be declared.
it is not correct to wait for months because there is no guarantee that this same candidate will win again.WP:FUTURE
Since Mr Zahid's only claim to notability that was "his election win" is cancelled more than a month ago. The AfD should have been closed as delete. There is absolutely no valid argument for a keep. Since he is not the winner.
I am not sure why will someone redirect or merge Mr Zahid's bio article to Mr New winner's bio. It makes absolutely no sense to me. But I guess it makes sense to you.
I would have appreciated if after knowing the facts you could have reconsidered your closure to close as delete. Since you still believe that keep is a valid closure, I guess the next stop will probably be DRV.
Huh? The re election will not happen "pretty soon". As of now Even the dates of re-election have not been declared. Are you saying the statement in the source is wrong? The first sentence states "Re-polling on Tuesday at two Balochistan’s PB-41 polling stations was ordered by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)". I know Indian English word order is sometimes different, but I find it quite hard to read that as saying anything other than that re-polling on Tuesday was ordered by the ECP. Did you see my previous post, where I also talked about "re-polling on Tuesday"? Anyway, please note that I'm going to bed now, it's very late. Bishonen | talk00:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC).
it means that order was passed on Tuesday that re elections will happen at a yet undecided date in future. This pakistani site you linked to, has shoddy editorial team. Take a look at the same news on another site that i also posted above [217] this one uses proper English that makes sense. Quoting them The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Tuesday ordered re-polling at two polling stations in Balochistan's PB-41 (Washuk). Regards--DBigXrayᗙ00:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Shoddy? It's like a separate language! Anyway, since I misunderstood it, I have reverted my close. Kind talkpage stalkers, can somebody help with restoring the discussion to the list on the main AFD page? I don't understand how to do it. Bishonen | talk07:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC).
:D well yes, I would not even call pakistantoday site a reliable "news" site. You(Edit: Saqib) found that page. Dawn is a much respected source in Pakistan, so I had only linked Dawn in my comments above. Thanks for patiently reading my comments and reverting your close. I rechecked and the revert looks good to me. nothing else to be done. --DBigXrayᗙ08:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I have spies everywhere, Smoddy! The spy who reported on this occasion may drop by to say hi, we'll see. I didn't realise you couldn't edit your page — that rogue Floquenbeam protected it, apparently. You're not back... ok... 😐 but you make the occasional IP edit, is that it? Bishzilla says roarrr! Bishonen | talk15:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC).
Role model for Bishzilla, photographer Andy DingleyBishzilla?
I disagree with one of your admin actions, and instead of calmly explaining why, I'm here to haughtily link to WP:ADMINACCT and demand an explanation, all the while putting you on blast for daring to do something that I (and maybe one or two others) disagree with, but which the majority of interested editors think was rather non-controversial. Consider yourself warned. Also, this page is required reading for anyone seeking to understand the nature of my complaint. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Mmm. Bishzilla had just seen another accusation against me at ARCA (or she thought it had to be against me, even though formally it concerned a different user, because it fitted me so well), so I guess she wasn't in her most scrappy mood. This was it: "[S]he has barely contributed anything to the mainspace in at least a year, and seems much more interested in picking fights."[220] 'Zilla and I are both a little depressed, because it's true, you know. I am more interested in picking fights. Unlike Bishzilla, who these days mostly bumbles around the site making friends, like some gigantic Muminmamma. Sad! [Is struck by a new thought.] Hey, maybe the ARCA description was really hinting at the little Floquenbeam! Seems quite likely! Bishonen | talk19:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC).
Having gotten over my initial butthurt, I'm ready to be sympathetic. Don't feel bad. I edit in controversial areas, meaning that in order to get my mainspace contributions up to speed (say, 60% of my contribs) I'd have to start and pursue an edit war at least once a week. Seriously, the slightest little thing can start a shit show, resulting in an RfC with a 500K discussion section before we finally getting around to erasing a pair of parenthesis. Add to that the fact that I do a lot at the WP:GL/P (whcih also has the effect of moving quite a few of my contribs over to commons), and my edit count breakdown screams "drama queen" at first sight.
Pie charts at our edit counts are not a good definition of our utility to the project. Your admin actions are, actually, doing a lot of good, and quite possibly more good than you fixing typos in article space with some automated tool 500k at a time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
A very very big... bird? Oh my, I think I figured it out. Hopefully I don't get blocked for outing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Why don't you sign in to your account, little IP?
Questioning/comments at Milhist coord election page
G'day Bishonen. Just a friendly reminder that the Milhist Coord election is for members of the project to participate in. We accepted a question from a non-member of the project about the ArbCom case with good grace, and I'm pleased that all nominees have chosen to answer it, but nominees are entitled to form their own opinions about the case and state their views on it without persistent follow-up questions/comments from someone who is not a member of the project. This might be seen as an attempt to influence voting. I believe Euryalus has clarified the issue now. The case is linked in the question, and members of the project will hopefully read it and make up their own minds on the merits and on who to vote for. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
"Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or make general comments." –dlthewave☎11:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I just don't get that. It certainly wasn't my intent. I just don't want the election page to be a never-ending thread about the ArbCom case, because that is not what the election is about. How you vote is up to you, of course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Why is someone running for Coordinator policing the Coordinator election page? I mean, I understand why someone would want to do it if they could get away with it, but why is it being gotten away with? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Then you should strike them and disown them. You have harmed your reputation and that of MILHIST with what you have written here; striking and disowning will mitigate that. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for being willing to discuss and reconsider. It's important to be vigilant against walled gardens in wikiprojects, and as you've seen, it's a pretty widespread concern. With your response and heightened awareness that this is a real issue, I have no further concerns. Acroterion(talk)01:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
i just cited the consensus wisdom added by User:WhatamIdoing away back in 2009 here. She and others keep us mindful of walled garden stuff at WP:MED when things start to go that way. It really does take vigilance; we are allmost of us are semi-sucky humans. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC) (fix, no offense intended to the other species among us Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC))
Lol
^
Thank you for your full and well-reasoned response to my warning, Manikhat18. Please sign comments on talkpages by typing four tildes, ~~~~ , at the end. This will be automatically converted to your username and a timestamp, so that people can see who is talking and when. Bishonen | talk20:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC).
Nothing for now, I think, TedEdwards. The English is poor but the edits seem well-meant. They don't remove content as the previous IP did. And could you explain to me what's so wrong with listing Patrice as a villain in Skyfall? Both the IPs have had their addition of Patrice reverted. Of course I can see the new IP's Patrice entries under "Objective" and "Outcome" are useless, but the actual character is a villain in Skyfall, isn't he? Is the IP exactly repeating edits made under the previous IP? Anyway, I suggest you please try the talkpage of this one as well. Preferably with an explanation of what's wrong with their edits — not some vague template about "disruptive editing". If they then continue to edit incompetently and without communication, I'll block the range. (It's a small range, so that's not a problem.) Bishonen | talk13:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC).
Well, Patrice is a henchman working for Silva rather than the primary antagonist, so that's why I'm against this edit. However, there is in my opinion a long running problem on the page that it could be regarded as OR in a lot of cases to decide if a character is the primary or a secondary antagonist. If they edit again, I will take it to the talk page. TedEdwards13:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)In modern storytelling, specifically in a three-act thriller, the primary antagonist is always the character whose death or defeat signals the end of the climax and the beginning of the denouement. One of the "rules" is that the author should always make it clear before the beginning of the climax who the primary antagonist is, because this allows time for the build-up that makes the antagonist's defeat seem uncertain, even though the audience should be aware by this point (in their lives, not in the film) that it is inevitable. The primary villain of Skyfall is made clear to be Silva in a number of scenes prior to the climax. Just about any cinephile can confirm this, and any book on the three-act structure or "Hero's Journey" which doesn't is arguably not an RS. I would, in fact, consider "X is the film's primary antagonist" to be such a WP:SKYBLUE level of obviousness, that if a citation was ever needed for who it was, I would simply cite the film itself as a primary source for a relatively unconventional claim. But barring that, any in-depth review should also identify Bardem's character as the villain. So if there is a disagreement on that or future pages, I would run a straw poll or even an RfC over who the primary antagonist is. With a WP:SNOW close, the answer is certainly within the realm of WP:SKYBLUE. If there is not a snow close (even if there's a relatively clear consensus), then I would find a review which identifies the antagonist or the actor to portray the antagonist, and cite that to identify the primary antagonist. Should be easy peasy in practice, but we all know how no plan survives contact with a talk page. So good luck. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes. The List of James Bond villainsis supposed to be a list of primary antagonists, but I wouldn't blame the IP for not being aware of it, as the indication of it is quite discreet. There's a note saying "For secondary villains, see List of henchmen of James Bond villains" at the top, as well as a line saying "This is a list of primary antagonists in the James Bond novels and film series". How are these notes discreet? Because they're dwarfed by a much more visible, big, brassy, in-your-face bold-type "multiple issues" box. Not very pedagogical, that, even though there are certainly good reasons for the box. What's needed is for somebody to explain it to the IP user, and tell them Patrice goes in List of henchmen of James Bond villains (where he is already listed). Nobody has. I'll do it. Bishonen | talk17:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC).
). However it looks like Cryptic has sprinkled the magic fixi-dust: Special:History/Pamela Clemit. All's well that ... --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
Administrator changes
Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Miscellaneous
Confirmed account, and they're playing/trolling around with the third account and and Tyler Durden attacking each other on a Talk page. Maybe the third account is the black sheep in the family. You should also take a moment to read some of Marla's comments. It's like something out of a badly written children's book.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
.png)
Done /64 range blocked 3 months.
—PaleoNeonate – 03:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration
--RexxS (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
_November_2013.jpg)
Obituaries
. It would be helpful to have his modus operandi recorded for other editors to use and indeed other Wikipedias. His cross-wiki abuse with IPs, especially at Simple English Wikipedia, is appalling. Anyhow, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson, and if you think it's appropriate, change the status parameter from pending to active in the infobox at the top? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Alamatp2 (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
Not done: this is the talk page for communicating with the user Bishonen (talk · contribs). Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
The timing was horrible!Winged BladesGodric 15:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
Bureaucrat changes
Da Fun Police are watching YOU....jpg)
Looks like a duck to me of SourceOnly / MrSharma1 / etc. They opened several accounts today (see Kalki history, blocked by Ian.thomson etc, article semi-protected today by Favonian). A talk page message on User talk:Alanti.Muzamazi has triggered the reply "I bet you were sexually abused as a child". Alanti.Muzamazi may be same as Mhosi.kusiloco because both are new, both disruptive and both have left misleading edit summaries in the same article. They seem to be deploying hopping IPs too. What are our options in such cases, other than patience? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello, and thanks for writing this word on ANI without providing a proper source. It made my day, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 15:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Brexit. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Module:Carousel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
. Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Could the "home collection" be the collection and absorbance of drips that might arise, or rather fall, in the home?
"Writing instruments": Oh yes, tools to stick in one's top pocket.
You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam
){kind=link}
.jpg)
