User talk:Percy Bish Shelley

Welcome

Come meet an editor from a frozen land
Who'll say: "Ten smart and shameless socks of mine
Protect the project. See this happy band,
Ne'er drunk, no trace of lies, whose sign
Is 'Bish' and whose words enforce bold command.
Know that their sockmaster has your intent read
And yet divines, from sober men to winos,
The ip you used and from which you edited.
As through your fear-struck mind these words now bore:
`My name is 'Zilla the mighty, Queen of Dinos:
Revere my breath, ye flighty; hear me roar!'"

--Famously Sharp (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hello there Percy, it's so very nice to have you join us. I've always had quite a love affair with the beautiful rhythm of poetry. I look forward to reading your most wonderful words. — Ched : ? 05:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes, I must venture forth from Bishzilla's pocket and start posting them . I'm actually a little intimidated by the poetic gift of Famously Sharp above. Percy Bish Shelley (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

A little ditty

@Bishonen:

An editor has many accounts

And all but one are locked.

So why at 12:45 today

Was 8 - 6 - 1 - 3 blocked?

Happy Christmas from 141.105.200.162 (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice ditty, Percy is impressed! But to reply on the most boring level, the IP was blocked because they were posting disruptively — reposting disruption from a banned account. A couple of other IPs were involved also. Nobody would care about the block evasion if it wasn't for the disruption — insults, harassment, and such. Indeed, the only way anybody even knows about the block evasion is that we figure it out from the nature of the posts. So, we're trying to keep a banned user at bay, and that's why some IPs were blocked. This whole thing isn't as technical as you might think, and ordinary admins don't have any technical tools relevant to it. Bishonen | talk 14:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Looking through 86.134.217.93's contributions, there is an edit to the Humanities desk (1,775 bytes) at 21:11, 2 December and to the Language desk at the same time. The first edit added 1,775 bytes and the second 422 bytes. Checking the revision histories of those pages the content of the Humanities edit will be the same as the 1,776 bytes added at 14:07, 3 December and the content of the Language edit will be the same as the 422 bytes added at 20:10, 2 December. Both edits are bona fide responses to questions.

There are various trolls operating on the reference desks - Wickwack, Bowei Huong 2, the Nazi troll, the anti - semitic troll and the Black - Brutality troll. Their edits are either ignored or reverted. Yet administrators are revdeleting IPs who are responding in good faith. What is going on? 141.105.200.162 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't say. I don't watch the reference desks very systematically — I haven't even encountered your trolls — it was more by accident that I saw an offensive edit summary on my watchlist. So I removed a post with an abusive edit summary… removed it twice, I think, but it was just one thing, repeated. And now that I look at the refdesk logs I can only find one removal by me… oh well. Anyway, I suggest you ask the admins who did the revdeletions you object to. See the deletion logs here: [1] [2] (that's the one where I see myself) [3] [4] [5].

I hope you can access these logs as an IP, including the links they contain for "diff" and what they call "more". I don't see why you shouldn't be able to, but I'm no expert on these arcana. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, the revdeletion tool is so configured that you can hide either an edit summary, or what appears on the page, or both. So can you unhide the text of the edit you revdeleted as you say it was not abusive? Revdeletion is only used to hide confidential information or threats. 141.105.200.162 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really? I don't have a problem understanding the revdel configuration, it's dead simple. I did remove the post because it was abusive, I thought that went without saying. The edit summary was worse, that's all. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Please compare my rationale in the deletion log. You started out talking about the IP making "bona fide responses to questions", even if your interest seems to have shifted now. Anyway, the post I revdel'd wasn't bona fide and it wasn't a response to a question. It was a re-post of a reverted post from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) by another IP (also not a response to anything), and it contained various attacks. I hope we're done now. You realize I spent some time locating those logs for you. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hey Bish, this is Vote (X) for Change again. He'll suck up a lot of your time by pretending the other IPs aren't him (he has access to many different networks). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, NeilN. As luck would have it, I was just typing a question to you about who it might be. I replied to them in good faith to begin with, but came to regret it quite quickly. I've never come across Vote (X) for Change. Perhaps strange, but there are so many trolls. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Must be nice not to have anything better to do than troll around. Sorry--gotta run, baths and dishes. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]