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.
Oh dear. I won't waste time with topic bans or the like for this, or further warnings, since the user has completely ignored all friendly advice by admins and others so far. Blocked indefinitely. Thank you very much, Adamstraw99. Bishonen | talk14:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC).
[Slightly embarrassed]: yes... yes... that's as may be. But there's only one actual Bishonen. The Bishonen of 2007 is the same as the one today. Bishonen | talk17:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC).
(edit conflict) x2 aah. Maybe something like this. By the way, I am sort of sad now that I wasnt on wikipedia in those days. The next RfA was a farce according to one comment on that RfA itself. But those days also seem to have a lot of wikidrama, so it cancels each other out. I am happy with current days. Now I should stop editing talkpages, and do some actual work. —usernamekiran(talk)17:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
(Have you noticed yet that there's a new Komodo dragon in the edit notice every time you edit or preview?) Are you saying you don't like a bit of old-fashioned flavorful wikidrama, usernamekiran? Good clean fun. See for instance WP:BLOCKABDICATE. Bishonen | talk17:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC).
Oh, I didn’t realize that saga had its own shortcut. Good thing he still got to keep his sysop bit. It’s not like he would ever abuse it in any other circumstances, and he would never do something dumb like move a high profile BLP through protection for kicks and giggles. /sarcasm Also, I do like the dragons Bish!TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello there, Tony. I think that's the only single shortcut I have ever created, bumblingly and inefficiently — it's difficult! — but I really thought there should be one there, that I could refer to if the need arose. It sometimes does. For the fine dragons, you can thank User:RexxS who created the Komodo Karousel. Bishonen | talk18:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC).
(edit conflict) I am on mobile, so couldnt see it. I had to switch to desktop view to see it. I like fun, yes. old-fashioned flavorful? even more. Wikidrama? As long as it clean, i think i am okay with that.
But only thing I could register from wp:blockabdicate, and that is that you are a lady! I always thought of you as a guy. Apologies. —usernamekiran(talk)18:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
WHY'D YOU TAKE DOWN MY CONTRIBUTION! Heather Clark is a real person and Ms Hathaway and Summer Hathaway are characters from the musical School Of Rock! 28-Meme-Wounds (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, 28-Meme-Wounds. The list at Heather (given name) is only for notable people named "Heather". Your addition "Heather 'Hedy' Clark British YouTuber, Sister of Dodie Clark" was unsourced, and the Wikipedia link you added was red (= the article doesn't exist). Feel free to re-add Heather Clark with a link to a reliable secondary source — not her own Youtube channel — that shows she's notable according to Wikipedia standards. I don't understand what you say about Ms Hathaway and Summer Hathaway — I don't think I've removed anything like that. Bishonen | talk15:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC).
Rajshekhar Reddy Arya
Hi, any chance of you keeping an occasional eye on the activity of Rajshekhar Reddy Arya? They're writing spiels of caste-centric stuff on article talk pages without any supporting sources and quite often using bellicose phrasing. Several people have left them notes on their own talk page, of which I am the latest. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Sitush: I daren't. They have a black belt in Karate! But it's nice to see you up and about, hope you're taking it easy. I notice the user is arguing with a section from 2008 — 2011. (No talkpage archive, apparently.) The sections "Is there anything really called as Reddy dynasty" and "Fake History", both very old, are full of aggressive mutual attacks, so in a way I can understand that your guy took his tone from them (presumably not noticing, or caring about, the timestamps). Let's see how he reacts to your warning. BTW, did you notice this diff, which is even more intemperate than the posts you removed? No signature, naturally, but it's your guy all right. I can't understand why it doesn't show up on the page. Maybe the interface itself rebelled against it? Pinging RexxS: do you understand why that doesn't show up? Any other little talkpage stalker? Bishonen | talk14:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC).
(edit conflict) The edit is inside the commented-out notice from a bot (i.e. it appears between <!-- and --> markers) that prevents it appearing outside the code. EdChem (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I was not intending to suggest that some immediate action was required - my note and those given by others previously should have sufficed at that point. But now they have said this. In the world of things caste on Wikipedia, it isn't extremely derogatory etc but it is yet again someone writing sort-of inflammatory comments without providing any supporting evidence. This is the type of thing that often spirals out of control on such talk pages and it bothers me that they are still not getting it after you and I had our say on their talk page. AS you intimated, I really should avoid dealing with this sort of thing at the moment! - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
[2] and [3]. Friends might be reading it. In any event, no good reason for anyone to have to read it. Thanks in advance to you or another talk page watching admin. ---Sluzzelintalk15:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I gotta admit I didn't catch that. But yeah, "most" is in the realm of 65-75%. There's still lots of people at all ages working hard to ensure that the rest of us have someone to look down upon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing "seemingly" (or "seeming", for that matter) about it. I've met people IRL whom I knew online to be total assholes to me, and they acted exactly as if they were utterly thrilled to meet. Of course, that may have something to do with the fact that I don't look anything like what people expect, but I nonetheless noticed that, back online after the fact, they remained much nicer after that. Plus, it's been studied pretty extensively. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
I actually wasn't talking about meeting IRL, but about posting as an IP, as in the case Sluzzelin posted about. (Hello, Sluzzelin, hope you're getting some use out of that teacosy.) I.e. without the more longtime "identity" or "avatar" of an account. That seems to bring it out sometimes. Don't beat me. P.S., to digress, I have in fact met RexxS, and he pulled me out of the way of an oncoming tram. Tells you something, doesn't it? Not sure what, except that he's never done that online. Bishonen | talk15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC).
Sorry about my finger trouble over at AN...(I wanted to undo another edit on my watch list,( on Khirbat Lid) and undid yours edit on AN instead, Again, sorry! Huldra (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources and edit-warring on Oeselians
Hello Bish. A few days ago you blocked Blomsterhagens(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) for edit-warring on Oeselians, but he's at it again, repeatedly making POV edits that aren't supported by reliable sources, and also aren't supported by a consensus on the talk page (see Talk:Oeselians#Ethnicity & language of Öselians and page history of Oeselians). So would you mind taking a look at it, because this is becoming a huge time sink, with anything other editors say being totally ignored by an editor with an obvious lack of competence, not being able to understand simple things, in spite of having them explained to them multiple times (such as mediaeval mentions of "Estonians" not possibly being references to the modern Estonian people, since neither the Estonian people nor the Estonian language existed back then, that we can only use reliable sources, and that we can't present claims in a paper written by a student as if it's the university they're studying at that says it...). Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk15:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I trust others to see the talk page contents on Oeselians & Norsemen, read the sources, see my diffs and those of Thomas.W and then make their own conclusions. The main problem is that Thomas.W makes it look like it's me against other editors, but there are actually several editors who disagree with Thomas and have provided ample sources. Also, the topic has nothing to do with what Thomas just mentioned. His latest "revert" was for "misrepresenting a source" where I was directly quoting a source. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Your edit added among other things "A report published by the University of Helsinki finds the expression to support the identification of Oeselians as a Finnic language group" to the article, without explaining that the source (which shouldn't be presented as "a report published by the University of Helsinki", since it's not an official comment by the university, but a paper published by people active in "Folklore Studies" at the University of Helsinki...) is commenting on a document about a single event in the 13th century, and thus refers to that event in that period of time only, which is grossly misleading in an article that mainly focuses on the Viking Age, that is several hundred years before the event commented on, and is being used by you to support claims you're pushing on other articles about there having existed "ethnic Estonian Vikings"... - Tom | Thomas.W talk16:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Are there academic sources about there having been "Ethnic Estonian vikings"? If not, it's not a topic to be had. It certainly isn't connected to what you're talking about right now. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
To be fair though - there's no battle for "Estonian Vikings" to be had on my part. There are two main questions right now: 1) What language was spoken on Ösel during the Viking Age? 2) Were there Norse settlements on Ösel during the Viking Age? I support whatever is written in academic literature, contributed to by people from uni. Stockholm, uni. Copenhagen, uni. Helsinki, uni. Tallinn, uni. Tartu, etc. and hope that enough editors will take their time to form an opinion. Luckily other editors agree with the sources. I don't really even care what source is being used, as long as it's an up to date source, written by a Viking Age researcher. The topic has not been about "Estonian Vikings" for a long time. Anyone can see the talk pages on Oeselians or Norsemen and make up their own mind on what's been happening today. I only have an issue with a single editor. Thomas, in his own words, believes I have a nationalistic agenda. I'm also a "POV-pusher" and some other words I can't remember anymore. He's also said today that he thinks Estonian Viking Are researchers have a "nationalistic agenda" "like me". I suppose I'm just a part of a big conspiracy then. Have a good weekend everyone and thanks for keeping Wikipedia alive. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's me - I was asked to change my username by the Danish wikipedia because of wiki policies on not having usernames after famous people... which I guess makes sense Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Local Danish policy, maybe? I've never heard of it, other than, of course, as regards living famous people. You can hardly be accused of impersonating Søren Kierkegaard (1813 — 1855), can you?
Yeah, I guess maybe people wouldn't be so friendly to someone named Winston Churchill on the english wiki either? Not sure, maybe it affects some people's national identity. Awesome re Enten-Eller! Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Before he became SørenKierkegaard his username was JonSonberg, and before then JaanMatti, since he has had numerous namechanges. All of them names that can be seen in discussions on the talk pages of articles within his rather narrow field of interest... - Tom | Thomas.W talk19:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I can add that it's less than two years since he started to change usernames, and the latest name change was only a few months ago, so you don't have to go far back in history on talk pages to see more than one name leading to the same account, which can easily confuse other editors, and make them believe that multiple editors share a certain opinion. - Tom | Thomas.W talk19:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Thomas this is fascinating. What else can you find out about my sinister plans? I just opened a can of beer and reading your comments is way better than my usual routine of dressing in pink latex on friday nights. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you please both pause for breath? The more complaints you post, Thomas, the less likely it is that some kind admin talkpage stalker will want to dive in and take care of your original issue. And I really wish that one would. It's getting overwhelming. Bishonen | talk19:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC).
@Thomas.W and Blomsterhagens: Sorry, I can't face immersing myself in this. The subject is too complicated as well as too uncongenial to me. I also don't think it's ready for ANI: it would probably be blown off as a content dispute. How about trying Wikipedia:Third opinion? There are obviously too few people on article talk. Try inviting some more. Winston Churchilltalk. 14:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC).
Then they're too clever for me, which is quite easily possible and wouldn't surprise me given what I found. I can't confirm it. Sorry. Doug Wellertalk18:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello I have been topic banned on that for years and I would like to KEEP that ban, please. Unfortunately, I discovered some potentially dangerous outdated information quoted by the CDC which has since changed (also by the CDC) to the exact opposite of what our article currently says. Not sure how to proceed as I am aware that I am banned on talk pages as well, and the talk page in question has no traffic anyhow-thank you TeeVeeed (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
More info. so the article itself is not directly ABOUT vaccinations so I think it is safe to say here that it is the Immunocompetence article. What happened was that I noticed recent better definitions of contraindications precautions and safe to give/when to some types of vaccines and "altered immunocompetence" was listed for something and I wanted to look it up so I landed on our page there. The cite is from around 2011 and there is another one from 2016, (from same source CDC)- that says the opposite of what our article says. Thanks againTeeVeeed (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
TeeVeed, this thread is a topic ban violation. You're asking an admin (who is free to block you for this violation) to make edits on your behalf. Have you ever heard of a facepalm? Because now would be a good time for you to make that gesture. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.22:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
TeeVeeed, MjolnirPants is right; you must not post about vaccinations on user talkpages either. Also, I checked the CDC guidelines as updated in 2017, here, and I can't see the change you indicate. But I'm not going to discuss this with you further or argue about it, sorry. Don't do it again. Bishonen | talk08:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC).
Just for the record, the reason I posted here is because Bishonen was the blocking admin and said this, "You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 07:56, 22 April 2016 ". Not related to this topic in particular, I am noticing that old vs newer/updated/conflicting info. being posted on US Government health sites is a problem in general. When recommendations etc. are changed I am noticing more and more that the outdated stuff is just left up without being changed in any way to indicate that newer/changed info. is available.TeeVeeed (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
To wrap this up before TeeVeeed gets into trouble, I've reviewed the latest CDC guidelines and updated the reference at Immunocompetence to the latest version. As far as our content is concerned, their conclusions remain the same, so nothing further needs to be done. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Hello, I just want to say thanks for annotating my block log-book. I would have said it earlier, but I got scare when confronted the lizard. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your message on my talk page: It should not be necessary to go through an elaborate talk process to amend text which is clearly and obviously POV. "Trump is bad, Trump lied, Trump is racist, Trump is not as rich as he claims, etc." Not a single good point appears in a prominent position. But, hey, that's what Trump does to people, even to experienced wikipedia editors, they lose their independence of mind. The text of the current article is so blatantly a hit-job, which is unworthy of wikipedia. We are not CNN, but nor do we want to be Fox. Somewhere in the middle would be nice. And those responsible for this bias are attempting to maintain it by inserting "DO NOT CHANGE" commands within the text. Some serious and systemmatic rebalancing work, including a thorough line by line examination for bias, conscious or otherwise, needs doing on the article, including an examination of the tone of the article in general. How should we go about that?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You've been around long enough to know the answer to that – or at least long enough to know not to ask rhetorical questions here. We go by what the best quality sources say. If the American public were to be stupid enough to elect an evil, lying, racist fraudster, then we would expect the best sources to say so, and that's what our article would say, isn't it? We don't want to be Fox or CNN, or any other news outlet for that matter because Wikipedia has no POV other than that expressed by the quality sources that we rely on for our content. "Somewhere in the middle" would not be nice, because we have no obligation to set off the ravings of a lunatic fringe against the well considered rationales of quality sources. --RexxS (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Lobsterthermidor, if you continue to ride roughshod over consensus, you're heading for a sanction; either a topic ban from American politics, or a block, depending on the circumstances. As hidden text in the edit field states in many cases (and I note you don't pretend you have missed it), many or even most of the phrases you change or remove are the result of, indeed, "an elaborate talk process", often an RFC with many, many editors involved; what we here call "consensus". And you think it's up to you alone to override the agreement they have arrived at, because you believe these editors have 'lost their independence of mind'. Seriously? Bishonen | talk16:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC).
Bishonen, yes, seriously. The article has such an obvious anti-Trump bias it's almost funny. Like watching 2 minutes of CNN. It's just dig after dig after dig. No mention of anything positive whatsoever. All sourced from anti-Trump media. But that's what Trump does to people, makes them lose their minds. TonyBallioni, good advice. I'd rather edit something less contentious, like Zionism, lol. Even an attempt to correct something so obviously biased as "Trump's policies have caused protests" into "some of Trump's policies have caused protests" apparently has to go through a lengthy talk page discussion. So the article is basically irrevocably set in anti-Trump treacle. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Since I was mentioned: my advice to everyone is to avoid American politics as well as ethnic and nationalist disputes. Life is too short to waste time arguing with people on the internet who know The Truth (tm). On your actual complaint: that’s one of the most watched and discussed articles on Wikipedia so yes, just about every comma reflects either consensus by agreement or compromise so it’s likely that any bold change you make will be reverted and need to be discussed. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, done. Perhaps I should have given them the discretionary sanctions alert as well — the one they got has expired — but quite frankly they're not the kind of editor where a topic ban is likely to be meaningful. Here be dragons! Bishonen | talk10:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC).
Editor unintentionally introducing bad grammar into articles
I have a question on how to move forward with this. I was reading a random anime article and found the grammar to be atrocious. I started looking into who had left it in that state and I came across an editor who's grammar leaves much to be desired, often introducing typos or converting English words into Japanese. I've left a message on their talk page in the hopes that they respond, but given how they removed a warning about a copyvio by dismissing it... I'm not hopeful. Their edit count isn't huge, but it is causing damage to quite a number of articles. What do you suggest? --Tarage (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I know there are some Japanese contributors with very poor English skills (of course there are also those with excellent English). It's certainly a problem. If their edits aren't numerous, would you consider improving the grammar yourself? Assuming the meaning is clear. About the copyvio: I see their comment, but that may actually be in good faith — they've never been to the website mentioned — fine — they may have copied from a three or four times removed copy of the material on a different website. Whenever I look for and find copyvio, I tend to get masses of hits, so that would be unsurprising. Anyway, it was quite a while back. I'm not sure what more to tell you, Tarage. My own personal opinion is that we should discourage users with abysmal English from contributing, but I think I'm in the minority there ("They mean well!"). Bishonen | talk21:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC).
I hope what I said didn't sound discouraging. I just get urked when I go to a page and see long existing grammar issues. I don't really want to take on trying to babysit their edits right now, though I did undo a few. --Tarage (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I did, Chère. It made me quite nostalgic about Usenet – Rexx first left his muddy dinoprints all over alt.rec.scuba. --RexxS (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's what I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nanashi_II&oldid=865267107
I just spent nearly 30 minutes trying to fix this summary, and I don't even know if it's correct. There are so many issues with wording and grammar that anyone trying to read it would be incapable of understanding what's going on. And if it took me this long to fix just one, imagine how much work it's going to take to fix all their edits. I really am not trying to discourage them from editing but this isn't helpful to Wikipedia. This is really bad. This is their most recent edit. I didn't even hunt for it! --Tarage (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Tarage, I think you may have misunderstood my comment; I was trying to express that IMO we should discourage editors with incomprehensible English from contributing, as harsh as that may sound. A lot of people seem to think that as long as somebody is trying to help the encyclopedia, they should be encouraged up to the hilt, never mind if the support they get uses up more time and energy from other editors than the result is worth. For myself, I think WP:CIR applies. If I were you, I'd take it to AN or ANI. Feel free to give them my regards. I'm just going to bed now, but if you do go to a noticeboard, I'll try to chime in tomorrow. Also, by getting more eyes on the problem, you may get some Japanese speakers offering to help. Bishonen | talk20:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC).
You're right, I did read that wrong. I'm gonna try to see if my correction post on their talk helps at all. If it doesn't... yeah... ANI might be where I have to do. I don't like cutting out people who want to contribute but that paragraph made my head hurt. --Tarage (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tarage: (I woke up, curse it.) Yeah. I think the way he responds to you[4] is very unpromising. If I understand him aright (always doubtful) he denies that there's a problem with his grammar and asks you to show "proof" that there is. As an explanation for why he rejects what you say, he adduces that other accustions have been false (copyvio), which makes him disinclined to believe your statements about faulty grammar, and asks you to "reconsider". Instead of, you know, asking you to help, for example. Really unpromising.
If your detailed example analysis doesn't help him, I think it's hopeless. The only reason I don't simply place a CIR block myself, with polite thanks for his efforts and suggestions for editing the Japanese Wikipedia instead, is that I think a majority would be against me, unless opinions on this problem have changed in recent years. Let me sleep on it. Then maybe tomorrow, after evaluating his next response, we could post a joint ANI filing (or just you if you prefer, since it's your baby) and propose that unless a competent Japanese mentor is willing to expend the time and effort, long-time, to guide him every step of the way, and unless he is willing to guided by a mentor — two very big if's — he should be blocked. Bishonen | talk00:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC).
I would be more than happy with a joint filing should it come to that. I don't want anything resembling trying to get someone blocked as 'my baby'. Crass as I am, I actually don't enjoy seeing people blocked. I'd much rather see them become better editors. Sadly sometimes I let my anger and frustration get the best of me, as all have seen. But yeah, when he asked for "proof", I figured it was worth a half an hour of my time to show exactly what I was seeing to him. --Tarage (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The user hasn't edited since your long post, Tarage. I'll try to keep an eye out to see if they go back to their old ways, or if they answer constructively. And could you please let me know if you should notice any signs of socking? Bishonen | talk19:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC).
The response wasn't... great but not horrible either. Sounds like the editor might quit editing, which is unfortunate but probably for the best. --Tarage (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
...I'm afraid they've resumed adding bad grammar into articles. I'm all out of ideas. I think it's time for a block. --Tarage (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. I have been thinking about going to ANI and trying to find a Japanese speaker with good English who's willing to "mentor" the user — well, in practice, to translate everything he adds, either from his English (which perhaps a Japanese speaker can understand) or actually from the Japanese. But I can't believe it would work out. What a boring job it would be... not one I would actually advise anybody to take on. Particularly in view of how much the user edits, in different articles. It seems to me it would merely delay the inevitable block. So here we are. Thank you for trying, Tarage. Bishonen | talk12:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC).
Thank you little talkpage stalkers, but I think we'll close this now. PackMecEng, it seems to me you have failed to take a hint. What I've been trying to say was I don't find you funny, please go away. Bishonen | talk20:55, 21 October 2018 (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.
(talk page watcher) Are you saying that consensus is required to remove an entirely-duplicative paragraph sentence which literally somehow got copy-pastaed into the article twice? That strikes me as rules-lawyering beyond words. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Was my edit summary not clear, PackMecEng, or do you just think it's a good idea to troll me? A sentence in the article occurred twice in succession. The second occurrence was removed by a user who unfortunately didn't use an edit summary,[5] so another user mistakenly thought actual content had been removed and restored it.[6] I removed it again when I noticed the doubling. My edit summary was a reference to that of the user who restored the doubled sentence; theirs had been "no reason to remove this". I hope it's all clear now. With some effort, I'll assume that you're somehow trying to be helpful, and that you actually believe I'm not aware that our probably most controversial single article is under consensus required. Bishonen | talk15:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC).
The material was removed here, challenged via revision here, and then you reinstated it here. But eh WP:IAR and I do not care that much. Just trying to be helpful and thought it was funny. It of course should be removed but I couldn't help myself.PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't "challenged". (And if it had been, it wouldn't have been via "revision".) There's no need to invoke IAR, and no need to act like a troll either. Please just write me off as humor-impaired next time you want to be funny. Bishonen | talk16:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) More importantly, PackMecEng, you're almost certainly in breach of Template:Ds/alert/doc#Usage: "Some pages and topics on Wikipedia are authorised for Arbitration Discretionary Sanctions (DS). Users editing these pages may be alerted that discretionary sanctions are in effect. You must use this template to do so" and WP:AC/DS #alert.dup: "Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. It is a sanctionable offence to deliberately or carelessly notify a user about sanctions that they are clearly already aware of. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
That only applies to the official alert. It was a technical breach of the sanction because in general any reversion is considered a challenge (per wording of "challenge (reversion)") but that is pedantic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Galobtter: The official alert is the only alert allowed per WP:AC/DS #Alerts, and giving alerts is restricted in this way because of the possible chilling effect. There's no getting around the restriction by trying to make up an "unofficial" alert. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
It is the only alert that counts - not the only alert allowed. People are allowed to inform people of the restrictions (and indeed the formal {{Ds/alert}} makes no mention of this specific restriction, being only a notification of general DS on WP:AP2, and so informing people of the specific restrictions is often necessary in a good faith manner to let people self-revert violations instead of dragging them to WP:AE) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, the documentation of {{DS alert}} is absolutely clear and I've already quoted it above. You must use this template to do so can hardly be read any other way, and when AGKwrote that, I don't believe he was under any misapprehension about the requirement to use the template to make other users aware. One reason why the template must be used is that it creates a log; and that is part of our protection against malicious, intimidatory or frivolous notifications. I'm quite certain ArbCom did not intend that editors could place "ad hoc" alerts willy-nilly. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Generally with regulars in that area you leave a friendly note before giving them a template see WP:DTR. But again I am up for your offer if you want to test it on ANI. Also as everyone (including me) has said this has no chance of going anywhere, nor was it meant to. PackMecEng (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
If you say so, that is unfortunate. Also RexxS really, that is what you see here? However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message I did not place a formal Ds template here since they would clearly be aware of the sanction they railed against in the past. PackMecEng (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: Yes, in the opening post I see a clear example of "Users editing these pages may be alerted that discretionary sanctions are in effect". I don't believe it's possible to read your post as anything else. If you'd prefer, I could test opinion at ANI – when you get sanctioned as a result, you'll know I was right. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, Bishonen is certainly aware of the American Politics Discretionary Sanctions as they have issued sanctions under them. But this is beyond stupid; "consensus required" doesn't prevent someone from removing an obvious mistake first added to the article this week. No admin nor the community would ever do anything about this even if you found some rule-lawyer way that it is not allowed; WP:IAR is a rule too. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to decide whether this entire thread is an exercise in coordinated parody or irony or burlesque or satire or sarcasm or somesuch. EEng20:45, 21 October 2018 (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.
For crying out loud, it was just a topic ban from one bio..! Weird. But as Oshwah says, there was a lot more iceberg below. I've indeffed. Now I go indef Oshwah for referring to me as "he". Bishonen | talk18:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC).
Well, people need to blow off steam sometimes. (But he'll have to do it at UTRS now, I've revoked tpa.) What worries me more is that the user seems to think Serial Number and I are one and the same, or perhaps that all who have disobliged him are one person. Maybe he doesn't notice the sigs. Bishonen | talk19:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC).
I'm convinced you already have the biggest pair... Metaphorically speaking, of course. I was alerted to this with a bit of a "I caught one this big" post on my talk yesterday and when I looked at the interactions... Well.... Let's just say "wow". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm pleased to recollect I was in the running for Wikipedia Review's "Balls of Steel" award once many years ago. Even though I don't remember which of my many vicious actions that was for... The main thing is it made Bishzilla quite envious. Nice big pear, MrX! I'd quite like to grow one of those. Bishonen | talk13:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) Oh dear. That editor is being disruptive, but the thread as a whole is not encouraging, either. I've left a comment: I'm afraid I don't have the time for the detailed review necessary before blocking someone with a long track record. After a brief look, a block seems necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Well Drmies went and gave him a warning. That doesn't rule out an immediate sanction, but I'm inclined to wait to see what they do next, and sanction if necessary unless their behavior improves immediately. But that's just me, if Zilla wants to pocket him now I'm not standing in the way. Sorry, I know that's frustrating, but since the net result we're aiming for is a reduction in drama, caution is indicated. Vanamonde (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Young Vanamonde93, pocketing by Bishzilla is reward, or possibly consolation, not sanction! Pocket very cosy, residence there much coveted and envied! [Bishzilla thinks about it. A little worriedly:] Isn't it? bishzillaROARR!!pocket13:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC).
I'm sorry I was away, especially since Alex Shih has given the user a mere 48-hour block, which seems a little ridiculous, given the attacks on MjolnirPants. Since Alex's block rationale only mentions trolling at BLPN, I suppose he may not have read this thread which followed on Drmies's warning. Bishonen | talk13:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC).
I hadn't read that either. I just assumed Digby took the warning Vanamonde mentioned to heart, since they hadn't added to that thread again. Truth be told, I really don't know what to say about this situation. I don't really plan to ask ANI to indef or topic ban this guy, but WP:CIR certainly comes to mind, reading that thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I suppose you could take the line that, given Digby's prior clean block record, Alex's short block might be sufficient warning about those sort of attacks. Personally, I think WP:ROPE will now apply, and with their current mode of interaction with other editors, it will be just a matter of time before they get indeffed. Either way, it will be one less thing to worry about. --RexxS (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking at their contribs, it seems to me that there's at least a chance they'll just go back to editing automotive and engine topics. But I wouldn't bet money on that. Anyways, here's hoping we're wrong . ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
And the other eye on the /64 range, I guess (there's nothing yet, I just looked). New admins tend to be cautious, which perhaps isn't a bad thing. Thank you, Dino. Bishonen | talk18:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC).
I'll explain to User:L235 that he might as well block the entire /64 range for an IPv6 when I get a chance.
@RexxS: I'll do the /64 when I get a chance – I'm told cookie blocks should generally make /64s not as needed, but I do generally do /64s for block evasion cases. Was very busy when I was pinged to this IP on IRC. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 19:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Kevin. I saw that too — in the admins' newsletter, wasn't it? — but it wasn't very crisply put, as I remember it — as you say, there was a "generally" in there, and maybe a "probably" as well. I have noticed that if a single IPv6 is blocked, it often happens that we don't get any more from that /64 range. So what I do since then is I only block the range if I see other IPs from it helping to vandalize. But life was really simpler before — the message was meant to be helpful, of course, but for me, the result was that I'm now less sure what to do. 😐 Bishonen | talk19:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC).
P.S., I see you've already got a sock account asking for "justice" on your page, Kevin, congratulations. I've declined their unblock request. Bishonen | talk19:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC).
There's no harm in blocking in the /64 so you can continue to do so. Essentially, it is kinda easy to get around a cookie block if you have the barest of technical knowledge, hence the "generally" and "probably" in it working to stop vandalism from a /64 range. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Becky Sharp (character) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CapnZapp (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey
Just for the record, I appreciate you objecting to Lourdes' threat in that close. Lourdes' threat seemed so over the top that I briefly considering asking for the block, just so I wouldn't have to listen to the hysterics in that threat any more. Seeing that several other editors also took issue with that threat was quite encouraging. Seeing you come along and add your note was a reminder that not all of the pointless drama has to end with things worse than before. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
That's good. It felt quite weird to have my unclose blanked and reverted for no obvious reason and to then be accused of "fighting", so I'm glad you at least liked it. Bishonen | talk21:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC).
The funny thing is that pretty much everyone edit warring over the close had good intentions (even, I'm sure, Lourdes, though their methods were highly questionable), and were all just trying to get the thread closed on a rationale note.
Softlavender objected to the demand in the close, and had objected to the block threat.
Ivan had a much better close rationale worked out, and I'd previously asked them to close with their message to me made "official".
Floq was just being level-headed and trying to end the edit war.
Mr rnddude was trying to respect my clearly expressed wishes to see it closed (which was actually more commendable than it seems, given that our last interaction was me banning him from my talk page).
Lourdes was probably just trying to lay down the law, and get thread closed. They probably took my response as an implicit agreement to their terms (though they'd have blocked me for sure if they'd seen what I was about to respond with before I edit conflicted with Softlavender...)
The whole thing turned from a pond full of hysterics to a straight-up comedy of errors right there at the end. Which was amusing, to no small extent, even though it was also frustrating. I'm just glad it's over. And yes, I meant what I said about being more chill in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Favour, please?
I'm presently mentoring pre-university students for Wikimedia's participation in Google Code-in 2018. I'm teaching them the Lua programming language used in Wikipedia pages. Unfortunately one student has created two identical pages in the Module: namespace. I've moved one of them to the proper place, but to keep things tidy, the other needs to be deleted G6 (housekeeping) as it's merely a duplicate. Sadly, you can't mark module pages for CSD because they won't accept a template.
So, would you be kind enough to examine Module:Sandbox/Safan41 (the right one) and delete Module:Sandbox/Safan41/Safan41 as a duplicate, please? The extra text is mine, trying to stop Safan41 from using it. This is one of those exceedingly rare occasions that I could really use admin rights, rather than bothering others with a simple job that I'm not allowed to do. --RexxS (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
If I had started editing Wikipedia at the age of 54, instead of at the age of 55, I would probably have volunteered for adminship ten years ago. Since then, however, the process has cranked up its requirements to something approaching either sainthood or perfect blandness. I'm afraid I'm a poor match for either of those, and have little inclination to take part in the hazing that has characterised RfA for far too long. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
SergeWoodzing has asked me to contact you regarding their stated intention to eliminate errors made because of Swenglish translations whereverer I can and no matter how far they have spread.[7]
The problem as I see it is, these errors seem to include terms that have spread to common English usage. That seems to be what no matter how far they have spread means. So by the practice and policy of English Wikipedia, they are not errors at all. And SergeWoodzing claims to have "corrected" hundreds if not thousands of them.
@Andrewa: I'd rather not, sorry. I've seen Serge's pings, and in a way I'm touched by them, but when I last involved myself in his problems, it turned into a lot of (to me) uncongenial work in fields I'm not from myself interested in, such as royalty, nobility, and show business, and ended in off-site acrimony. Some of that came from his friends, and eventually also from himself. I don't feel inclined to become entangled with that again. I will say this: I believe Serge is a well-meaning editor, and his knowledge of Swedish and English is impeccable. I haven't seen much of his work correcting Swenglish in articles on English Wikipedia, probably because his interests and mine are so different. But in general, I believe such work is a boon, as far from all Swedes editing here have perfect English. Well, I'm sure you've seen that for yourself, for instance on Adville's page. Do you specifically need an admin to assist you? For highly competent bilingual Swedish/English users who might be up for helping, and who don't have baggage with either Serge or Adville (AFAIK), I'll mention User:Bonadea and User:Thomas.W. Bishonen | talk11:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC).
Thanks for the reply.
As I said, I approached you entirely because SergeWoodzing suggested this. He did point out that you were an admin, but it was not my idea to contact you at all, it was his. I was hopeful that you would venture an opinion on the particular issues at hand, as he would presumably take notice, but respect your desire not to do so.
There are two questions that you would be able to answer (but feel free not to).
First, does Swedish Wikipedia follow the recommendations of the Swedish Language Council, and if so how closely? (That seems harmless enough.)
Secondly, you say you haven't seen much of his work correcting Swenglish in articles on English Wikipedia, but you're ahead of me, I haven't seen any of it and he has provided no diffs, just a refusal to discuss on his talk page. So any diffs of the edits you have seen would be appreciated. email them if you're unwilling to discuss on-wiki, and I will not disclose my source of course.
I know very little about the Swedish Wikipedia. My experience there has been brief and disagreeable, and is now far behind me, barring the small additions/corrections I may still occasionally make to articles that interest me. And, well, when I said I haven't seen much of Serge correcting Swenglish at enwiki, I really meant I don't remember seeing any of it. Sorry, Andrewa, I should have been more precise. Bishonen | talk13:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC).
I'm sorry that your experience there was brief and disagreeable, and so of course has mine been regarding Swedish issues on English Wikipedia to date. It occurs to me that perhaps this is a common story. Cross-cultural issues can be very tricky. Language and culture are inextricable one from the other, and it is natural to assume that what is good manners (for example) in one's own culture will be seen similarly in the other, and to apply the phrasing etc. of one's own mother tongue to one's second language. And paradoxically, as a result it is also common for speakers of English as a second language to prefer constructions that differ from their mother tongue to others that, to a native speaker, are equally acceptable and equally elegant, or even more elegant. To the speaker of English as a second language they are suspicious and avoided just because they are familiar. This can even be so even after many decades of English immersion. The initial language programming is never completely lost. Her English is too good, he said, that clearly indicates that she is foreign - Enry Iggins. Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Andrewa: The relevant Swedish Wikipedia guidelines can be found at sv:WP:Skrivregler, and derives its mandate from their Manual of Style (which is a guideline rather than a policy). The short version is that they consult external language guides like sv:TT-språket, sv:Svenska skrivregler (bok), and sv:Svenska Akademiens ordlista över svenska språket and obey the rules described there when they are in agreement; and develop local consensus when the external guidelines fail to specify or are conflicting. This is essentially the same as on English Wikipedia. The existence of a prescriptive formal language authority in Sweden (vs. English) has relatively limited relevance in practice: well established style guides for English actually tend to be more prescriptive in practical effect for any given working vocabulary of comparable size to contemporary Swedish. However, for any given specific case (as I believe there was a specific detail that prompted this line of questions), the Swedish Language Council's precepts may be useful to determine which of otherwise equivalent alternatives would be more correct. --Xover (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
You've read my subpage and are comfortable with my conditions? All of them? OK. I need to know for how long you want to be blocked. And also: are you speaking for both your accounts? Checking... oh, gee... for all three of your accounts, as mentioned on your userpage? Regardless, there will in your case be a waiting period of 24 hours from when you reply below (or by e-mail, which is always an option in case you want to speak more personally). I'm going out right now, but the clock will start as soon as you respond. Bishonen | talk13:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC).
But have you read it carefully? As I say there, six months is the maximum term I'll consider. And I'll only do that in extreme cases, since I place very hard blocks (no e-mail, no talkpage access, and the log will contain a warning that any admin who considers unblocking is asked to consult with me first). Will three months do you? Bishonen | talk15:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC).
If you have the stomach to read through my entire email, then you'll understand that I know exactly what I'm asking for, and that I'll take 3 months. Just like 6 months, the urge to edit will be long gone by the time it expires. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
“You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave.” Apologies for quoting an Eagles song. And, I’ve been wrong before. (Still feel guilty about starting that War in 1812.) Mjölnir, whatever is best for you. O3000 (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you very kindly helped a week or so ago when someone was randomly reverting my edits, especially those on the page for Heaton Moor. You also kindly invited me to mention here if it started again. It has - three reverts today, including two of my edits which were fixes for obvious vandalism. Are you able to help again? Many thanks. C0pernicus (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, C0pernicus. I've blocked the most recent IP at Heaton Moor for 72 hours. Please let me know again if there is more. It seems a little ridiculous to semiprotect an article like that, but I will if it becomes necessary. Bishonen | talk14:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC).
Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
There's only one candidate at the moment, (and they have negligible recent experience). Would Bishzilla consider running? She would occupy all vacant seats by herself; problem solved. Vanamonde (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe in another ten years. Bishzilla did run for ArbCom in 2008, and is still resting from the effort of it, I'm afraid. You can see her candidate statement here, and she answered the community's questions very ambitiously.[8] Understandably, there was much wailing and weeping when she withdrew from the election, but she realised then (and still realises now) that actually arbitrating might be even more arduous than answering questions. So no go. The old thing is too lazy. Bishonen | talk18:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC).
What are you hinting, Ponyo, and how did you know "Toblerone" is a dogwhistle for lining one's pockets in Bishzilla's ancient homeland?[9]? There will be no kitten and Toblerone-gate! (She doesn't even eat kittens very often. Too small!) Bishonen | talk20:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC).
Given the fact that I appear to be "universally disliked", I thought I ought to have a run at ArbCom some time – that's one prerequisite ticked (and also in the interests of broadening dinosaur representation of course). --T-RexxS (rawr) 22:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, is there a goodreason to retain this local copy, when there were 2 other versions, in higher quality and higher resolution versions on Wikimedia Commons?
I expect I uploaded it for Reputation of William Shakespeare. (How I enjoyed creating that humble effort centuries ago, and how it has grown by the efforts of many hands since then!) Indeed I wasn't aware that there are now other, better versions; please list it for deletion, ShakespeareFan00, and thank you. Pity none of the versions are now used in the article, having apparently been ousted by the much duller File:David Garrick as Benedick.png, which I also uploaded in 2004. BTW, Benedick is apparently also missing most of the information that it ought to have. [Plaintively:] RexxS fix with some RexxS magic? I don't know who the artist is. Bishonen | talk04:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC).
bishapodtalk to your inner fish needs to be encouraged to develop. Bishapod gets my vote. Has the required intellect for ARBCOM or DEFCOM or whatever it is. I will vote Bishapod. Suggest campaign slogan Bishapod is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills - but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones that allow Bishapod to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Bishapod apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendants, the four-legged vertebrates - a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals and humans. Bishapod knows where you are coming from, don't matter your species. Vote Bishapod, the inclusive one.Simon Adler (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Vote Little Stupid?? Gee. Since I just checked out Bishzilla's campaign statement of ten years ago, I can do no better than quote it: "'Zilla have own sockpuppet: Bishapod a k a Little Stupid. Irritating little user, very stupid, always embarrass 'Zilla, regret creating." As for needing to develop, the first thing he did after he had developed slightly was create the regrettable Darwintwins, over whom he has no control. (Don't suggest they run! For good reasons, they're not allowed in Wikipedia space!) Diversity is not everything. (PS, I think some of the italics may have been unintended, fix.) Bishonen | talk12:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC).
Angus Gardner
Hi. Thank you for protecting Angus Gardner ten days ago. I saw that at the WP:RFPP page you mentioned protecting it for 3 months [10], but the protection at the page is set for 1 year.[11]. I am not sure if that was intentional or not. Personally I would be happy to see every current referee protected for as long as they are refereeing, so I was very tempted to ignore this (partly why I am so late in bringing it to your attention). However I feel something like that should be intentional so thought I would double check. Regards AIRcorn(talk)10:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Er.. no, I did protect for 3 months, Aircorn. Did you perhaps look only at the years (=protected on date in 2018, protected until date in 2019)? It's protected from 4 November 2018 until 4 February 2019 — that is 3 months. By my lights, that's a long protection, considering that it has only ever been protected for a week before.([12] — scroll down to see the log.) It's a BLP, and the vandalism had been fairly nasty (childish but nasty), which is why I yanked it up from a week to 3 months. About current referees being protected — you may well be right — but it takes a lot of abuse for a whole-year protection. Maybe current referees should be pending changes protected as long as they're refereeing? You could suggest it. (I won't, since sports isn't my thing at all.) Bishonen | talk10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC).
Oops, sorry, you're completely right. I must be stuck in some form of time warp. I agree pending changes would be the way to go. Where would the best place be to ask? AIRcorn(talk)
@Aircorn: Oh, rats — I thought you might ask that, and the fact is I don't know. For a single article, you simply ask at WP:RFPP, of course. But for doing it on principle, for all referees, I really can't say. Look, why don't we leave my semi at Angus Gardner until some time in January, and then I PC it indefinitely? (You'll have to remind me.) Bishonen | talk20:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC).
Per this section, do you think that you might also want to full-protect his talk page for the duration of his block, if he wants to stop his interaction? It's probably OK if you don't, but we should let his talkpage go silent. SemiHypercube✎23:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I respect his wishes, will not ask him to return and would prefer if his TP went silent. But, this is up to him. Let us all go silent about going silent. O3000 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
A user has asked for this on his page, SemiHypercube, and I hope people will respect the request and MjolnirPants' obvious wishes, but I won't erect administrative barbed wire around the page until it seems needed. It's better, IMO, to show trust in people's good judgment and good will, unless and until there is reason not to. Bishonen | talk02:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC).
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Bishonen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.
I posted information on the page of Stefano Gabbana. The information is confirmed by The Guardian, NBC, CNN, SCMP, etc. The modification is NOT vandalism. Please read the news and do not keep deleting the information and covering the truth.Jensonw (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I am not the droid you are looking for, Jensonw. I haven't removed a single pixel of text, let alone "kept" deleting information, at Stefano Gabbana; all I did was semiprotect the article against disruptive editing by IPs. In the edit history, you can see Acroterion removed your text. Acroterion has also warned you on your page, so that would be the right place to respond to him and discuss your additions to the article. Oh, look, I see you have posted the protest above word for word at Acroterion's page as well. The same accusation levelled at two administrators doesn't make any sense at all, so now I'm confused. I agree that your additions were inappropriate, by the way. Please read our Biographies of living persons policy. Bishonen | talk02:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC).
Jensonw appears to be too wrapped up in trying to promote outrage to be very concerned about who's done what. I've given an example of what a neutrally-written account might look like, we'll see whether they'll buy into something that might comply with policy, or whether the Truth according to Jensonw can only be written in terms of moral judgment. Acroterion(talk)02:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, admins have absolute power over me on Wikipedia. Admins can ban me and block me. I can do nothing but feel sorry about Wikipedia.Jensonw (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer, sorry to hear you're coming to the end of your tether. No, actually, I won't block you indefinitely, because I don't do that. Six months is the maximum term I will consider. Please see User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks, which contains my principles for these blocks. Bishonen | talk09:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC).
Check an article
Hi, Bishonen. Seasons greetings. Could you help me? I am trying to reorganize Planet Nine to have logical sections. What’s there has grown chaotically as discoveries were published, resulting in a convoluted mess. I need the eye of a non-astrophysicist. Lurker comments are welcomed. JehochmanTalk17:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jehochman: Well, I think I'd better put my observations here for your consideration, since I'm speaking as a 13-year-old reader (I think that's supposed to be Wikipedia's ideal reader), and I don't want to be torn apart by grown-up astrophysicists on article talk. So:
Lead
Better not say "the clustering of the orbits" as if that's something known to the reader. The "clustering" needs to be mentioned/explained in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what it means to say that it was "scattered" onto an eccentric orbit. I mean, it's supposed to be big and round and whole — not scattered. Is it a term of art?
TOC
I agree the TOC needs to be clearer and tighter. Specifically, how about "Origin" —> "Possible origin", and "Alternate hypotheses" —> "Alternate explanations for the effects" ? It's true that "Previous models with additional planets" wouldn't fit into that, but then it already doesn't fit. Shouldn't it be its own top-level header? It's history, so it should theoretically be high up, though the trouble with that is that reading about the historical background is a lot less interesting than reading about the Superearth itself. Maybe shorten it drastically (since there are "main articles" that cover it) and move it up?
It would be nice if "Searches for additional extreme trans-Neptunian objects" could also be packed away somewhere where it doesn't interrupt the main narrative as much.
Hi Bish: some young fans of Bishzilla want to know if she has a twitter account (they apparently searched for it already and couldn't find it, I was going to send you an email about this but must blame distractions). The two kids are super impressed by her fridge and the cozy pocket! On a less serious note, I was trying to change the title of the Kama Sutra article, one I am reviewing and updating these days. The title that is predominantly found in the RS is Kamasutra ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17] etc), consistent with the title of the original text. The word split and capitalization of the second part is uncommon. I tried to move it. The message I get is this move needs some admin action. FWIW, I checked the archives and talk page, there is no relevant discussion on why Kama Sutra, rather than Kamasutra as the title. I see Hijiri88 created a redirect in 2006. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Одни правила Википедии прямо противоречат другим, и выполнение одних правил всегда приводит к нарушению других, что не является нарушением правил. Так, например, наличие административных прав позволяет одним участникам принимать решения без консенсуса с другими, что приводит к возможности злоупотреблений, а разрешение игнорировать все правила (пятый столп, или викиидеология - либеральная пятая колонна) приводит в том числе к нарушению этичного поведения и к конфликтам. Блокировки участников и удаления страниц снижают популярность проекта в обществе и качество материалов. Одним из сомнительных факторов в русском разделе Википедии является так же оплачиваемое участие.
Жёсткие правила не являются недостатком, если все участники их придерживаются, но поскольку правила противоречат друг другу и сами себя нейтрализуют, то фактически начинают действовать другие, не оглашённые закономерности, основанные на произволе участников, ограниченном их уровнем образования и нравственности, техническими условиями ресурса и законами окружающего мира. При этом малое количество участников с дополнительными правами ограничивают добавление информации, иногда вопреки улучшению статей, но не могут осуществить полный контроль над проектом, поэтому в остальной части Википедии большинство обычных пользователей могут бесконтрольно добавлять всякую информацию. В основном люди делают больше хороших правок, улучшающих статьи, именно за счёт этого Википедия и развивается.
В общем и целом, правила вторичны по отношению к целям Википедии. И это означает, что для достижения цели все средства хороши.
Одна из проблем Википедии - это подмена истинности и объективности информации на авторитетность.
Абсолютная истинность - это идеальное состояние, которого нельзя достичь в силу разных ограничений. Но это вовсе не значит, что не нужно стремиться к истине.
Истина имеет уникальное свойство: если люди стремятся к истинности и объективности, их субъективные мнения всё меньше отличаются и содержат меньше противоречий. Люди, ищущие истину, рано или поздно приходят к единому мнению. В споре рождается истина.
Если участники спора не могут прийти к единому мнению, это может означать:
Недостаточный уровень знаний. Участники могут имеют недостаточно знаний в данной области. Наука открыла ещё не все законы, и мы многого можем не знать. Чтобы преодолеть это, нужно получать образование, учиться и познавать новую информацию об окружающем мире и его законах.
Недостаточный уровень нравственности. Некоторые из участвующих в обсуждении могут не стремиться привести своё субъективное мнение к объективности. Следует учитывать, что доказательство не обязательно предполагает истинность. Доказывать можно и нечто, не соответствующее истине, причём вполне успешно. Но к истине это отношения не имеет.
Если по каким-то причинам не удаётся преодолеть противоречия в различных вопросах, в этом случае нужно придерживаться правил этики, чтобы избежать конфликтов, и попытаться продолжить поиск истины. Если нельзя достичь истины сейчас, это не значит, что её невозможно будет достичь в будущем. LllKSTlll (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@LllKSTlll: Are you aware that this is the English Wikipedia? If you're not able to communicate in English, I suggest you contribute to the Russian Wikipedia instead. Bishonen | talk21:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC).
Short synopsis: It's a long rant about rules on the Russian Wikipedia, what they are, aren't and ought to be, plus complaints about administrator abuse and paid editing there. - Tom | Thomas.W talk22:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'm sure it was well-intentioned. To save everybody else from having to Google translate, here's what it says:
Wikipedia Rules
Some Wikipedia rules directly contradict others, and the implementation of some rules always leads to a violation of others, which is not a violation of the rules. For example, the presence of administrative rights allows some participants to make decisions without consensus with others, which leads to the possibility of abuse, and permission to ignore all the rules (the fifth pillar, or wikideology - the liberal fifth column) leads, inter alia, to the violation of ethical behavior and conflicts. . Locking participants and deleting pages reduces the project’s popularity in the community and the quality of materials. One of the dubious factors in the Russian section of Wikipedia is also paid participation.
Strict rules are not a disadvantage if all participants adhere to them, but since the rules contradict each other and neutralize themselves, then other, non-announced laws based on the arbitrariness of the participants, limited by their level of education and morality, technical conditions of the resource and laws, start to act. the world around us. At the same time, a small number of participants with additional rights restrict the addition of information, sometimes despite the improvement of articles, but they cannot exercise full control over the project, so most ordinary users can uncontrollably add any information to the rest of Wikipedia. Mostly people make more good edits that improve articles, it is due to this that Wikipedia is developing.
In general, the rules are secondary to the goals of Wikipedia. And this means that to achieve the goal all means are good.
One of the problems of Wikipedia is the substitution of truth and objectivity of information for credibility.
Absolute truth is an ideal state that cannot be achieved due to various limitations. But this does not mean that one should not strive for the truth.
Truth has a unique property: if people strive for truth and objectivity, their subjective opinions differ less and contain less contradictions. People seeking the truth, sooner or later come to a consensus. In a dispute, truth is born.
If the parties to the dispute cannot reach a consensus, this may mean:
Insufficient level of knowledge. Participants may not have enough knowledge in this area. Science has not yet discovered all the laws, and we may not know much. To overcome this, you need to get an education, learn and learn new information about the world and its laws.
Lack of morality. Some of the participants in the discussion may not seek to bring their subjective opinion to objectivity. It should be borne in mind that evidence does not necessarily imply truth. You can prove something that does not correspond to the truth, and quite successfully. But this has nothing to do with the truth.
If for some reason it is not possible to overcome contradictions in various issues, in this case, you must adhere to the rules of ethics to avoid conflicts, and try to continue the search for truth. If truth cannot be reached now, it does not mean that it cannot be achieved in the future.
You're sure it was well-intentioned, really? Well, if you go deep enough, I suppose everything is on some level well-intentioned. Thank you for your useful information, Ponyo — I feel I now understand better where the user is coming from. Bishonen | talk14:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC).
Discretionary sanction on Lauren Southern talk page
I did not see the warning this until after the last edit. At the end of the BLP I said there doesn't appear to be a BLP issue here and that I would continue the conversation as far as LEAD and NPOV goes. Nobody there objected to that plan. I'm not sure I understand how I "severely or persistently violated Wikipedia policy". I asked you this initially and received no clear response. WP:BLUDGEON is not a policy. I've participated on a number of 3rd opinions and have seen some pretty lengthy and heated exchanges over seemingly trivial details. Based on my experience, I would not consider this talk page a lengthy discussion nor an example of WP:BLUDGEON, but I could be wrong. I felt I was understanding the others position and we were actually making progress, having a WP:civil discussion, following the guidelines of WP:TALK#USE, WP:TPG#YES and WP:TPNO and moving towards a consensus without edit warring. Had you let things play out a little longer I think you would have been surprised. Perhaps the fact that this article is somewhat political there is a different standard. I realize you are probably very busy, but I would like to discuss this a bit further.Digdeepertalk02:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
(Please try to indent your responses with one more colon, so that everything doesn't become one block. I've fixed it for you.) I had a feeling you'd say that, but I don't understand what prevented you from going back and removing, or striking out, your post after you'd seen my warning. I assume that when you hit "Publish changes", you got an alert about having a message on your page, and then you read that message? That would have been the time to go back and remove your post.
But never mind, at least you are confirming that you have now seen my warning! I've withdrawn the ban. You may make edits related to Lauren Southern. But if you are drawn again towards further nagging about whether she should be referred to as "far right", I will reinstate the ban. Leave that subject alone; you have exhausted it, and exhausted the people who keep explaining to you. Wearing out your opponents on talkpages is disruptive. See WP:REHASH, a behavioral guideline. You may also find yourself topic banned in case you light on some other detail, concerning that biography or another, and chew over that interminably. Bishonen | talk09:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC).
I appreciate the lifting of the ban. I made the comment on the article's talk page. I didn't check my talk page or notification bell until after the ban. There has never been an urgency to check these in the past. I will try to check these alerts/talk page more regularly in the future.
@Bishonen: It is my understanding that WP:REHASH is not a behavioral guideline, but a supplement. Regardless, it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that I'm being banned from further discussion because of being considered as a "tendentious editor" (rehash). However WP:DISRUPTSIGNS (behavioral guideline) seems to suggest that that "tendentious editors" are those who "...continue editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors." I could be wrong, but having a lengthy discussion on an article's talk page is different than this sort of edit war. I don't consider the exchange on the talk page as an edit war, or uncivil or off topic or mean spirited.
In WP:TALKDONTREVERT there seems to be a sense that consensus requires a discussion run it's course, while ending a discussion prematurely could perhaps be considered by some to be WP:STONEWALL or WP:OWN. I'm feeling that the discussion was productive and making some headway. I think I can understand your point of view, that perhaps articles about things like religion and politics probably demand more admin oversight than other articles. I feel the sanction on a talk page in this situation is premature and unjustified and I would feel more comfortable if you were to allow the conversation to continue and not place a restriction on my editing activity.
From the essay WP:DSAN "Being a cause of annoyance to other editors is not itself disruptive and sanctions should not be implemented without indication that an editor's contributions are having the effect of preventing improvement of an article." (copied to my talk page for convenience).Digdeepertalk02:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Remember Me? I remember you!
Hello Bish!
After years of being busy along with maintaining a technologically bereft state, I am ready and willing and ABLE to throw some time into this project again. I am looking for a sponsor in good standing to nominate me for administrator responsibilities. You are the first person I have asked, but I plan to let Slim V and DMCDevit know that I am "back" as well.
It's been awhile, but after some English Lit. credits, my writing style is MUCH better than it once was. You could also count on my continued stalwart attitude concerning the improvement of the project through reversion and cleanup of vandalism, and the kind of guidance I have been able to provide to newbies and certain problematic editors who I think I was able to help become productive and genteel in their editing here. In short, I wish to be the kind of admin I always was. Questions, comments and ideas are appreciated. Talk to you soon... Best Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Please, don't even consider it until you've got some content contributions under your belt. The Wikipedia of 2016 isn't the Wikipedia of 2005, and unless and until you've got some kind of evidence to demonstrate that you understand the current approach to sourcing, writing, and editor conduct, the RFA participants are unlikely to look very favourably on you. Given that you have a grand total of three mainspace edits in the past year, two of which were minor edits and the third of which was an unsourced claim that somebody had died, an RFA is unlikely to get a single support. ‑ Iridescent19:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Rather than content generation, most of my administrative actions in the past centered on reversion of vandalism, warning problematic editors and blocking incorrigible and combative editors. It had very little to do with content creation, in fact.
Going over the new improved edit counter I see that virtually none of the content I have created has been removed/ reverted. I go for quality over quantity.
This project is not some kind of contest to me. It needs help, and care and improvement constantly, and that is my only motivation. The main difference I perceive in the Wikipedia 2018 is an unsettling feeling that it has become somehow elitist... Based on terms of endearment to the "community" rather than competence and willingness to do the work. Thus, I have asked a couple of respected Wikipedians whom I worked closely with in the past, and who know my intentions are only to improve the project. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know you have good intentions, and I'm glad to see you back, Hamster Sandwich. Hey, have you seen how to make thin hamster for sandwich? But as for going for admin, I agree completely with Iridescent. Look at a few recent RFA's and see what people expect, and what makes them oppose. You need to do some recent content work, and also preferably to show your good judgment in places like WP:ANI. As Iridescent says, it's a different place now. Bishonen | talk21:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC).
Bish, too much! TOO MUCH!! What a bunch of dicks I dealt with today. If you'd like to reconnect, name a venue outside of this place, and it would be a joy and a pleasure. I am withdrawing from WP... Recoiling would be more accurate... Recoiling in a kind of revulsion. I will never edit a single thing again. I will continue to spend endless days reading, but I will never augment WP. I am loathe to write another single word. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's very, very difficult to pass RFA nowadays without at least 10,000 edits -- that hasn't happened in over 1.5 years, and even that one was a special case. It's also very very difficult to pass RFA without a clear current commitment to, and knowledge of, the project. I agree with looking at lots of RFAs, as many as you can, starting with the most recent and going backwards. It's quite tough at RFA now, and you don't want to set yourself up for grief. Softlavender (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Not even going to bother... My new plan is to go whining from place to place when I think an admin needs to take action. Which as you know will probably be A LOT. Everytime I see something that needs to be reverted, every time I see something that needs an admins hand, I will be whinging and moaning and... well you get the picture. Things that would normally be an easy fix will be dropped into a variety of laps. For example... my removal of some nonsense at The Ley School page... "Can someone please remove those two extraneous words?". Going forward, that will be a request at some Administrator page or other. Because I can't look at vandalism in the project and do nothing. That would be irresponsible. Since the little "Keep me logged in" button (a new feature to me...) will keep me logged in for a year, no need to edit "anonymously" anymore as well! Happy Days! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The difference between the last three is that at AN, the community will evaluate the ban and your arguments; at AE, uninvolved administrators will, and the process will be more structured and probably quicker than at AN; and at ARCA, the Arbitration Committee will. I'd advise against going straight to ARCA, both because ArbCom tends to be the slowest option, and because once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is disallowed. You might want to take a look at some cases brought to AN and AE respectively, to get a sense of which venue would suit you better.
Thank you for your understanding and flexibility. I can understand how my edits as of the past few days could've lead to this block. I have been acting with haste and editing not to improve Wikipedia, but to revert other edits by people I disagree with. I'm not here to be a vigilante, I'm just here to try to contribute to Wikipedia constructively. Regardless if the block is reverted before the next three months, I do plan on staying away from post-1932 politics for a while. It isn't all I edit, but the inherent POV complications that come along with pages on political figures has certainly riled me up. Thank you for your time and consideration. KidAd (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Still, I would like to make my case for being un-banned. I edit on Wikipedia to eliminate language that violates NPOV. I can see why my latest back-and-forths with snoogans have lead to this, but I would also like to point out that, to me, I was merely mitigating the harm being done by a bad-faith editor. I do not intend to impart my own feelings or political opinions on articles as snoogans finds himself in the habit of doing. As we speak, he has gone behind my back to revert most of the work I've been doing in the past few days. Not only does Snoogans write with a strong political bias, his writing is so glaringly incorrect in form that is punctures ruins perfectly good articles. If I am unblocked, I do plan on staying away from snoogans, but I think that editors like me should be around to counteract bad faith editors. Thanks. KidAd (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh! I didn't know. I just typed up a "no" for KidAd, together with some detailed advice about what to do and what to avoid when he went on to Option 2 or Option 3. Not much point in posting it now, I guess. Pity. Well, I waste time most days, why not today. Bishonen | talk20:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC).
I was going to suggest you post it anyway, so they can use it for their next appeal (this one is not going to be successful), but I see it will expire in 3 months, so... yeah, I guess it was wasted time. Oh well. Still counts toward good karma. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, and other people have now given him pretty much the same advice on AN. Oh dear, this, pointed out by Mr Serial Number on AN, is not good at all. Battleground. Bishonen | talk22:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC).
I saw your comment at ANI (it's suppressed, so I can't link to it, but I read it). I went and looked through HF's talk page and re-read the BN discussion (which I had just glanced through the first time). I was thoroughly unimpressed by Leaky Cauldron's comments, and I think it's quite understandable that Hamster Fan's a bit miffed. If I'd seen that beforehand, I'd probably have just dealt with the vandal and more or less ignored ANI. That said, I think the tone at ANI at the point that I had pinged you was not nasty: do you disagree? I can't fault you for not wanting to step in, but I wasn't sure if your comments about biting were directed at me or at Leaky Cauldron and Iri; if it was me, I'd like to know. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to you, Vanamonde, but to Leaky caldron and Iri. I see a lot of stuff has been suppressed; I suppose I and others got caught up in something that needed removing from the public archives, not that I understand how it works. I mean, my comment that you're talking about, for instance, is suppressed, which also kills Godric's diff just above, but it's perfectly well visible on the actual page still (AN, not ANI, [18] if anybody's interested in these mysteries), which convinces me the problem didn't emanate from me. Bishonen | talk16:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC).
Okay, good to know. The suppressed stuff has to do with the request currently sitting at ARBCOM; a potentially libelous/defamatory comment about a banned editor was removed after it had been on the noticeboard for a while, so a lot of other stuff was caught up in it. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I offer my apologies, and my gratitude to both of you. I should have disengaged from the situation immediately after User:UninvitedCompany's Oppose comment and when I had given my thanks. I was under the impression at the time that every commentator there was a Bureaucrat, and was appalled at the quality of the discussion subsequent to my thanking the interested parties for their (mostly) helpful comments. I rose to the bait, and that was the end for me. It will never happen again. Please allow me this opportunity for sincere contrition. Best Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Apology accepted, and thank you for being gracious. The comments at BN (and later at your talk page) were really quite unpleasant, and your pique is understandable. Vanamonde (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Re Sandeep7422. You topic banned them from Rajput related articles a couple of years ago but they seem to be back in action again (see [20]). Could you take a look?--regentspark (comment) 17:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I looked. He added stuff to Sikh Rajputs with his IP in October,[21] which I recently reverted. Now that I've protected the page, he has had to log in,[22] but both text and edit summaries make it obvious it's the same person. And now he doesn't have a current discretionary sanctions notice. :-( Well, doesn't matter, the user is so incompetent that it's not much use dabbling in further topic bans anyway. I was going to say I'll indeff for persistent disruptive editing, but realized I'm involved on the article now: I've reverted him. If you're not involved, perhaps you'll do it, regentspark? If you agree it's the proper action, I mean. Bishonen | talk21:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC).
Oh, that too? Perhaps that was how he got into the habit of editing as an IP, and maybe didn't even realize the six-month ban had expired. Good block. Bishonen | talk21:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC).
I won't be editing anymore. I want people to leave me alone and stop posting on it. If I don't edit there's no reason for the talk page to be unlocked. I want to be left alone. --Tarage (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Tarage. I'll protect your talkpage so that only admins can edit it. (That's the strongest protection I can do.) I'm very sorry to see you so upset. I'll take the opportunity to say that I haven't been on line — I'm not very well — and I didn't see your ping to AN until the thread had been closed. Closed the first time, I mean. If I had seen it, I would have posted to confirm that you were being very helpful to a user with poor English on my page, like you said.[24] Indeed you had more patience with him than I did. Now that the AN thread is open again, I'll take the opportunity to post in it. Oh... crap, no it has just been closed again. Story of my life. Well, I'll sneak into it anyway. Everybody is welcome to come here and complain about my lack of discipline. I'll be busy with a migraine. Bishonen | talk20:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC).
FYI I reclosed the AN discussion and posted the required notice to Tarage's talk page. As it's fully protected he cannot remove it, but he's not blocked, so if he asks here or elsewhere for it to be removed, you or I or any admin can do so. 28bytes (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Could I beg another favour please? I'm currently mentoring a bunch of youngsters for Google Code-In. One of the tasks I've set them is to copy a piece of code from Module:Sandbox/RexxS/SayHello into their own module sandbox and then make a small modification. Naturally, Sod's law comes into play and several of the students have been modifying Module:Sandbox/RexxS/SayHello instead of their own copy. Page history.
Could you possibly use your magical powers and see if you can find a stubby article I wrote and illustrated years ago called Broxwood Court. It seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth. Perhaps I misspelt the title in the original. All very odd. Giano(talk)22:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I know I didn’t imagine writing it, I stayed there and took the photographs. Very nice sold Roman Catholic family with an odd practice of naming the summer houses and paths after saints and such like. Old aristocratic English Catholic’s always go completely overboard with their religion, but that’s no reason not to write up their houses. I put it down to Evelyn Waugh and all that genuflecting and alcoholism. Giano(talk)22:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I did a quick search through your deleted contributions, Giano, and I was unable to find anything relevant...nor is it in suppressed contributions. Do you think you may have created this in a sandbox, under a different title? I haven't the skills to do a Regex search through deleted contributions, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
How odd, I’m sure I wrote it and it had a picture of the house with rhododendrons in bloom. Perhaps it’s in a sandbox and bnever published, I will have to hunt about. Giano(talk)08:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I searched deleted contribs last night and sandbox deletions and edit summaries but didn't come up with it. Giano, did you upload that photo to Commons? Perhaps the "What links here" on that photo would be useful to finding the article. — Berean Hunter(talk)13:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I’m sure I wrote it. I will keep looking. I’ve got so many almost finished pages in sandboxes, I sometimes loose track, usually after I’ve lost interest. Giano(talk)16:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Done It seems that Her Ladyship's request went unheeded. If you happen to see her in the near future, please give her our apologies from all the admin corps for being so truculent. — Berean Hunter(talk)18:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, but WTF has happened to it? It was a lovely English garden, and now it looks like a styalised painting by a demented 1930s art student. If I find Commons has been within a mile of this image, I shall................. Giano(talk)19:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I took a look at the image to see if it can be fixed, and managed to remove 90+% of the "raster pattern" (which was probably caused by compressing the image too much, which is why I always save images as either uncompressed or PNG...) and make the foreground (i.e. water, waterplants, rhododendron and lawn) look fairly good, by fixing the colour saturation, but there's not enough detail to work with in the background of the image (i.e. the buildings, background trees and sky). So the only way to fix it is to upload the original image (as a PNG). Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk19:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Ahh! It may be just remotely possible that my semi-late great aunt took the picture with her Kodak brownie. However, that doesn’t excuse what has happened to it. Anyway, thank you for your efforts which are a vast improvement, I shall now try and recreate the article, whersoever, which once went with it. Thank you very much. More to the point was a perfectly good image every deleted, one despairs, one really does. Giano(talk)20:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The farm land belonging to it is up for sale: just over 200 acres for £2.1M (main house, 20 acre park and surrounding buildings not included). And there are plenty of pictures of the park and the building(s) here in case anyone is interested... - Tom | Thomas.W talk21:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Very sad, another estate bites the sand, but most of it was long gone already. Britain doesn’t value its farmers and pays only lip service to its landscape. No doubt, post this ridiculous Brexit, Mr Corbyn will please the left-wing masses with a Right to Roam, which will further damage an already damaged farming industry. I expect, though, another local farmer will borrow the money to buy Broxwood. Think of the old joke about the farmer winning the National Lottery when asked if it will change his life: “Oh no, I shall use to stay farming until it’s all gone.” Giano(talk)21:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I read above that you are not feeling well, so I just want to let you know that you are appreciated and respected here. I hope that you feel much better soon. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
True story: birding has long been one of my hobbies, and when I was a very young fish, I was looking through binoculars at some birds on a lake, when an elderly man walked up and asked me what kinds of birds they were. I replied: "They're mainly coots." He then asked me what kind of a bird a "mainly coot" is. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm 62. I have no idea what the age of that old man was. And let's not insult perfectly nice birds by comparing them to humans. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
And you young'uns should remember that all those perfectly nice birds are the great-great-grandkids of us dinos. Ageism indeed. --T-RexxS (rawr) 00:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Louis. You may be right, but I don't think it's an obvious sock. I already got pinged once about this possible connection, and took a look.[29] You could try WP:SPI to see if another admin disagrees and blocks. (Checkuser won't connect an account and an IP, as you probably know.) Bishonen | talk21:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC).
Peace Dove Christmas
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Hello Bishonen,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk08:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk16:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!
Ah, it's the little Coffman! Merry to you too!
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Hi Bishonen, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,
Have you checked that Darwinbish is properly vaccinated for the shopping-returns season?
This comment is possibly due to a rumour I read that I like to pedal fish. Just thought I'd see if en.wp had any extra stock photos, and I discovered tex! ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c23:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, little Darwinbish's admin suit, I'd forgotten about that! Very becoming! Needs vaccinating before she starts admin-biting unhygienic users, you're right, young Jam Roly-poly. Bishonen | talk00:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC).
Buone Feste!
Merry Christmas from London, Bish ...
and a New Year filled with peace and happiness (and grapes, tangerines, panettone, ricciarelli, pan d'oro, and ciocolattini).
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
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 doubt that I've ever before blocked such a wide range, but this time it really did seem justified to do so for at least a couple of days. Hi, Sitush. Long time since we were in contact. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Let's make 2019 the Year of the Tough Admin! At least, I'll happily remain a softie myself, since I have Bishzilla to do my work. Bishonen | talk19:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC).
Yes, I see you're right, Galobtter. In fact I now see that even the shortest block ever placed by any other administrator on that range was almost six times as long as my puny little block, and the longest was over 70 times as long. So who's the softie now, Bishonen? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:POLEMIC
Vfrickey's user page strikes me as somewhat polemical. You and I are specifically mentioned, and I am attacked as making a discussion "political" by, if I recall the context correctly, calling Breitbart.com an unreliable source of information. I was gonna just blank the portions that explicitly referred to me, but thought it best to ask your opinion of the matter first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for disambiguating the headers, Hijiri 88. [With false modesty which deceives noone:] Dear me, it's such a problem to get so many fan letters, I mean barnstars! One gets quite snowed under!
I don't see anything that explicitly refers to you on that userpage, you know. I myself am in fact explicitly mentioned, though not visibly, in a piped link to my name; whereas you're only indirectly referred to in a link of this form, which has rotted, as links will when people don't know how to make them permanent. Readers would have been able to identify you from it before I archived my page, but they can't now. So is it really a big deal? I don't think so. IMO you shouldn't remove anything from the page. Unless I've missed some other, clearer reference to you? But a search suggests not. And there are certainly more polemical userpages dotted around the place, which people complain about from time to time, but so far, the examples I'm thinking of have survived attempts to take them down or remove stuff from them. Bishonen | talk02:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC).
Here, here! I remember in 2017 an editor repeatedly accused me and Curly Turkey (talk·contribs) of vandalism, and yet somehow avoided getting blocked until he accused us of being socks of each other, and then only for a few days, then avoided getting indeffed until it turned out he himself was socking. Would that (bona fide!) NPA violations were treated as seriously as sock violations... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! People usually stop after being informed it's improper, but this charmer just kept going. Bishzilla don't like that. Bishonen | talk02:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC).
Competence?
Is there any way that you can get Chekaun to understand why a source written in the 12th century is not reliable? They came off there block and just went straight to my talk page with basically the same question I'd already answered there at least twice just before their block; then they waited a few hours and have posted this. The source they are wanting to use is Periya Puranam. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. I'm afraid I do not understand their thinking but that you sort-of do is understandable because you most likely won't be aware that there is a 400-600 year gap between the 63 saints and the Periya that documents them. And it is acknowledged to be hagiographic in the "deprecated" sense of the word, not just because its contents are the stories of the lives of saints.
So, that gap is neither close nor involved, and the document is effectively medieval fancruft. They should know that, even though there is no reason why you would. What is sad is that you can see the problem even without being forearmed with the knowledge but they cannot see it despite having that knowledge.
I'm sorry to have been dragging you into so many of these weird disputes etc in recent days. There do not seem to be many admins active at the moment who would usually be prepared to step in regarding caste etc issues, so I can't spread the load. Eg: Spiff has been inactive since early November, Abecedare for even longer, and Regents Park is not around much. The help is appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
What I meant was, I took him to be saying that "primary sources are... close to an event", per WP:PRIMARY, whereas Periya Puranam isn't close to the saints' lives — as you say, it's 400-600 years later — and therefore he wants to define it as not a primary source. (Of course it is, and there are many things wrong with it as a source.)
Don't be sorry, it's not much of a load: I just hurl the banhammer, it's easy. I was just thinking how dreadfully frustrating it must be for you to keep explaining things to these caste warriors. I admire your patience with them. (Aren't they getting more clueless?) Bishonen | talk19:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC).
Occam's razor, Chère (or is it "acquired immunity"?). The effect of the banhammer is: the slightly clueless get cured and may become productive editors; the moderately clueless realise what's happening and desist; which only leaves the very clueless. That's why you seem to be seeing more of them. --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I misunderstood why you understood (!) Anyway, they've since made a hash of things at Channar (surname) relating to the same issue, ie: the caste of that saint. I have had to revert again - one of the sources didn't even mention the putative caste and I'm actually unsure why one particular person was being mentioned as belonging to that caste in an article that is actually about a surname. Perhaps they misread which article they were editing. - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
It's good that you explained your latest reverts on his page, with specific reference to the sources. If he uses those same sources again, I'll block or ban. Man, it's really a lot better if he can be made to get it, though. It's too easy to create a sock and carry on. Bishonen | talk21:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC).
Btw, RexxS, do you know where the panel of helpful buttons at the top of the edit window has got to? Suddenly I'm having to type <nowiki> and things like that, it's unconscionable. Is it just me? How can I get it back? Bishonen | talk21:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC).
Next street left from me, two doors down. That blue thing at the top of the edit box - has the buttons for Advanced, Special characters, switching to Visual Editor etc. Well, it does in my view anyway. Perhaps you're referring to something completely different. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that the one at the top of the edit window was a sort of "add-on", and I found it somewhat flakey, so abandoned it a while ago. I now use the facility at the bottom-left of the edit window where you can use the drop-down box (just to the left of "Insert") to select 'Wiki markup', which has got most of the things I want. It stays across logouts until you select a different one. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll see you there, Sitush. I don't have a blue thing. The absolutely only thing at the top of my edit box is the legend "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." I wonder if I might have removed the blue thing some time ago, out of annoyance with the Visual Editor thing?
Oh, yeah. I know the one that you mean, at the bottom of the edit box. It's there when I edit my talk page but not when I edit yours. - Sitush (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 4) You need to have Preferences → Editing → Enable the editing toolbar ticked to see Sitush's toolbar. Your old toolbar can be returned by unticking that preference and ticking Preferences → Gadgets → Editing → Enable the legacy (2006) editing toolbar. This will be overridden by the "Enable the editing toolbar" option in the Editing tab. Not my fault there are so many. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
There are three toolbars that you can enable from Preferences. One is on the Editing tab and two are in the 'editing' section of the Gadgets tab. Play with ticking/unticking them and saving (at the bottom) each time. See which one(s) you like - you can't have both of the top ones at once. --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Sitush: Well, I have enabled it, and in that place, but surely that shouldn't affect what you see? These are mysteries.
RexxS: Thanks very much, I now have my "legacy" (bah, snort) buttons back, hopefully they won't drop out again. I don't understand why they did. I don't recall ever seeing what you call Sitush's toolbar before. (Ugly, it is.) Bishonen | talk22:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC).
Coming full circle, please, please can you bring down the hammer on them? What a timesink, per their overnight edits to articles and their own talk page. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the user has been eating up the time and patience of constructive users for long enough. A topic ban would merely prolong the agony IMO; I've indeffed. Bishonen | talk16:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC).
Undiscussed page move
Hi, someone has just moved Muthuraja to Muthu Raja without discussion and, I think, in violation of WP:COMMONNAME. I thought I was now able to move such things back after a recent change in user rights but it seems not. Can you or one of your watchers please oblige. Rationale is "undiscussed move, seemingly contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. See WP:RM". Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Since the expiry of DS protection imposed by Spiff at Kongu Vellalar, the article has become a complete mess again. I've just issued a couple of sanctions notifications to recent edit warring contributors but, honestly, the thing has been trouble for years, in particular from a long-standing sock farm. Can anything more be done? I suspect Spiff would have reinstated the protection had they been active. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I've now asked for the Kongu Vellalar article to be semi'd indefinitely via WP:RFPP. However, there is still the issue of continued edit warring and one character, in particular, is making all sorts of other mistakes, ie: Jkalaiarasan86 (nopinged because they also don't seem to understand appropriate talk page usage & you can probably do without them here). - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sitush: Galobtter has semi'd Kongu Vellalar indefinitely. [Plaintively]: Caste is so complicated! Tell me, what do you take to be the point of Jkalaiarasan86's reverts and other edits? Do they constitute caste promotion? How? Bishonen | talk11:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC).
I have no idea if it is promotion or not. There is a group of South Indian castes that really hate each other, hence they have umpteen caste-based political parties and engage in riots/beatings etc. My gut feeling is that this is a part of that scenario but I don't have sufficient evidence to prove it - there is a fairly remote chance that they're just interested in the topic, although very clueless. The complication is the existence of a long-term sockfarm based on PONDHEEPANKAR (talk·contribs), who was indef'd in 2007 but in Spiff's opinion is still knocking around those articles (esp. the Vellalar-related ones); alas, my ability to spot socks is nothing like Spiff's and that is why I find myself wasting far too much time dealing with people who are then summarily sock blocked when Spiff turns up! FWIW, I think Spiff is pretty much always right with their spotting - it tends to be obvious to me after the block! - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It's a pity, because I hesitate to block when I can't understand what he's doing. It's tempting, in fact, to block because his English is so bad (what does "They live past as Zamindars" even mean?) but, well, that has its own problems. A question for you: if I should topic ban him from caste and social groups, would that cover the articles he's messing up? Bishonen | talk11:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC).
Yes, that would do it. Zamindars were dynastic landlords, sometimes quite powerful, sometimes owning little more than a couple of fields. "Social groups" would presumably cover that, although to be honest I've yet to see an article about a zamindar family that wasn't in large part about their caste anyway - it's all about showing that caste X or Y or Z was powerful and that the blood of those ancestors runs through to the present day, therefore the current people are powerful even though they're often now dispossessed trash collectors or whatever. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
For what it is worth, things like undiscussed page moves/reversals of redirects, pasting of what appears to be material copied from elsewhere, uploading as "own work" an image that has been knocking around for some years etc are all competence issues that go beyond the topic ban area. But I suspect that they won't do much if topic banned anyway. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Is that the now deleted File:Muthuraja.jpg? I would rather sanction because of the kinds of issues you list there, than topic ban, in this case. I must eat now, but I'll take a good look later. Bishonen | talk14:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC).
That file was one of the two I have mentioned to them (both since deleted at Commons, with others) but the diff immediately above is them yet again reinstating the same material instead of discussing it. There's another anon involved now, who has just redirected Muthuraja to Vettuvar so, yes, this is looking like an inter-caste war being fought out across a few related articles on Wikipedia. I see they've been in trouble at ta-WP, including an accusation of suspected socking. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hope you ate well, and thanks. Can I restore from any damage or should I leave it? Their efforts are definitely inappropriate. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I've restored the last good version. Sitush shouldn't have to carry all the burden himself, and they may feel marginally less inclined to edit-war against two of us trying to keep the article stable. --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, RexxS. I only just realized how stupid the ping/alert system is: I got an alert stating "Your edit on Muthuraja was reverted". That turned out to be a reference to your revert to the last good version. Kind of humorous. No, I mean, how dare you revert me, sir? As for fixing damage, Sitush, you and everybody else can, absolutely. Feel free. I would just rather not do it myself; it feels best to keep a bare sword between Bishonen Admin and Bishonen Editor. [Tries to recollect who the lovers divided by a sword were. Tristan and Isolde? Lancelot and Whatname? Man, I'm ignorant.] Sitush, I think it was a very good idea of yours to ask J outright where he copied the suspiciously good English from, on his page. If he prevaricates, or doesn't reply at all, you, me, and any reviewing admin will know where we stand with him. Bishonen | talk16:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC).
Damn, it is only 8 days into the year and I've already hit my annual "good idea" record. Doesn't bode well - it has proven to be a fairly consistent figure. I'm fairly sure I've found one bit of their copying but it is in snippet view. And I'm confident that stuff such as During the 7th to 8th centuries, the Mutharaiyar served as feudatories of the Pallava dynasty and controlled the fertile plains of the Kaveri region isn't own work, even though I haven't tracked it down yet. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sitush:, @RexxS:, @Bishonen: Hi, I would like to add some context to the recent edits in Muthuraja and Kongu Vellalar articles. To cut to the chase, as Sitush rightly pointed out, it is generally the tendency to portray one's own caste as superior. In this case the edit wars were started by Jkalaiarasan86 (talk·contribs) when he made this edit [30]. This is confirmed by a user of the opposing team [31]. The varna Sudra is perceived as derogatory and lower in status than Kshatriya. So the users of Kongu Vellalar page reviewed Jkalaiarasan86's contributions and assumed that he belonged to the Muthuraja community and started edit warring in that page. That being said, the version that was being reverted to, by Jkalaiarasan86, was in fact the version as edited by me. I've spent considerable amount of time doing some research and made some genuine edits to the article after collating the refs. So please use your discretion when you revert the article to some stale version. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, that might explain things a little, although my specific comment above related to Mutharaiyar dynasty. I'd just stumbled across this version of the Muthuraja article, which has the florid "fertile plains" phrase in it but cited to a different source. I remain concerned that the articles have copyrighted stuff in it, even if from years ago. And I wonder ifthe dynasty article has also been split out of Muthuraja without attribution. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Nittawinoda. I'm sorry that reversion is such a blunt tool, and I apologise if I've inadvertently removed any of your useful contributions. Unfortunately, when a large volume of back-and-forth edit-warring has taken place, it can be difficult to find a version that disentangles the good from the bad. Can I suggest you engage at Talk:Muthuraja #Stable version with specific suggestions for changes, so that you can get some consensus for those changes. Doing that would not only help improve the article directly, but would give a pointer to the edit-warriors on how we expect disagreements to be resolved. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@RexxS:, Yes will engage in the talk page. Please go ahead review the article as it stands now and let me know of any misplaced citations or copyright violations. I will try to get better refs or we can remove the disputed sections. Nittawinoda (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sitush:, @RexxS:, @Bishonen:, Just want to add that for a relatively new user, Jkalaiarasan86 (talk·contribs) sure seems to know all the right people namely Jackfork, BlueMoonset, Gazoth, RegentsPark, (has pinged) SpacemanSpiff [32] etc. I wonder how. I believe he is a sock of an older more experienced user. Is there someway you can check for sleeper accounts. I would file a sockpuppet case however I do not know the puppet master. Nittawinoda (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Symbolic gesture, really, but would you be willing to block me until 15:33, 2 February 2019. I'm going for the same reason MjolnirPants did, and I'd like to be blocked for the same period. I'm not sure if you accept "self-block renewal" requests, but if so: three weeks is a really short time, so after that three or six months or whatever your standard offer is would be fine.
And I'm sorry for an additional request but it would be a tremendous help if you could wait until about 24 hours after someone gets back to me on this (or if you know the answer you could get back to me?) so I can clean up some other stuff first.
On a basically unrelated note, I'd like to apologize for all the trouble I brought to your talk page over the years, but I want you to know I really appreciated all the assistance you provided, even when it wasn't exactly what I "wanted" to hear.
Sorry to hear it, Hijiri. Your deletion request has been nixed, so I'll block you around this time tomorrow for three weeks. I'll accept a "block renewal request" for three months when that runs out, but I certainly won't accept it now. You'll have to e-mail me at the end of the first block and request it. Please make sure you have my e-mail address, because when I block tomorrow, I'll remove your wikimail capability. Bishzilla and I eat trouble for breakfast, so there's no problem. Bishonen | talk12:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
Aside from this, she will also be releasing a book called THE LION KING with Austin Macauley Publishers, who have written about her and confirmed on social media. The book is said to be sold in over 7 different countries, including South Africa, China, UK, and Japan. She is also a screenwriter for Usher Raymond IV. She also filed the Anti-Corruption Lawsuits and has been a dominant figure behind-the-scenes, and/or apparently, in the Anti-Corruption Movement, where an African television producer has a program about her as well. Quite frankly, I think it's a bit ill-willed the way things went down the way it did with her prior Wikipedia page because treating someone like that is not deserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiKing7 (talk • contribs)
(talk page stalker)@TheWikiKing7: None of the "sources" you provided is a reliable source by Wikipedia's rules (sites with articles written by the subject of your proposed article herself, and sites publishing press releases and anything else someone wants published can of course not be used on Wikipedia...), making her as non-notable (by Wikipedia's standards) now as she was in 2017. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, with articles about people, places and things that already are notable, not a place to promote people in an attempt to make them notable... - Tom | Thomas.W talk16:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Just because you're an asshole, Thomas.W, doesn't mean you're notable either. Difference, though, is that she is ACTUALLY notable, and there is good cause why there has not been press. What about the NY Post article? And actually, being God is quite notable. Not that you are no subject-matter-expert on anything "notable." Same goes for Bishonen in the respect that she agreed with him. The both of you will spend the rest of your lives unnotable, unnoticed, and unapparent. Primarily Thomas.W, not so much Bishonen. Btw, Thomas.W, how much does it pay to stalk people these days??
And actually, those are actual news sites and they link to other news sites. Pay attention, Tom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiKing7 (talk • contribs)
Per WP:WHEEL, when another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, the same action should not be reinstated without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. Page logs for User talk:Tarage shows that you have reinstated an admin action that was reversed by Swarm. feminist (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Bishonen and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
@Feminist:, am I reading this correctly? You asked Bishonen to reverse an action that she took yesterday, which she did... and so, four hours later, with no further discussion, you started an ArbCom case against Bishonen? Am I missing something? What are you thinking? EdChem (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The IP at List of James Bond villains, who you've blocked twice under different addresses, appears to be back, making the same disruptive edits again, but now adding pointless anchors to Skyfall as well. I don't what you would want to do now, but I just informing you of what's happening. --TedEdwards12:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for the present drama. I don’t even care about that damn talk page, I was just trying to do the right thing. In hindsight, coming to you first would have saved people a lot of time and energy. If you still feel that it is the right thing to do, please feel free to reinstate the protection. It’s all good. Hope all is well. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 17:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh. Well, thanks. I was just about to reply to SilkTork at the RFAR that the reason for my lack of communication with you was in fact your lack of communication with me. I was only informed of your action through an e-mail from Tarage, who was very upset. I thought, and still think, that obliging a user who's upset was the right thing to do in a case like this. The reasoning behind the policy wording that "User talk pages are rarely protected" (my italics) is surely that people may have a need to contact them, give them information, etc. But I don't think that applies in this case, when Tarage insists he only wants to be left alone. (And admins can still post on the page, of course.) However, after getting a couple of e-mails about it, I realized I'd better revert myself, and woke up resolved to do so. There was a note from user:feminist on my page, but that wasn't the reason. I thought I told her so quite clearly above: "Yeah, I'm way ahead of you. I just woke up and went to reverse my action. I'll do it now." Isn't that what "way ahead of you" means — that I'd already decided? It seems odd that everybody at the RFAR is saying that I decided to self-revert because of feminist's note. I wonder if I used the idiom wrong (I'm not a native speaker), or if simply nobody believes me. Anyway. Shrug. OK, since we have had this mini-discussion, and you have so nicely let me decide, I think I will reinstate the protection. Thanks, Swarm. Bishonen | talk19:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC). Old God throwing her weight around, and around.
Yeah, WP:WHEEL aside, you didn't do anything that I didn't do first, so fair play. And, I'm sorry to have upset Tarage, it was not my intention to kick someone while they're down. You used the idiom correctly, I think people were just glossing over that part. I've been rightly reminded to discuss things rather than unilaterally overturn them, and I'm honestly not in the habit of doing this. As I said, personal userspace protection per user request (i.e. without good reason) is something that admins and established editors alike commonly mistake as being allowed under policy, and I've had to correct these misconceptions multiple times. I thought that was the sort of thing this was, and that I was just fixing a good faith error. You're an Old God, and I should have at least assumed that it was equally possible that you had a good reason for doing this. I apologize for stepping on your toes. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 07:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The toes are all right. Old God? Haha, you must be thinking of Bishzilla. She's of the giant race before the flood. Bishonen | talk13:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC).
BTW, the not-so-brights that are saying it violated WP:PROTECT are wrong. A request is not sufficient for automatic protection. A request plus administrator discretion is plenty sufficient for discretionary protection. The policy only says it is not automatic but it does not prohibit it. The logical hula hoops they must go through to determine that protection without a request is fine but once they request it, it's forbidden is mind-boggling idiocy. You are well with WP:PROTECT. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
In response to this request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has determined that arbitration is not required at this stage. While the Committee takes community concerns about wheel-warring seriously, they agree that in this instance the issue has already been resolved by the parties, and does not require further examination. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁15:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Several baker's dozens of admins being turned out at RfA
(talk page stalker) He would, of course. My only worry is that doing routine janitorial jobs would detract from the time he spends making sure that Indian hagiographers and caste warriors don't run riot over the encyclopedia. He'd never be able to use admin tools in the area for fear of being involved. --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I probably would use the tools outside of the South Asia area, just as I sometimes go away to fix up articles such as North Wales Hospital as a break from the grind, but nomination at RfA wouldn't fly anyway. I have at least a couple of black marks against me plus hundreds, maybe thousands, of detractors. Not all of those detractors, by the way, are related to things Indic: the snowflakes, Jimbo-centric sycophants and so on are probably more likely to cause problems in an admin run than any number of Indo-Pakistani sockfarms and warriors. I've offended an awful lot of people over a long time. - 16:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the Indo-Pakistani sockfarms and warriors don't know their way around Wikipedia, and would most likely never see your RfA, Sitush. (Plus, they think you're already an admin.) You have many admirers, but yes, you also have detractors. I would have said you don't need the hassle of an RfA. And, as Rex says, we don't want to drag you away from the area where you are the nonpareil, whereas (as Rex implies) admins are thirteen to the dozen. Bishonen | talk17:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC).
User:Sitush could be useful as an admin, even if they were not able to use the tools on any South Asian topics. You must have offended some people but have certainly impressed others. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen. Please can I request a IP6 range for this IP range [33]. They are repeatedly making unsourced edits to WWE events. The pattern of edits seems similar to a user I requested a range block of before (see [34]). The user has been warned under various IPs in the same range (see [35], [36] and a final warning [37]), but continues to make similar edits under a different IP in the same range [38]. Silverfish (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, Silverfish. OK, I've blocked the range for a week. It may well be that a more sports-literate admin (if "sports" is in fact what professional wrestling is..?) would have the confidence to give a longer block (ahoy, sports-literate admin talkpage stalkers!), but I feel just too ignorant in the field to be comfortable doing that. Or why not try ANI? Bishonen | talk16:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC).
Hello again Bishonen. The IP editor has continued to make unsourced edits after the block expired (see [39]), so please could you block again. By way of explanation, I have come to you, as quite a while back now, with either this user or someone with a similar pattern of edits, I reported them at ANI, but they only blocked the IP, not the range. I asked the admin involved to block the range, but they weren't familiar IP range blocks, and they suggested that you were. You agreed to do an IP range block, and I've been coming back to you when range blocks are required as I know you are familiar with them. Silverfish (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure, Silverfish, you're always welcome here. I see Luk blocked the range for three months back in September, so I won't piddle with a week at a time again. Blocked for 3 months. Bishonen | talk09:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC).
Thanks for your efforts here - there's another account that's just popped up making the same edits after the semiprotection (MrTinchuri) if you're up for banning another one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Not after it — the semiprotection is for a month. Mr Tinchuri was able to make the edit because they're autoconfirmed (not by a great margin). It's not a vandalism-only account, so I've merely warned them — sharply, though. Thanks for the headsup, Mrs Drover. As long as you're here, can you explain what the trolling/vandalism is about? Not if the explanation would in itself be a BLP vio, of course. But I simply don't understand it. Bishonen | talk21:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC).
Apparently Martindale appeared as a fictionalised version of herself in the Netflix series BoJack Horseman (though I've never seen it). It seems to spark an endless amount of people who think they're funny by adding the way her character was described in it to the lede. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for popping up here, but I doubt anyone bothers to watch my page these days (profuse mutterings of contradiction would be nice), but I need a justifiable reason to upload the image here for a new page I am starting to write about Edward VIII and his psycophnantic friends. Anybody know how to get round copyvio on this before that Stan man or one of his sidekicks object. Giano(talk)20:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Giano—*interlude for the contradictorial whisper of mutterings*—if you can identify the individuals accompanying the Windsors in that photo—and then ensure they are central (or at least, heavily relevant) to the article—then I think you'd be OK for fair usage. You couldn't use it as an image of the D&D themselves—there are far too many free ones available to justify it—but for an image specifically representing them with other named individuals, I doubt there are. Of course, it's worth bearing in mind that we should minimize the total number of times items of non-free content are included, so you might be reasonably limited to one such image; if you find a better one, the article content might need adjusting.On a lighter note, great subject; I recently covered some of their...other friends ;) take care! ——SerialNumber5412921:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello darling, always a delight to hear from you. I'm not good with copyright; let's hope that some of my talkpage stalkers are. How old is the photo? Probably not old enough; I researched the relationship in this here online encyclopedia, and it appears that Edward and Wallis Simpson didn't even meet till 1931. The safe year for expired copyright is 1924. Anybody got any ideas for other ways the photo might be out of copyright? PS, you may want to check out how Serial was able to use the 1936 image in his article. Maybe yours is available on Flicker also? Bishonen | talk21:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC).
Is Flicker free? I don't understand these things at all which is why my page is littered with messages threatening me with death and worse from copyright fanatics. Giano(talk)12:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand them either, Giano. If you look at the image page for File:King Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson on holiday in Yugoslavia, 1936.jpg and scroll down a bit, you'll be treated to a lot of confusing information about both the archive of the National Media Museum website, and Flickr, of which the upshot is, according to Magnus Manske's file upload bot, that it can be used by us. Frankly, I was hoping that Serial could explain it, or perhaps Magnus Manske, and that one of them might kindly figure out if your sychophantic photo was in the same fortunate category. HINT HINT! And pinging Diannaa also. Bishonen | talk13:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC).
I don't explain nuthin' round here. But Flikr is photo storage where users can upload to different licences ranging from all-rights-reserved to creative commons. For WP purposes, I search the site excluding all but the latter in the results, which is how I got that. There's certainly a lot of brouha on that page, and I was expecting that it would get rejected at FAC—not so much because of the license being wrong, but because of uncertainty as to whether the museum had original rights to it in the first place. Incidentally, Giano, don't take what I said^^^^as gospel :) ——SerialNumber5412913:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello my lovely, how are you? You will love my new page as it’s about English literature and poetry, well sort of! I particularly want that picture as they are all so convulsed by the King being so hugely amusing and witty. Thank you User:Serial Number 54129, I can identify them all as Rats, except for one unknown lady. Of course, my late, great aunt was very much part of that set, but, alas, she burnt her albums after the abdication when she became the became the new queen’s dearest friend. Giano(talk)21:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the above that is all as clear as mud. I wanted the image of the irritating sycophants to encourage me in my writing as I did a hatchet job on all of them. Not my usual type of thing at all. I don't think anyone is going to come out of this page with much credit. I just read the poem the other day and it appealed to me to research it, to see how justified it was - quite interesting what a horrible lot they all were. Giano(talk)13:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Political Correctness and modern attitudes
I have a quandary with which I am unhappy, and as I always come to you in these situations: here I am. I need the advice of your cosmopolitan salon. My lovely new page is coming on nicely, but by necessity, as this angle of the abdication has not really been that well researched most of the reffs were written before 1980, when attitudes and tolerance were less widespread than today - and people thought quite differently. So while it's Ok to explain why the older royals had Victorian views, is it OK to say this [40] even though it is said and reffed in the forward to the book Rat Week? Is it even true, I woudl have thought a homosexual would understand love as well as the next man, but then perhaps in 1936 they wouldn't have? I don't know. But I don't want the force of Wikipedia's modern thinkers coming down upon me - if I put it in main space. Do we have any opinions here? Giano(talk)11:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
tps'ing again. I think you could say it as long as it was made clear that the view that "Sitwell was precluded..." is that of the source, i.e. the bod writing The Rats. At the moment it does sound like it's Wikipedia's own opinion...which might raise one or two eyebrows :) ——SerialNumber5412912:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
My opinion, for what it's worth, on the picture is that it is very much still protected by copyright. The link I followed showed the photo in an article in the Daily Mail (I know, not a good source) describing where the photos were from, that they have been stored for many years, and are now going to be auctioned. That being the case, releasing the images into the public domain is unlikely to have occurred in the distant past and the current owners would undermine their value at auction by so doing. It could be used in the article provided a case can be made under NFCC. EdChem (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
On the question from Giano, I don't think that or anything like it should be presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice. However, presented as the opinion of someone else, it seems to me that it would be usable. Speculating wildly, it is possible that someone closeted and denying his own feelings for the sake of duty to the crown might not comprehend a monarch giving up the crown for love. EdChem (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Right, Serial and Ed have nailed it: you can't say it in Wikipedia's voice, you'd need to say the person who wrote the foreword to Rat Week thought it, in 1986. But then the question becomes, in that form, is it worth saying at all? Anyway, yes, your page is indeed coming on beautifully! Pity about the photo, which per Ed doesn't seem to be useable. Bishonen | talk10:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC).
On both counts; it seems best to use the old adage "if in doubt. leave it out." As I research, I've come to the conclusion that I don't like Osbert Sitwell very much. In fact, I don't like him at all, and I wish I hadn't started a page about his stupid poem. He's not witty, just really rather cruel spiteful! He only was highly regarded because he had the ear of two queens (I mean that in the royal sense) and used to poison their minds regarding other people if they upset him. But I shall plough on with it until the bitter otherwise some idiot will delete it because its taken too long to finish. Giano(talk)11:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
AN/ANI stuff
I took my concern to both AN & ANI, because 'sometimes' you've got to go to more then one place, to get the attention of the right folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like WP:IAR compliance to me, Bish, which I would say at AN if you hadn't already closed it. If it isn't, then IAR needs clarification (and a name change). Which rules, exactly, are editors expected to observe even if they feel they prevent them from improving or maintaining Wikipedia? ―Mandruss☎21:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Everybody presumably wants maximum attention for their reports. So should they all forumshop per WP:IAR? (Please click on that, Mandruss, it's policy.) GoodDay, writing one clear report that explained the background, which IPs were in question, and what the problem was with the edits — a report that people could understand without doing a lot of research — on one board, would have been better than to post an inarticulate expression of your frustration on both the sister boards (even though I do understand your frustration). People who know anything about IPv6 ranges could then, for instance, have told you quickly and painlessly that the range was too big to block. Never mind, the main thing is Zzuzz created a filter, which I hope will hold. Bishonen | talk22:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC).
Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus
you see that there is general agreement that raising the same issue in multiple places muddies the waters of consensus. So what you have to ask is how does asking the same question on both AN and ANI improve the encyclopedia? If the answer to that is "it might reach a different/broader/more knowledgeable/etc. audience", then you can see why IAR doesn't apply. IAR has to be reserved for cases where the improvement to the encyclopedia is not only obvious to all, but also direct, as the consequence of invoking IAR for hypothetical improvements somewhere down the line would be to give disruptive editors a licence to ignore any rule at their whim.
In the case in question, the breach of FORUMSHOP causes no real harm, of course, but I still wouldn't agree that any benefit to the encyclopedia would outweigh the precedent of multiple-posting. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll try to remember. PS- I've been watching the UK House of Commons attempting to come up with ways to stop Brexit. It's enough to confuse anybody. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
In that case, RexxS, I was right. Being that many editors including highly experienced editors apply IAR very differently—usually without explicitly citing it, and it seems to be a subconscious "ignore any rule I disagree with" mind-set for many editors—it does very much need clarification beyond its current vague, easily-misinterpreted one line, and probably a name change. Of all misunderstood/misinterpreted/misconstrued/misapplied/abused Wikipedia principles, I think IAR is the most destructive. This is meta to this thread, as well as out-of-venue, so I certainly don't expect a resolution here. I don't even seek further commentary, necessarily (anybody is welcome to continue on my UTP if they're interested; otherwise I'm happy to have the last word). But it's a point worth making here if it might stimulate some thinking among a few talk page stalkers. ―Mandruss☎22:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You looked at my edit history, saw a couple of articles I touched today and jumped on them. I am more than capable of determining whether an article "follows Wikipedia standards": one of them is clearly notable and sourced, and the other is suspect but tagged and worth some research. Your moves have now been reverted by Galobtter and Serial Number 54129 has given you a warning. That may give you an indication that it isn't just me who had a problem with what you did. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Zero reliable sources? Really? Did you read those articles or just pull a hair-trigger? I'm going to drop a note on your talk page explaining why we all have to tread carefully in this topic area.Unless someone else has already done it. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Anand Ranganathan doesn't follow Wikipedia Standards, but M S A Rao Does?
I did move it back to Article twice, but it was moved back to draft again by other users, citing that the article should go through AfC. I moved it back because I felt it will be moved to draft again by one of the people.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
IndianHistoryEnthusiast, move it back to the mainspace and if someone disputes the notability they can take it to WP:AFD. I just don't understand why you have the attitude with Bishonen. She doesn't appear to have ever edited either page. ~ GB fan13:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
No, I haven't, but I suppose that happened because Sitush posted here first, in the section above. Attitude with me doesn't matter, but attacking Sitush the way they do, together with their attacks on WBG at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anand Ranganathan, and altogether their focus on attacking others, rather than discussing content, is too bad. I have blocked them for 48 hours. Bishonen | talk16:54, 23 January 2019 (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.
Inventive tricks
I didn't realise you were a magician. Is there no end to your abilities?
AGF seems to have gone out of the window, and your last reply has been followed by someone who is likely to find themselves at ANI before too much longer: all comment, no action. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Yup, the latest is I do inventive tricks. Here you see me performing a magic trick by making Easter eggs and self-requested blocks flow from a piece of paper rolled up like a cone. Bishonen | talk13:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC).
Comment: Bishonen, I have been following this discussion over at ANI. I just wanted to encourage you to continue with your good practice of issuing self blocks for other editors since I agree with Dlohcierekim's edit here that it works out in most cases, and I think the system just got taken advantage of in this one particular case.
Also, I see here that there are actually quite a number of other admins who perform this function as well. I noticed that Beeblebrox has an effective looking list of conditions that you may wish to borrow some ideas from if they will permit it. I hope you find this to be helpful. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Bish, please excuse me for commenting here, but I’m quite curious how on earth this isn’t a violation of Huggums537’s unblock conditions:
1) You do not comment on Arbcom, RFA, or ANI.
2) You do not edit any topics to do with project space.
3) You do not contact any of the editors that you previously had issues with.
By my count, I see a violation of every single unblock condition in the post directly above mine either directly or in spirit. Commenting on an ANI thread about the one user he’s fought the most with (Hijiri88) here isn’t exactly not commenting on ANI and avoiding contact. Essays by a highly respected admin on his views on the blocking policy and self-requested blocks seems pretty connected to project space to me as well. I also find his lecturing you on how to admin to be just about as ridiculous as his accusing Acroterion of being a sockpuppet. I’ll go collect my hat with the ninja star now. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
My comments here were not intended to lecture anyone, but to offer encouragement to someone who specifically expressed that they were considering deleting their user page and not offering their services anymore because of an unpleasant experience they had. I was attempting to be uplifting for them and offer helpfulness. Your attempt to twist it into something else is disingenuous and disruptive dispute escalation. Not very becoming of an admin.
I have not edited at Arbcom, RfA, or ANI.
I have not edited in any project space.
I have not contacted anyone I previously had issues with. (You are the one who butted in here to make a snide contact about me)
If you suspect I have violated my unblock conditions, I suggest you take it up with 5 albert square, or one of my editing monitors such as Betty Logan or North8000
In addition, if you think you are some kind of "ninja" deserving of a "star" for attempting to cause trouble for another editor who is only trying to helpful to someone else, then you are even more naive than I thought. Huggums537 (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not on any kind of "IBAN" restrictions that prevent me from having any discussions on any talk pages (that are not project space) about any other editors. Lets be clear about that. I'm only prevented from contacting ones I had disputes with and I have honored that restriction in good faith.
And, for the record, I did not even mention Hijiri in this discussion, and it was primarily about the main topic of me encouraging Bishonen to keep the userpage and continue with the practice of allowing other editors to be self blocked.
So, your mischaracterization of me "having a discussion about Hijiri here" is incredibly disingenuous, and is indicative of an editor who won't let go of past disputes, and would just as soon cause trouble/drama for another editor as they would go do something else more constructive...
Also, this issue has already been discussed to death on my talk page where I begged for more clarity about my restrictions and it was put to me in a very simple way; "Don't edit in project space - stick to article space", "Don't contact users you had disputes with", and I have done that. Huggums537 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I share TonyBallioni's concerns here, and I think your comments at Grandpallama's talk page could potentially breach the conditions set by 5 albert square. Your intervention at Grandpallama's page was clearly an attempt to influence a live case at ANI. The fact that the case involved an editor who who you are prohibited from contacting just makes this worse. I feel a bit let down here Huggums. We are not going to wikilawyer with you: The spirit of the conditions laid down by 5 albert square are that you were to keep away from ANI cases and you were to keep away from Hijiri88. If you had been dragged into the ANI case against your will that would have been a mitigating circumstance, but it very much looks like you are actively monitoring ANI or monitoring Hiriji, and as per the conditions of your unblock you do not have a very good reason to do either. Let me be clear about this: do not become involved or commentate or reference ANI in any way whatsoever; do not contact, or discuss, or interact with Hiriji88 in anyway whatsoever. If anything like this happens again I will endorse reinstating your indefinite block. I don't know how many times I have to say this: go and find a neglected article and work on it. This drama is entirely of your own making and was entirely avoidable. Betty Logan (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Huggins, in any event, why even go near the limit? My advice is to stay miles away from any drama, past issues with people etc. and spend some time just enjoying editing articles. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Huggums537: I'm assuming you meant well with your encouragement and advice, but I don't agree that Hijiri took advantage of "the system" in connection with his self-requested block. He did make mistakes, but none of them involved bad faith or 'taking advantage', IMO. Anyway, please don't refer to Hijiri anywhere on Wikipedia. Referring to him by using the passive voice — "I think the system just got taken advantage of in this one particular case" — and then claiming you "did not even mention Hijiri in this discussion" is pretty lawyerly. Please don't refer to him in any way. Bishonen | talk11:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC).
Bishonen, I can respect your opinion that the system was not taken advantage of, and that it's possible good faith mistakes were made that caused the unpleasantness to occur. My main focus was to encourage you to continue to press on with the self blocks regardless of the unpleasantness, (however it occurred). My opinion on the unpleasantness was trivial, and secondary to the main point of my message, which is why I spent very little time on it, but Tony wanted to try to make my whole message about it, and that "is pretty lawerly" in itself. I prefer to avoid the unpleasantness, and I hardly mentioned it at all, accordingly.
@Betty Logan:, I also feel a bit let down since you have clearly not assumed in good faith that I have been monitoring ANI and/or Hijiri: "it very much looks like you are actively monitoring ANI or monitoring Hiriji".
In my defense, I would like to say that I wasn't monitoring anything at all until I got emails from other users drawing my attention to those places, and the very comment being used against me at Grandpallama's talk page is proof of that.
Also, I'm somewhat offended that the other assumption of, "clearly an attempt to influence a live case at ANI" does not even take into consideration the fact that, A) The ANI was almost overwhelmingly in support of the IBAN and it had no need of being influenced by anyone. And, B) even if it did need to be influenced by someone, I would have hoped that you thought much better of me than to think that my best efforts at influencing an ANI discussion were all wrapped up in that single comment on Grandpallama's talk page. Surely, you must know that was not my intent there and that if I wanted to influence an ANI I could do better than that?!? I honestly believed you thought better of me than that...
Anyways, any discussions I might have had about Hijiri would most likely never have resulted in any contact with him since he is blocked right now and he promised to avoid contact with me anyway, and he stuck to that promise before his block so I see no reason why he would not continue to keep his word about that unless someone like Tony intentionally tries to blow things out of proportion, and Hijiri breaks his block again just to prove a point...
All this talk about violating the "spirit" of my conditions is nonsense especially when it should be considered what my intentions were here. What about "the spirit" of my intentions? Everyone on here can forget about preaching to me about "the spirit" of unblock conditions if they are not willing to look at the "the spirit" of what my intentions were here.
The only reason this "drama was my own making" is because I failed to see that Tony was a regular commentator here, and made the fateful mistake of making a helpful comment somewhere where another editor has a known "bone to pick" with me. I would have expected this much from Tony, and had I been more alert, I never would have even commented here.
In addition, I haven't said anything about this in the past, because of wanting to be agreeable, but I'm honestly growing weary of the constant, "go find a neglected article" mantra because that is not my area of interest. I prefer other gnomish type things. I like to welcome new editors, fight vandalism, and want to explore more technical areas. I feel like the advice I keep getting is attempting to force me into a box that I don't want to be in. I'm also sure you get tired of telling me to that as well, but this is the reason why.
It is unreasonable to expect me to go through a lengthy talk page like this with almost 100 different discussions going on just to make sure it is "safe" before I make an innocent comment here that somebody else might twist around. Huggums537 (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, even if I were monitoring ANI, that should not be a problem. I still have several policy pages on my watchlist and I'm not taking them off. Nobody on here is going to censor what I read or what I keep track of, and if that is what they want to do then I don't want to be part of this community anymore anyway. That is going too far.
I'm going to make every effort to refrain from talking about Hijiri out of respect for administration and respect for more experienced editors who have only tried to help me, but I feel I am not bound to do so, and imposing an impromptu IBAN on me is an improper enforcement of my unblock conditions.
It has always been my understanding that all I have to do is not edit project space and not contact editors I disputed with. Making comments about a blocked editor hardly qualifies as "making contact" and is quite a stretch by any means. Huggums537 (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't forget that there be dragons here.
As long as I have been here, interaction bans have always included referring to the person in any form, anywhere. Similarly, topic bans apply to any mentions of the topic, anywhere, in any form. Doesn't seem complicated to me. In fact, it takes all the doubt away. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sitush: as I understand it, Huggums isn't actually I-banned from Hijiri. But in view of Huggums's responses here on my page to TonyBallioni and Betty Logan, it looks to me like he might need to be. How about it, Tony and/or Betty? Do you think it's time to propose a two-way I-ban for Huggums/Hijiri on AN/ANI? Or possibly a one-way ban of Huggums from Hijiri; I don't know the background well enough to say. But in hindsight, isn't it looking like Huggums got his unblock rather too lightly, considering the way he's treating his restrictions? Bishonen | talk16:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC).
As one who knows the background far more than they would like, you'd get a big old emboldened support from me on either of those possibilities, and I'd suggest the two-way. It's true that H. is currently on a self-block, but they've already indicated that they would prefer to participate here through it, so I think it would be better if the IB were a fait accompli on their return. ——SerialNumber5412916:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
If I weren’t involved up to my eyeballs here I’d just indef him. Anyone who constantly needs to tell some of the most experienced editors on the project to assume good faith in 4000 bytes every time they make a mistake is verging on NOTHERE. The gaming of the unblock conditions is ridiculous and following his lying about not accepting them, to say I’m not impressed is an understatement. That being said, I’d support a one-way IBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
"Do not contact ..." is a de facto Iban but I appreciate your lawyerly scrupulous approach regarding the subtleties. Formalising it would remove all doubt. As things stand, it doesn't seem to be working and there is too much room for gaming. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it might be something to consider. At least then there is no grey area for Huggums to occupy. I would consult 5 albert square first though since she was the admin who imposed the initial sanctions for Huggums. At the moment I am just interpreting her intentions but it would be better if she clarified them herself. It would be wrong for us to "over-apply" her conditions to Huggums, but likewise Huggums must not be allowed to breach the spirit of them either. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Out of respect, I have already willingly agreed to follow everyone's recommendation not to mention Hijiri anywhere. Proposing an IBAN for, really just a single comment about a blocked editor and another comment that really has nothing to do with that editor at all, but merely makes a benign passive mention of him is nothing more than an attempt to further impose more restrictions on me that are not needed. Hijiri and I both have quite enough restrictions on us at the moment, and I'm convinced that more are not needed for either one of us in this case especially when I already agreed to follow the advice of my peers even before this IBAN suggestion was thought of, and even though Hijiri expressed interest in commenting here as SN54129 suggests, he did not break his block to do so. I think that is evidence enough that an IBAN is not needed for either of us. Huggums537 (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Huggums537, when I said do not comment on ANI, Arbcom, RFA etc, I meant at all. Even if you're not posting on the actual noticeboards, commenting on someone's talk page about something happening at the noticeboard is still commenting on it. The reason I said to you not to comment on those noticeboards is because they can be drama areas and that is what led to your block in the first place. It's also a bit worrying that you've been following the thread of someone I said not to contact. Personally, if an administrator said that to me, I'd make sure that I kept the relevant noticeboards at arms length. I'd support an IBAN. I think it may help both editors actually.-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks North8000, it's not really empathy, just an observation that Hijiri has done everything he said he would do regarding contact with me including not commenting here. Due to email communications I have been having with other users, and due to Hijiri's recent good faith efforts to avoid trouble and apologize on his talk page for his mistakes, I expect to have no trouble out of him. He seems to me to be sincere enough in everything he has promised to do except for the unblock, and Bishonen has confirmed that may have been due to honest good faith mistakes that he has apologized for. You may call that empathy if you wish, but I call it improving my ability to collaborate with other editors here.
I would like to further add to all those who would wish to offer up theories about what the "spirit" of my unblock conditions are supposed to look like and remind everyone of what the actual understanding of my terms was supposed to be:
From the UTRS discussions: "If you are unblocked, there would be some restrictions in place. At the moment that would be for you to not edit any of the space project pages as that is what led to your block."
"If we do decide to unblock you, would you be OK with a restriction that you only edit article mainspace and talk pages with the exception of project space pages until we decide if we can trust you?"
From my talk page: "Part of the grounds of your original block was an inability to work in a collaborative atmosphere. Arbcom, RFA and ANI are all collaborative atmospheres and they can seriously influence Wikipedia. The same with contacting other editors - that is collaborative." (I have made absolutely no efforts to "collaborate" with any editors I have had disputes with in any shape form or fashion)
From Tony himself on my talk page: "...do a conditional unblock prohibiting him from screwing around with project space pages...", and "I made no specific comments on the exact terms, other than that you shouldn’t be able to screw around on project pages."
To me, this is all very clear evidence that my unblock was intended to be one thing, and now Tony is attempting to turn into something else entirely based on nothing more than than a single comment and another comment having nothing to do with said editor, and merely contained a passive mention of a blocked editor no less. This is nothing more than word play manipulation of my conditions to make it appear they are something other than what they were always intended to be by invoking some kind of mystical "spirit"ual interpretation of them and it is beyond the pale of ridiculous or the scope of reason. Huggums537 (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Betty Logan's ping of me never showed up, or I probably would've commented earlier; I hadn't realized a discussion had been prompted by the comments left on my page. I only noticed today because I was, in all honesty, looking into Huggums537's edits after their bizarre appearance on my talkpage, which made me suspicious. The absolute irony of the user who offered those ridiculous comments on my talkpage apparently busily doing the exact same thing in stalking Hijiri is blowing my mind a bit. I'm bothered by the discussion here, and a similar (shorter) one that occurred at Ivanvector's talkpage which seem to be overly focused on looking for all the different ways in which one can skirt interacting with Hijiri as closely as possible without technically interacting; it's not a good sign, or a good look. Grandpallama (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you, Grandpallama; it really isn't. It looks like quite a few people including admins are prepared to support a (most likely two-way) I-ban between Huggums and Hijiri, see the comments above, but nobody seems to have much appetite for proposing it at AN/ANI. This is unfortunate IMO. I wish I had the time and patience to do the required reading and propose it myself, but unfortunately I haven't. Bishonen | talk22:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC).
Agreed that it is unfortunate. I'm also sympathetic to Hijiri's comment, on his own talkpage, about acquiring a number of IBANs (some at his request), that he's afraid will be weaponized at some future date in an argument about his collegiality. That said, even though I'm annoyed by all this, I also don't have the appetite to start another dramafest so soon after the last one, especially since I think it will suck Hijiri back into conversations and feuding that he needs to let go of. I'm just going to cross my fingers and hope that people will behave like adults, despite the warning signs I see. Grandpallama (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I have never commented on Ivanvector's talk page that I can remember, so I haven't any clue what you are referencing there.
The comment I left on your talk page was primarily focused on exonerating Dream Focus from what I thought was uninformed allegations that they didn't get any emails from anyone. The only reason Hijiri was even mentioned was because I was confirming that DF did in fact get emails because I got them too and it was only incidental that Hijiri happened to be the topic of those emails I got. So, I never actually talked about Hijiri on your page [that much] at all. I only [mostly] talked about some emails I got. The idea that somehow constitutes stalking someone is patently absurd. Huggums537 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess the problem here (and maybe, Bish, the reason no one wants to go to ANI), is that Hijiri is skating on thin ice already, and yet another 2-way iban discussion at ANI (it would be his 6th, I believe, and the 3rd this month) might get morphed into a "siteban Hijiri" discussion by the hyenas Community at ANI, even though the last time Hijiri mentioned Huggums was last month1. Now, I'm about 75% sure I'd support a site ban for Hijiri if he doesn't change his approach, but even I don't think that would be fair. And bringing a 1-way iban discussion to ANI would probably get turned into a 2-way iban / siteban discussion quickly. So I find myself in the weird position of opposing the idea of any ANI iban discussion because it would be unfair to Hijiri. I suggest trying Grandpallama's "hope that people will behave like adults" plan, and have as Plan B that if Huggums ever acknowledges Hijiri's existence in this universe again, maybe propose a siteban at ANI instead of an iban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Wow!! Saying you would support a siteban for H88 at 75% is probably the harshest thing I have ever seen since my own harsh indef took place! You people are brutal! That is really saying a whole heck of a lot coming from me considering the history I have had with H88. We are both adults. I'm pretty sure we can get both get along just fine without any of you IBANing and SITEBANing us to death. My word, I can assure you we will get along. Huggums537 (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Brutal, man, brutal. There really are dragons around here. I'm likely not coming back around these parts for a long time to come unless it's for a darn good reason. Have a great life, people... Huggums537 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2019 (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.
Vanniyar
Not yet, perhaps, but very soon it looks like the attentions of an admin may be needed regarding goings-on at Vanniyar, which has long been a target for the caste glorifiers etc. The to-ing and fro-ing is obvious in the recent history but Talk:Vanniyar#Consensus on Adding "Origin" Section is the crux of it and I'm now being accused of favouring one POV even though the "alternate" involves sources that the WP community has long regarded as unreliable. They've reverted even after I posted this, the last in a line of explanations of policy etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Admin, Sitush (talk·contribs) and his cronies are pushing their POV on article Vanniyar. Sitush has simply removed all my edits to the article terming it as caste glorification. Sitush is all ok for accepting sources that favor his POV while he terms my sources as unreliable when the sources present a view contrary to his opinion.Recently I added a view as stated by Dr. Gustav Solomon Oppert but then he termed as unreliable supposedly because it belongs to the colonial period. On the other hand he is ok with adding material by various historians who based their views on events that transpired during the colonial era if they agree with his view point. What kind of spirit is Wikipedia promoting? Nittawinoda (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The spirit of reliable sources, Nittawinoda — modern, academic sources. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand Sitush's explanations. Sources written during the Raj era, a period of "scientific racism", are unreliable for Wikipedia. And from that you draw the conclusion that sources about events during the Raj era should be deemed unreliable too? What does one thing have to do with another? I'm sorry to say your argument shows a depth of incomprehension. If you continue to edit the article based on such stuff, you will soon find yourself banned or blocked. You also need to listen better, to stop using offensive, bad-faith-assuming edit summaries, accusing good faith editors of vandalism, and nonsense like that. PS: One thing you will probably like, though: I have blocked the user Mathews701, whose only "contributions" have been to remove other people's input on the talkpage. Bishonen | talk17:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC).
I hadn't noticed Mathews701 doing that, Bish, although as it happens I'd read the stuff before they removed it. That makes three accounts in one thread that have triple digit endings to their usernames. Hm. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
All three Confirmed to one another. I didn't dig too deep because its late here. I'll file an SPI for the record, and if any other accounts pop up, just report them there. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
LOL, yes, being in a more exclusive timezone as well as being a late sleeper (clearly unlike you, Sitush!) helps — by the time I wake up, everything's already taken care of. Thank you, little gift bearers! Bishonen | talk10:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC).
And, as a further aside, one of the more peculiar sayings that is quite common just across the border in Yorkshire is if you can't fight, wear a big hat. There are various explanations for it and it would be joyous one day to see it feature at ANI or ARCA etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Trust Serial Number 54129 to mess up your talk page, Bishonen. I think he meant to refer to the admin corps. He's giving editors a hard time at Tropical year: could you unprotect the talk page so the discussion they're trying to have can continue there? 92.24.111.198 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The popular way of putting it is the admin corpse. Thanks, Favonian, but it's indeed the talkpage, not the article, that's protected. Baffling, but I suppose it's caused by some shenanigans from our friend. Bishonen | talk19:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC).
Hi, SheMoveItLike. I set full protection because it didn't look like IP vandalism to me, but a content dispute, so I didn't want to favor your side by setting semiprotection. Compare my note on Talk:Fear Factor: Khatron Ke Khiladi 9. However, the IP 2405:205:a00d:b05f:8432:e6ac:bb7e:f74b has now shown themselves to be in fact a vandal, both at WP:RFPP and here on my page, and I have blocked them (and their range, too, in case they try to use another IP). Can you explain me what the dispute is about, please? Perhaps you can persuade me to change the protection to semi. NorthBySouthBaranof, thanks for your assistance. Bishonen | talk16:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC).
Hi, sure.
This wasn't a case of dispute because all I did was revert their edits. The vandal was continuously resorting to disruptive editing and all their edits about the contestants were baseless and untrue probably driven by the vandals personal opinions about the contestants. Plus their continuous attempts to undo every edit against them pretty much explains the rest. I submitted a request to raise protection for the same reason.
@Sitush: I've restored the status quo, requested they go to talk, and given them an uw-ew warning. If they continue, they will have no defence against being blocked. --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sitush: If the individual bio has a sourced indication that the person belongs to the caste, their appearance on the list list would be OK, wouldn't it? I know Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but the fact of someone having a Wikipedia article confirms notability, surely. Jibanananda Das, Sushmita Sen, and Ramprasad Sen seem to be OK for both caste and notability (though there's no source for Ramprasad's caste, and I don't know how good the other people's sources are). Their articles state that they were "born into a Baidya family". Isn't that enough? Sukumar Sen is a dab page, groan. I honestly don't think AsOd19 understands your objection. Would you consider explaining to him on his page? (And indeed explaining to me, if I've misunderstood everything.) The next person who edit conflicts me will be eaten by Bishzilla. Bishonen | talk16:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC).
No, because far too many of the bios also contain poorly souced or completely unsourced claims. Sometimes I check the source in the bio and move it across to the list but, yes, sometimes I can't be arsed. It's Sisyphean and far simpler to insist on sourcing in situ. Furthermore, "born into a Baidya family" does not make someone a member of the caste, certainly not if they are living. That issue is addressed in a roundabout way at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists - people can deny/refute/whatever you want to call it the caste into which they were born; and with intercaste marriages (which do happen), how would you define them?
I am involved in at least half-a-dozen conflicts today, one of which will be familiar to you. Perhaps I need to explain better but the entire point of the userpage thing is to stop me having to regurgitate the same spiel 20 or more times a week. I'll try again with them later. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Note that AsOd19 claimed that the articles were all sourced, which clearly isn't the case. Also note this edit in 2012. This is typical of what happens: someone writes a fairly detailed passage based on a decent source and then an anon turned up and inserts the caste claim. Unless I can see the source, I have no means of knowing whether it contains the claim; and on those many occasions when I can see the source in these circumstances, it usually doesn't. Note also that prior to that anon edit the article seems to be implying that Das's antecedent had altered the family name, which may indicate a reluctance at least on that particular person's part to accept their putative caste. I admit this latter point is irrelevant to the subject of the article and also rather speculative, but it gives you an idea of what goes on in the real world. It should come as no surprise to you that people tend to do this insertion thing on cultural icons etc but not where someone is a villain. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@'Shonen: As for lists of people purportedly belonging to a given caste, I'm personally not convinced that such lists are a good idea. First of all, they don't add to the understanding of the caste article topic. But more importantly, lists can become magnets for unsourced trivia to be added by the bucket-load, and consequently a focus for warring when there are disagreements over whether particular people belong on the list. I'd always recommend leaving these sorts of lists out. In any case, there's simply no excuse for edit-warring instead of discussing this at the article talk page. --RexxS (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
They aren't a good idea in my opinion but I lost that debate a long time ago. They add nothing to understanding and are honeypots for problematic editing. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if they're aware of their own, or any, talkpage? Their contributions list suggests not. Anyway. It's a shame that you have wasted so much time, Sitush. Indeffed. Bishonen | talk19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC).
Periodically, and usually because someone rants on a community forum, we get a series of anons and newly registered accounts going mad at articles relating to the Nair caste. There have also been some checkusered sockfarms in the past.
They seem to be active at the moment, eg: at Nambiar (Nair subcaste) and Nayanar (Nair subcaste). I could ask at RfPP for temporary semi or pending changes protection but the former will not resolve the long-term problem and the latter is dependent on the reviewer actually checking the sources, which in my experience often does not happen. Is it worth putting 30/500 on those two articles, as has been done at the main Nair article? As it happens, they may have a point at the Nayanar one but the solution to that is to engage on the talk page, where I have started a thread. - Sitush (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
30/500 is explicitly only for "if semi-protection has proven ineffective", so I can't do that, since they never have been semi'd. From a glance at the histories, it doesn't immediately look warranted, either. I'll try semi for a month. (I realise the month may be a little ridiculous, but I don't want to go straight from nothing to long-term protection. It can be done later, if the problem immediately recurs.) Bishonen | talk10:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC).
Are you aware of your topic ban on Padmanabhanunnips (talk·contribs) being lifted? They returned during my last long-ish absence and I've only just spotted what they've been doing, eg: I have just had to revert all of their edits to Pushpaka Brahmin (which seemed then to encourage others to amend those changes) and at Ambalavasi. Suspect I will have to revert everything they have done, everywhere, since their return to caste articles. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Their sanction is still logged, and I see no evidence of an appeal, let alone of the sanction being lifted. I think they're just hoping everyone else will go away and forget about it. I'm going to double check that I've not crossed paths with them content-wise, and if I haven't, a month's block is what we're looking at, and I think that's letting them off lightly. Vanamonde (Talk)00:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
And blocked. Their violations were really quite egregious; they were editing the same pages they were sanctioned for editing. The next block probably needs to be indefinite. Vanamonde (Talk)00:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Right. I'm reading the history of their talkpage ... it's interesting. First they archived the topic ban notice and promptly violated the ban. You warned them, Sitush, and Spiff blocked for 48 hours. They appealed the block (never the T-ban), plaintively saying they were only trying to expand the articles, and what was wrong with that? 331dot declined, explaining in words of one syllable what the T-ban meant and how to appeal it.[43] To which P said he didn't understand and things were too complex to comprehend, and he'd wait for the block to be "removed". When it expired, he also asked you, Sitush, on your page why he couldn't improve the articles, and you explained some more about what the topic ban means. All this in June, within the first few days after the topic ban, and then he fell silent until he started to edit the same articles again in December. Not much we can do, I guess; this is either a language difficulty (though his English seems OK to me),or more generally WP:CIR, in that, as he says, it's all too complex for him. Especially 331dot's explanation was a pattern of simplicity and clarity, urging him to appeal his topic ban. I feel for P, because he really seems to mean no harm, and I'd happily excuse the topic ban vios on the argument that he never did understand the ban itself, were it not for the small matter that the reason for the topic ban was disruptive editing, with poor and unsourced additions, and apparently an inability to understand warnings and explanations about it. His edits made articles worse. It's kind of sad that one of our most complicated areas, caste, where competence very much is required, is such a honeypot for the incompetent. Sigh. Good block, thank you Vanamonde, and you Sitush for the alert. I agree the next block should probably be indefinite. Bishonen | talk03:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC).
It is sad. Their command of the language is very good and I have a gut feeling that much of what they have said in articles will turn out to be correct. But in the past some people have changed things that P said and, really, I think we need to get very tough in applying WP:V to caste stuff.
Bish, would you (or some helpful stalkers) be willing to apply some revdel at Shehla Rashid Shora? Some of the revisions are egregious BLP violations, others are less egregious but still violations, and as I'm involved I don't want to make the call about which to delete. Vanamonde (Talk)04:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Applied revdel, (though I note that kinda the point of "human rights" is that they apply to all people, including terrorists or alleged terrorists *cough* Guatanamo), and slapped some ECP protection. Also, there's a filter, 189, to tag these sort of things but it doesn't apply to autoconfirmed users; I've been noticing enough of these sort of BLP violations from autoconfirmed users that it now applies to all editors with less than 50 edits. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I just asked the user to please stop sending me e-mail (I've already received two). I don't really have anything else to say except what I said at the SPI. HJ Mitchell knows more about this master's behavior than I do. So does Nableezy, but I can see why in this particular instance they might be biased.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
What did I miss? (Also, hey Bish, long time no speak!) If Kingfiaher isn't a NoCal sock, he's doing a very good impression of one. That said, Israel/Palestine is rife with both socks and petty grudges. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?22:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I've been reviewing the archive to look for more behavioral similarities. I noticed three: (1) TK uses + frequently in his edit summaries, (2) many previous socks have vigorously protested when blocked, and (3) previous socks have used administrative noticeboards (TK used AE most recently and ANI twice before that) to complain about other editors' conduct (and given Nableezy's history in this master's case, it surely isn't surprising that TK complained about him).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, Nableezy and NoCal (in various guises) go way back. KF wouldn't be the first NoCal sock to report Nableezy to AE. Which is not to say the report is without merit—I haven't looked at it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?23:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Thomas Dixon (nonconformist) is one of those awful copy/paste jobs from an old public domain source. Worse, it is a copy/paste of a public domain source via a third-party transcription, ie: Wikisource. It is inevitably crap - people who did that sort of thing back in the day didn't even bother to wikify and comply with MOS, let alone attempt some basic checks on what is said. Anyways, the article actually covers two Thomas Dixons, father and son, which is a little clumsy for linking from articles such as Bank Street Unitarian Chapel, where both of them served as ministers. It would, in my opinion, be better if the two guys each had their own article but that then makes for some decision-making regarding what titles should be used.
We could do dates, ie: Thomas Dixon (1680-1729) and Thomas Dixon (1721-1754), or we could do Thomas Dixon senior (nonconformist) and Thomas Dixon junior (nonconformist) - or some combination of those two styles. Or there may be better alternative, of course, including just leaving it as it is. I suppose I could also create redirects from those redlinks back to the existing article but that is really clumsy, imo, and I think someone who has an interest in disambiguation and redirects would scream at me.
I know I will have to propose any split etc at the article talk. What is a reasonable amount of time to wait for responses before being bold about it? I can't even make my own mind up! - Sitush (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. From that, it looks like the paragraph beginning "Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators (readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it)" is the appropriate handling, although we don't actually know whether Dixon senior was born in 1680 (it's a "circa", which would give Thomas Dixon (nonconformist, born circa 1680) per the guidance).
Thomas Dixon (a disambiguation page) shows some other examples. My quick look at the history suggests that the only substantive edit before your work was in January 2012 so I would say you own it! That is, do whatever you think, although I would wait 24 hours after posting a brief proposal on talk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with 'Shonen: one of the principles of WP:AT is that titles should be as concise as possible, while still identifying the subject. The only alternative in my mind would be Thomas Dixon (nonconformist, father) and Thomas Dixon (nonconformist, son), but those give the impression of a "nonconformist father", so sound faintly ridiculous. The dates of death are your best bet to disambiguate the two; the worst that can happen is that a reader has to look at both to find the one they want. You could sensibly leave a hatnote at the top of each split article pointing to the other. --RexxS (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think Bish's idea is best, thanks to all. But now it strikes me that if I split the articles it is quite likely Dixon junior would be deleted anyway. The only claim to general notability that might exist would seem to be that his congregation split during his Bolton ministry, and I don't yet know how much that was actually to do with him. I'm struggling with GNG as it is at the moment, as you'll see from my AfD edit immediately prior to this one. Whether someone crosses the notability when they're mostly known locally seems quite often to depend a lot on whether the person is in the US or from somewhere else. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, Sitush, if Dixon (son) fails GNG, it probably wouldn't be deleted, but would almost certainly be merged back into the previous article. In that case, save yourself the bother and don't split the article. My recommendation would be to rearrange the present article (at its current title) into a lead and two sections: one (change "Life" to "Father") discussing the father; and the other (change "Family" to "Son"). Use the lead to briefly introduce the two of them. --RexxS (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
But then we end up with two lots of categories for birth and death years, an alumnus category that only applies to one person, etc. And it makes linking to both people from Bank Street Unitarian Chapel impossible unless I IAR regarding overlinks. I've mentioned it at the article talk page and should perhaps link to this thread, although I really doubt anyone would see that talk activity except via this! - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Hi Bishonen
I've recently come across two accounts, of which I have no doubt they are the same person (they edit the exact same topic areas). However, the second account was created about a day after the first account stopped editing after making about 130 edits (and has not edited since). As I cannot see any malevonence behind this sockpuppetry (there don't appear to be any disputes, blocks etc.), but it does not seem to be a WP:CLEANSTART, due to the accounts editing the same topic areas, should I report it? I can, if you like, email the usernames of the two accounts. --TedEdwards19:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Ted. I don't think this is the kind of case that WP:CLEANSTART was written for. You see how it says there that "The two most common reasons for wanting a clean start are recognizing past mistakes, and avoiding harassment". The assumption is that the old account has a "negative reputation", has been involved in disputes, etc, and that's the reason they shouldn't resume editing the same articles. It doesn't fit your guy at all. Your description sounds more like they just wanted a different name. You, or I, might possibly write to them, ask if they're the same person, and just point out politely that if so, they shouldn't use the old account again. But I'm not sure. Perhaps it would be tactless. As long as they're editing in good faith, and don't in fact use both accounts, I say we just leave them alone.
I'm happy to trust your judgment for this. But in case you have doubts, please just e-mail me the account names and I'll take a look. Bishonen | talk20:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC).
O.K. thank you. I think I'll leave the accounts alone, and only mention this to them if the sockpuppetry causes problems. I will however email the accounts to you, just so you know the situation in more detail and can make sure nothing's going on. --TedEdwards21:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Twitter canvassing
Is this sort of thing really acceptable from someone who has been here for years and has in the past held "high office"? I am assuming that the Twitter account, whose profile/description aligns with that of a registered account here, is not in fact a fake. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you mention it in the ANI thread, Sitush, while being careful about outing. No, we cannot assume that it's not a fake — absolutely not. But pinging the editor in question and asking them if the Twitter account is theirs can't be outing, surely? Or maybe it can. Our outing rules are very mysterious to me. Bishonen | talk11:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC).
I was toying with that. Done it now. I've never fully understood the WP:OUTING thing but, since neither of us are stupid, if I've got it wrong then I think that means the wording there needs to be clarified. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Sitush: That looks very good to me, well put. But shouldn't you indent more, since you're posting above some older posts? I think that would make the chronology clearer, and your post would show up as new (so that people may actually catch sight of it) if you use four colons (=one more than the post immediately below). At least, I've always used that system. Bishonen | talk12:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC).
Yeah, but they seemed to be quite careful with their wording there. And now the ANI thread has been closed by Jehochman within minutes of me posting. I'm not happy. Is he ever? you ask - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:ROPE and patience. Keep a list of their shennanigans. Email an admin once it gets to critical mass. This way you don't expose yourself to a counterclaim of outing. JehochmanTalk12:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Jehochman but if the interpretation of their comments by EdChem and Bish is correct, they've already outed themselves. I know for a fact this used to go on at a mailing list related to the gender gap issue, in which said person was also involved, but that changed from being a publicly-hosted WMF listserver thing to something private, apparently related to accusations of trolling although I'm guessing those must have been suppressed because I never saw any. - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If one were to be inclined to collect evidence regarding the alleged wiki user behind tweet A or tweet B - it seems quite plausible, beyond unsername morphology, to find in twitter history references to Wikipedia edits (for A - I reckon they're rather obvious) and in Wikipedia (or Wikimedia for that matter) contribution history references to twitter. Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
e.g. - tweet by user B which contains a screen of Wikipedia, the top line of the screen-grab would be rather strong evidence of a connection. Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
That's my opinion, too. It is blatant and I don't really understand why Jehochman doesn't just act. There is AGF and there is abuse by longstanding contributors. I know which side of the coin this is. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Put together the evidence in an email and share it with any administrator, me or somebody else. I wouldn't act until I had all the facts together. I haven't had time to do a complete analysis yet. This is not a race. We should get it right and make the result stick. JehochmanTalk15:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There was at least one user at the AfD who was canvassing without knowing it was wrong. I've left them a note explaining why, because the approach at AfD was a bit heavy-handed. The user responsible for the first tweet above really should know better, though. Vanamonde (Talk)17:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, the one you're referring to as "should know better" has been problematic, on and off, for years. My memory isn't anything like as good at Iridescent's but I'm pretty sure some of those problems have ended up being discussed right at the top of the tree and resulted in sanctions of some sort. In a sense, they've already had a lot of rope. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear, I saw this just after posting on your talk, I guess we're conversing on three pages now. Anyhow: I'm not letting that user off the hook, I'm just saying I haven't the time to dig into it at the moment. I just don't want one user's intransigence to be indirectly responsible for well-meaning newbies receiving a hostile reception. Vanamonde (Talk)17:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
It hasn't even been a week...
You may remember CEngelbrecht2 from such hits as Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction, Blocked or the rockin' classic Blocked again. Well, they have returned to their hobby of spewing forth hyperbolic and demeaning rhetoric at the Aquatic ape hypothesis talk page again, calling it a "warzone" where sources supporting the theory are "censored away" and declaring that "Any and all edits, that doesn't scream the knee-jerk assumption, that any version of aquaticism in recent hominin evolution is psychotic lunacy gets deleted within hours as a matter of course." Complete, of course, with bloviate quotes from well known scientists and all the same attitude of "I'm so much smarter than the rest of you" that led to his initial topic ban. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Not even a week since your self-requested block expired, you mean, young Pants? True, true. No, I had pretty much forgotten that user. Let me see if they need another warning about tone. Hmmm.. I don't like that "malicious vandalism", but it's hardly worth putting on the admin hat over. It is nice to see you back. Bishonen | talk20:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC).
Not even a week since your self-requested block expired, you mean, young Pants? Yes, indeed. It's making me wonder if coming back was even worth it, but I suppose my addiction must be fed. In all honesty, I don't think a warning will get the job done, but I've been wrong before, and this is something it's better to be wrong about, so fingers crossed.
Hi, CEngelbrecht2. I guess you've forgotten how to indent in conversations; I've done it for you. Mjolnir is probably writing about this here because he thinks I should be alerted to it, in my quality as administrator. I wasn't going to say anything, but since you're here, I'll ask you to be less hostile on talkpages. Accusing your opponents of malicious vandalism and the like is both unfair and uncivil. Bishonen | talk21:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC).
There wasn't any vandalism. Just indeff them for NPA and NOTHERE. You can save us all a lot of time as that's where they're obviously heading. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest that your request to remain civil and on-topic did not do any good. See their edits to the page since their last edit here: ([44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50])(presented in chronological order, FWIW). The closest thing to a useful comment is that first one, except it's not about improving the article, but simply arguing in favor of the AAH. The rest consists of transparent antagonism of jps, including more than one borderline personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Speaking as a self-admitted "huge fan" of the hypothesis, it's a fascinating notion, and would make for a rather dramatic line of scientific enquiry, were it ever shown to be true. Being the result of a legitimate scientific enterprise also lends it an air of credibility that other pseudo-scientific notions lack. When you combine that with the relatively sudden denouncement of the hypothesis by the scientific community combined with the community's subsequent disinclination to address it further, it's the perfect idea to be seized upon by anyone wanting to believe that modern science conspires to suppress unfashionable ideas. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Morgan's critique that old school anthropology was sexist was closer to the mark than the "umbrella hypothesis" she championed. Unfortunately she chose the wrong idea to emphasize. Today, any expansive "evolutionary" claim that seeks to explain the human condition is pushed aside in favor of more-nuanced investigative weaving (see the take downs of evolutionary psychology, for example). So the AAH people feel put upon because the savannah hypothesis really is dead but the goalposts have moved so what constitutes proper theory in these contexts has left them in the dust. It's left them tilting at windmills with decades of frustration spilling out in internet fora and in obscure publications. jps (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Even if there is a conspiracy to suppress it and so on, I just don't get how it's "the greatest idea of our generation" from any angle.[51] Oh, and there's the "rape" again.[52] All right, that's enough. I've blocked for two weeks. Bishonen | talk20:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC).
2 weeks seems rather generous - if the previous 2 week and 3 month blocks didn't change his behaviour in relation to the topic.. If not an indef (I suppose he does have a couple of dozen constructive edits outside of the topic area...) I'd at-least say indefinitely topic ban him from Aquatic ape hypothesis.Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC) I do see that the DS alert has unfortunately expired.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
His previous blocks are also fairly old — possibly because because he hasn't been editing much in the meantime. Anyway, I warned him that the next block was likely to be an indef. Bishonen | talk21:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC).
I can say the same for youUser talk:Sharkslayer87. Firstly, I have used only credible sources and mostly direct quotations for both these articles. How is it showing my POV when I have literally quoted verbatim from these sources? Did I write those books and papers? NO! Many of them, including Thurston and Yamada Keiko have been used before on the Kamma Wikipedia. Now why is it wrong to provide readers with additional information from these professors and researchers. Moreover, your claim that British Raj articles are unreliable is factually wrong when you consider how many articles and researchers, including caste ones cite them. In regards to the Raju caste article, I added a mere one quote that backs up information already present in the article, and it was from a respected British source. What we have here is that you, Mr. Sharkslayer87, for some reason don’t like what these credible sources have said so you are creating unnecessary drama. When looking at what editors, likeUser talk:Sitush , have said about you, I’m not surprised. It's clear you are from the Raju community and trying to push an agenda. If you must know my caste, I am a Telugu Brahmin, and I have no connection to either of these castes, so I am neutral arbitrator to provide factual information from other researchers. Also, I just checked the Raju page and I see quite a few British era articles and pages cited, so I really don't understand why you are vandalizing other people's work with no cause or reason. Moreover, it looks like you have been banned and reprimanded for caste promotion on Wikipedia. I sincerely request the administrator reviewing the case to consider Mr. Sharkslayer87's previous wrongdoings involving caste articles (He was just recently unbanned from caste articles), and I 100% declare that I was just minding my business by researching with verified sources to contribute to the Wikipedia community, until Sharsklayer87 unjustly pulled me into this mess. NagarjunaSarma(talk)
In regards to the reliability of British Raj documents, Kamma Caste and Raju Caste article already utilized these British Raj Sources way before I started editing. In fact, I made sure to exclusively reference Thurston because he was also used. He was one of two Britishers I used. Additionally, Ms. Yamada Keiko, a professor at a Japanese University, and other modern researchers often cite Mr. Thurston's work. This isn't just a willy-nilly picking. There are countless books that cite Mr. Thurston's work and if it's good enough for college professors and their research, Wikipedia audience should benefit from it. Moreover, why would the Kamma and Raju Caste articles already cite British Raj material without any editor removing It or causing a fuss. You can't pick and chose what British Raj articles are reliable, especially when entire college textbooks and professors constantly cite them. In fact, I just cited the British Raj work that was already mentioned through direct quotations. Since caste is such a volatile topic, the British Raj documents have been the foundation basis for many reliable books discussing caste. Finally, I also cited modern documents and college trained professors or historians, like Mr. Tyagi, Ms. Keiko, and others in my edits. Sharkslayer also vandalized those. It's clear that his intentions and previous caste based drama, which got him banned until quite recently from editing caste base articles, is the problem. Not the British Raj sources, which I ensured were used by modern scholars. I sincerely request the administrator viewing this case to review in detail the usage of Thurston's work and how college professors consider it reliable. Furthermore, I request that Sharkslayer87 not be allowed to edit caste-based articles and his ban be restored. It's clear based on my interaction with him and other editors, that he is still promoting the Raju Caste on Wikipedia. Gives me no pleasure in saying it. We should all be working together without an agenda to provide knowledge for people. Instead, Sharkslayer87 has created unneeded drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NagarjunaSarma (talk • contribs)
@NagarjunaSarma: You are mistaken about the reliability of British Raj documents. They are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. It is true that modern experts are able to analyse these primary sources and make use of them to inform their own conclusions. However, neither you nor I (nor any other Wikipedia editor) are experts, and we don't make our own amateur analyses. The expertise that college professors bring to their research is not available to Wikipedia editors: there is no "appeal to authority" of an editor allowed here. --RexxS (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@RexxS: The point is though that excluding one or two of them, the remaining edits that involved Thurston were sourced directly from these college professors and modern day experts. They utilized that specific quotes in their work, and that is why I felt comfortable using it. Also, if British Raj sources are unreliable why do almost all caste pages utilize them. Both the Kamma and Raju page did long before I got here. Finally, if user Sharkslayer87 felt so compelled to remove unreliable British Raj sources, he shouldn't have vandalized the other research and work I submitted from Modern scholars, like Mr. Tyagi and Ms.Keiko. He deleted everything. I didn't use any British source that wasn't referenced directly in quotes from modern researchers or scholars. Had I used one that hasn't been used by modern scholar, then there would have been a very good reasoning to delete that part. Thank you.NagarjunaSarma (talk)
UPDATE: In order to end this conflict, I have found modern citations for the one or two citations that was purerly British Raj documents. These direct quotation citations come from modern authors and researchers who say the same thing as Thurston with verification. I hope this will resolve the source conflict, and there is No POV conflict because I used direct quotations and cited from two or three different authors. NagarjunaSarma(talk)
Nittawinoda
See this revert by me. That contributor is becoming very disruptive now. I know that the Dirks source they removed mentions it, and the very first source in that list they removed says "The Maravar and Kallar, who mainly inhabit the dry zones of Ramanathapuram and Pudukottai, acquired ill repute as thieves and robbers perhaps from the early medieval times". You might argue that quote is slightly ambivalent compared to the statement we made, because of the use of perhaps, but Dirks is adamant and there are loads of other sources I've seen that say it. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
IP user banned from el.wikipedia.org is hunting me
An IP user is harassing me. This has been going for a long time at the greek wikipedia (el.wikipedia.com) and now he is here. The specific user got an indefinitely ban from el.WP and now is using an IP address. The last few days, he expanded his hunting in en.WP as well. His modus operanti are major reverts in the articles that I have contributed (History of anarchism and Michael Bakunin. His IPs: 94.66.56.226 or 94.66.56.96 or 94.66.56.211 or 94.66.56.72 or 94.66.56.138. You may ask at el.WP ANI for his case. Can we do something to deal with this sort of problem please? It is really frustrating the way he reverts, reverts reverts. (He is also keen on personal attacks). Thanks Cinadon36 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Cinadon36. I can't do anything about IP harassment on the Greek Wikipedia. But here on en.wiki I think I can block the range that contains those IPs you list, since it's quite a small range, 94.66.56.0/24. I can see they've been harassing you. I'll just ping a checkuser and ask a question first:
@Bbb23: I was afraid there might be collateral damage even though the range is so small, since there are other IPs in it that edit e.g. sports pages. But then I noticed you reverting several of those others — 94.66.56.57, 94.66.56.38, 94.66.56.164 — as block evasion, here. So, would you say the 94.66.56.0/24 range can be blocked for a month or so? (Or even longer, since Cinadon has been having those problems for a long time.) Because that's what I'd like to do. Bishonen | talk19:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC).
A full range block might produce some collateral damage. The problem only seems to have happened on en-wiki today – is that right? If it's only those two articles, you could ask for semi-protection and continue to discuss the edits on the article talk pages. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both. No, RexxS, if you look at all five, and even more if you add the other three, it's more articles and more dates. The individual is also presumably likely to follow Cinadon to whatever article they edit, if I leave them at large. Cinadon36, I've blocked the IPs you've encountered and others in their range for one month. Please let me know if the harassment should start up from some other direction. Bishonen | talk21:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC).
There is another user from el.WP who is utilizing WP:POVRAILROAD against me. It has been going since November, but it reached a peak today, two days after an article I have re-written.
The above are his today's comments. The accussarion of propaganda or censorchip goes way back.
2 January 2019, same article: "read this if you know Greek, and stop the hoax contribution: Ηοργάνωση Αρχείον του Μαρξισμού (1919-1934), κοινωνικοί αγώνες, πολιτική οργάνωση, ιδεολογία και πολιτισμικές πρακτικές στα εργατικά στρώματα της μεσοπολεμικής Ελλάδας, Πανεπιστήμιο Κρήτης, Κώστας Παλούκης, διδακτορική διατριβή 2017 σελ 175. Its free.[54] ps-I am Greek
2 January 2019, same article: "Another hoax from the same user. He wasnt an anarchist. He was a member of stalinist guerilla group in Greek civil war. Later he was member of greek left party. He was never an anarchist.It is just another hoax contribution from the same user." [55]
There are more p. attacks and pov railroading in other articles. ie notable At Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests he is attacking me and Czar that we are censoring him.
December 2018 "Please check what happens in the article of Alexandros Schinas. I have put 3 historians, but two users delete my citations, and leave only anarchist POV of newspapers of...1913. User talk:czar claims that This gets off-topic but the New York Times cited in Schinas is a secondary source. a newpaper of 1913 is a secondary source! Does Wikipedia think that 1913 NYT are secondary sources? And User:Cinadon36 forbid my citations from historians from Greece. I am very sorry but my english are very weak. Please help me.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC) i have put 4 historians and they delete it. they leave only a newspaper of 1913 as a secondary source."diff, diffpermalink
December 2018 "You have been banned from greek wikipedia for three months and now for one month for similar reasons." diff, permanlink)
December 2018 "Richard Clogg is the writer. Google it, and stop the trolling. It is my last warnign. The next time i will inform Greek and English community about your doings here".diffpermalink
"I have asked him to stop personal attacks, in his personal TalkPage."[57]
At Talk:Serifos"different topic, but you are the same user. You cite primary sources of 1920 of NYC with the journalist claims of this war time for facts fot ....Greece(!!!), but in the same time you forbid historians like Hondromatides, Kostopoulos, Livieratos, Kordatos and you claim that they are primary sources(!). I think my english are very bad, but the problem is not my english but you want your anarchist POV."diff
For my contributions before two/three months i apologize (and i think i apologized again, but i am not 100% sure). For this month, i don't addressed to this user, but i just say that there is a POV situation and this is caused by the sources and from the users. If there is a user that i have offended (this month) is only user Czar, but this is a history conflict, and there is a sad situation here, when phds that are not fond of anarchism is not allowed to became a citation. Sorry about my bad english.
P.S please check what i am saying as examble: here. I can bring more if you wish.
@Cinadon36: your previous problem was fairly simple and I could handle it, but this one is way above my paygrade, sorry. I don't understand Greek, I even have some trouble reading the Greek-influenced English of Αντικαθεστωτικός, and I'm no good at Greek history or at political theory. Please take the issue instead to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. That's a lively and busy noticeboard, and you will get more people who understand the subject viewing your complaint.
Here's some advice for how best to use ANI:
Keep in mind that you can only take conduct complaints there, not disagreements about content. You too, Αντικαθεστωτικός, if you reply on ANI. To get more eyes on the content conflict on the article talkpages, I suggest you use Wikipedia:Third opinion.
Phrase your header carefully to show what your text is about and to catch the reader's interest so they don't skip to the next section: not "Povrailroad", which tells the reader nothing and also sounds angry and accusatory (that makes a bad impression), but something more like "Problems at Anarchism in Greece and History of anarchism". (I'm assuming those are the main articles in question, though I see you mention others too.)
See if you can shorten your post: starting with a long post is another thing that tends to make readers skip a section. Do the quotes have to be so long?
And, thirdly, make sure you ping users you mention. It would have been a good idea to ping User:Czar above, for instance. (Now I've done it for you.) You did absolutely right to provide diffs and to notify Αντικαθεστωτικός here on my page; please do those things at ANI also. Bishonen | talk19:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC).
Hello Mr./Ms. Administrator, this user User talk:Sharkslayer87 is vandalizing Kamma (caste) and the Raju Caste and essentially cyber-harassing me. This user has deliberately deleted the work that I have placed many times because he said it was my POV. However, I directly quoted almost all of the content I added, and I made sure to cite them properly. I also verified the credibility of those sources. If a source from the British Raj was already used in that caste article, used by modern college professors and authors to cite their work, and the source is derived from a reputable man, what harm is there to provide the Wikipedia audience with direct quotations, with no influence from me? These quotes also don't say anything that is outside the norm for the topic in terms of what is already present in the article. Sharkslayer87 already has a history of caste based editing, which got him banned until very recently. Other editors, like Sitush, have commented on his talk page about his lack of credible source and vandalism. It's clear he is unfortunately engaging in it again. Please see to this. Thanks and god bless all of you. NagarjunaSarma(talk)
As so often, I saved myself trouble by sleeping through this, as I'm sure Sitush also did, and RexxS would have if he wasn't such a nightowl. Thanks for the CU block, Bbb23. What I'd like to know, preferably from Sitush, is if everything is A OK now that NagarjunaSarma has been blocked as a sock. In particular, does any shadow fall on Sharkslayer87 as regards this conflict? I don't mean that I'm impressed by NagarjunaSarma's insistence (here and on WP:ANEW) on Sharkslayer's previous caste topic ban; I'm not. Sharkslayer's ban was lifted with something like acclamation in December.[59] I don't myself see any problems in this instance (except that, trivially, Sharkslayer could do with reading up on the 3RR rule, which he mistakenly invokes). Bishonen | talk05:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC).
Oh, man. "Wikipedia articles should reflect all the views of any subject matter." Apply that to caste articles, and they will all purvey the view that the caste is descended from kings, because that is certainly always a "view". Bishonen | talk17:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC).
article Falooda and rum
hi,
my edits in the article 'Rum' which was backed by RS has been reverted, there is also an issue with article Falooda where persian users have reverted my RS there, and have imposed their persian blog source which is about faloodeh, a persian dessert and not indian falooda and its not an RS. your intervention is needed falooda and rum, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Not that I myself have been exactly Christ-like in this, perhaps you could have a word before the phoenix immolates himself in flames. [60]EEng00:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's roughly on the level of the Lilliputian wars, so I wouldn't recommend anybody getting worked up over it. I actually think the argument really went downhill when it got personal at this point.
I didn't come here for an adjudication of when "the argument really went downhill", but rather to enccourage Bishonen to help Jfrb course-correct before the community's resources must be further squandered on another expensive Arbcom case about him. But since you bring it up, I'd say the argument really went downhill when Jfrb posted that he didn't realize it was EEng, who has his own, admin-approved MoS; do forgive me. As for the underlying typographic question, see (both already cited by me to Jfrb) MOS:SUFFIXDASH and CMOS's explanation that The en dash can be used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements consists of an open compound or when both elements consist of hyphenated compounds. (An open compound is a compound that contains a space.) EEng03:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
No, a hyphen is used there (not an endash as you have it) because there's no open compound. Try reading the CMOS passage again. EEng06:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
If you still think my edit [61] looks "silly" then you still don't understand when to use hyphen vs. endash when forming compounds, and your sarcasm reflects that lack of understanding.
I don't know whether, since you came off your Arbcom block, your behavior is better or worse overall, but you certainly continue to display, at least at times, the attitude that earned you that block. You just can't seem to say, "OK, thanks, I learned something today." This endash–hyphen point is admittedly an esoteric one, but you're the one insisting on pressing it, so you should be prepared to do the work of learning the nitty details. If not, then leave the matter to others who know such things. EEng07:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Longterm professional editor and proofreader here. EEng is correct about the en-dash. Perhaps an admin (Bish) should lock the page so that discussion could occur on the talkpage rather than via edit summaries on null/dummy edits. Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Groan. Hyphen, and course-correcting? I'm busy. I'll take a look later, unless some kind tps has taken care of it, HINT HINT. Bishonen | talk10:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC).
As a tps - I'll say it's telling that the last edit to the talk page is from October 2018. (That's a hint that the dicussion needs to take place on the talk page, not here and not in edit summaries). Ealdgyth - Talk13:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Softlavender: I'm really surprised you say so. I'm with RexxS and Joe. But that doesn't matter; there's definitely not a vote about it, here on my page. I've full-protected for 3 days (I'll make it longer if necessary) in order to push the combatants away from their lame null-edit war and on to talk. Rather than keep shouting at each other there, I would suggest getting a third opinion. Unless you're embarrassed to invite guests to a dash/hyphen conflict? Bishonen | talk15:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC).
We're off point. I'm not worried about the underlying punctuation question (on which I'm sure you'll come to your senses should Jfrb resume disputing it, though I doubt that will happen). My hope was you'd counsel him about the lashing out. EEng16:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
While I'm always happy to hear the wisdom of the learned and perspicacious Bishonen, I feel I've perfected lashing out to the point where there's little room for improvement. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry that your talk page has been tainted with this trivial nonsense, Bish. You can unlock the MoS page if you're so inclined. I've no intention of making further edits, null or not-so-null; excuse me, not–so–null; oh, fuck it; not—so—null. I know the difference between a hyphen and a dash, and that's good enough for me. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I've always liked Herostratus' suggestion: Possibly the best solution would be a line at the beginning of each article containing a couple dozen commas, and also some semicolons, quotation marks, and so forth. The reader could then be instructed to mentally sprinkle them throughout the text in whatever manner she finds pleasing.[62]EEng16:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
LOL, both excellent suggestions, T-RexxS and EEng. It's fine, Joe, my talkpage gets tainted with worse on an almost daily basis. For your aim in coming here, EEng, I rarely find "counselling" has a good effect in cases like this. People counsel me sometimes, and it usually makes me behave worse, not better. Also I think the difference between Joe's edit summaries and yours was fairly subtle, even though I do agree with you that the descent started with this edit summary. Bishonen | talk18:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC).
"Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." - J K Galbraith, I think. I keep thinking I should stick it on my talk page somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Like me and everyone else, they sometimes get it wrong (you heard it here first, folks!). However, yes, they're definitely working in good faith from what I have seen and they do a lot of discussing when things become contentious, which is preferable to edit warring. They also definitely do a lot of sourcing for those discussions. Do you have any specific examples, Panda619? - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Kindly review my edits carefully. I have made edits on topics of science, Regions and Comics as well. I have made many many edits on subjects like DNA, Suppandi, Cities like peddapuram , comics like tinkle, champak
Yes, Sangitha rani111. Panda619 made a rather vague and sweeping accusation against you, but as you can see, neither Sitush nor I agreed. I consider you a good, constructive editor. And it's hard to take Panda619's opinion that you're disruptive and don't use good sources seriously, since they haven't given any diffs as examples of this. Sitush asked for examples, but got no reply so far. Bishonen | talk01:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC).
Heheh. "I'm aware that you're both Indians but please keep your feelings out of this ..." Is there a word for projecting your own prejudices onto other people and getting it comically wrong? If not, we ought to invent one. I'm going with 'lumixosity'. --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
It did wonders for Wikipedia rhetoric when it became possible to leave much longer edit summaries, didn't it? Sitush, you're not just Indian but frequently a Brahmin, I believe? Just like me. 😛 Bishonen | talk19:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC).
See this at BN. Surely someone is making a mockery of adminship there? Can CIR be applied without evidence of current incompetence? That is, because someone who has been an admin for so long but with so little activity cannot reasonably be expected to be competent as an admin now due to the numerous changes to policies etc in the interval? I'm not suggesting that they should be blocked, of course, but they have no obvious use for the extra bits. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not unusual, Sitush. I mean, missing the one-year hiatus by 17 days is unusual, but there are quite a few heritage admins who make one or two edits once a year, just to keep the tools. I don't like it, no. I hope most of them take it very easy if they return to activity, and admin very cautiously or not at all at first, because they are to all intents and purposes newbie admins. But it has been known to happen that one of them, presumably after being contacted by e-mail, has jumped up and made a wildly inappropriate block or unblock — some admin action which might or might not have been acceptable in their day. And then there's an angry discussion of the rules, which runs into the sands. It'll be interesting to see if the 'crats refuse to restore the tools because of the 17 days. I think they should. On the other hand, I also think the requirement for hanging on to them, detailed in WP:INACTIVITY, should be tighter. Bishonen | talk17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC).
Well, Xaosflux has been chatting with me on my talk page, pointing out that there is an open RfC regarding the inactivity requirements. I've read it and the thing is mind-boggling: admins I know well, trust and respect are circling the wagons to stop change. I'm paraphrasing but if someone says "increase by ten", they reply "just as easy to game as if we leave it as it is"; if someone says "increase by 100", they say "woah, this is a volunteer thing and we can't expect people to put in the time like that". I'm sorry, but if someone thinks they have a need for the bits then I'd like to imagine they're reasonably active. I can understand breaks lasting several months but not twelve, and if it does get to twelve then they're out of touch. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hardly your fault. Had there been a discussion at my page when I posted the initial message here, I would have told you: I prefer to treat you like a sunflower, not a mushroom :) - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The problem we're encountering is that the admin group has become much more like an American college fraternity than anything else. It started off as easy to get into, and the difficulty has steadily increased over the years until we now require the inductees to go through a hazing process during 'pledge week' and overcome multiple bars and obstacles, which will vary at the whim of the gatekeepers. Once accepted, of course, the member is there for life, barring some egregious action. It's hardly surprising, therefore, that most members don't want to run any greater risk of having to go through the pledging process again. And who could blame them?
As for asking for the tools back after a period of inactivity, my view is "why not"? We trusted them with powerful tools before, surely we are going to trust them to use them carefully once those tools are returned? --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The person in question has barely edited. They got the tools back in 2006 with 3600 edits and haven't even doubled that number since, mostly in the period to 2008-ish. In 10 years since, they've almost not been here so, sure, they haven't abused the tools but they haven't done so because of their absence. And the two times when they have used them in that period, they messed up. - Sitush (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, so Sitush, what you're saying is that you don't trust them to use the tools, hence they should not have had the tools in the first place. Well, there may be some mileage in that, but you can't use the inactivity mechanism as a proxy for de-sysop on grounds of loss of trust; it simply wasn't designed for that purpose. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh, for... I had just typed up an answer. Very well, never mind, answered on ANI. Please consider yourself warned: any further ban violations will lead to blocks. Bishonen | talk05:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC).
Right, Locke Cole. Already blocked by Favonian. The IP looks extremely dynamic. Well, you took them to AN3, so of course they're interested in harassing you. That's how these charmers roll. 🙁 I can semi your talk against new socks if you like, but I don't think it'll make much difference, sorry. Bishonen | talk19:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC).
Three months, really? That's a little unusual. Don't you think he'll get bored sooner than that? Look, I've semi'd for one month, but you only have to drop another note here if you want it extended. Bishonen | talk20:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC).
trolling and I would remind you, as a very senior editor, that we are all supposed to assume good faith. Having watched for an hour with mounting astonishment at the behaviour of all contributors edit warring over a blocked editor's TP, I said what I felt was needed. In fact, I didn't even realise that you had edited through full protection to interject with humour which some people might regard as grave dancing. Whatever it was, it wasn't appropriate in the middle of that dispute at that time. I suggest we go our own way. Should you wish to reflect and apologise, you know where I am :) Rgds. Leaky caldron (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Gravedancing??? Me dancing on MjolnirPants' grave? He's a friend of mine, I'm very sorry he's gone. Humour, what fucking humour? Don't answer, just get lost. Bishonen | talk22:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC).
Bishzilla will get the next person who edit conflicts me. You're a good dog, Roxy. Sorry, Leaky caldron, I shouldn't have got quite that angry with you. Of course you're not obliged to know whether a couple of unknowns are friends or not. I do think, though, that when you don't understand something (=my post to MP), it shows a good deal of ABF, and a low opinion of humanity (or just of me), to interpret it as intending to tease or humiliate a user — any user, even if I disliked them — who had just crashed out of Wikipedia like some hard Brexit. I had recently blocked MP at his own request for three months, and talked quite a bit with him off line in that context. I was concerned he might easily lose it in that kind of situation, and was sad when he did. I'm not at all worried he'll misunderstand my post as anything less than friendly. But I'm sorry I shouted at you. Bishonen | talk22:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC).
I am grateful for that. I fully appreciate that some people form special / supportive / working relationships. I think if the half a dozen people involved in edit warring on the TP of your friend (who could not intervene) reflect on their actions they might agree that many actions were sub-optimal. My edit was a failed attempt to provoke a halt and definitely not to inflame or invite conflict - which was already present. Best. Leaky caldron (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
As one of those half dozen, I want to say that I agree strongly that there should be more AGF. That includes more AGF for what I was trying unsuccessfully to do, and of course it includes even more AGF for MPants. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd also suggest a lot more AGF for all the oversighters/admins who were doing their best with the page, but unfortunately tripped repeatedly over both each other and you, Tryptofish. That's how this interface works when many people are simultaneously interested in a page. Bishonen | talk19:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC).
As a sort of meta observation, I've noticed over and over that whenever there is an incident involving oversight of something, or discussion of the outing policy, there is an immediate outbreak of hyper-emotional over-reaction among lots and lots of users. It's like lots of people's hair suddenly catch on fire (not Zilla's fault either) and editors immediately go into fight-or-flight, and it takes a couple of days before enough people calm down. Even when there actually isn't an emergency. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I wrote a longish edit to be placed on MPants’ page titled “For fuck’s sake” asking him to grow up, explaining exactly how he is of great value to this project, adding that some of us have enabled his dark side (which Tryptofish has more than touched on) , reminding him that he knows full well how to respond to an unblock request, suggesting that he understand that the average human IQ is only 100, and suggesting he shut up and wait six months, mellow with age, and respond the way he knows how to respond. Then, the Chardonnay faded and I deleted the intended edit. As I said before; what is best for him is best for him. If participation here causes him problems – let us wait and not try to force him to participate. (And yeah, I saw the oversighted stuff and a not surprised folks tripped over themselves deleting it. Also in his favor.) (And yeah. Quotes about cynicism are hilarious.) O3000 (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The odd thing is MPants does good work, and I thought the project would suffer when he took the self-imposed three-month block, but it didn't. Wikipedia went on fine without him, plenty of other people were watching and curating the exact same articles he did, except in a mature, civil, adult, and much more effective way. Which just goes to show that no one is irreplaceable, and if we feel it is our mission in life to guard the door and right great wrongs, we are not irreplaceable, especially if the way we are doing it is counter-productive. Softlavender (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Word. Many of us, including no doubt you, didn't need MPants to teach us that lesson. Many of us will never learn it. ―Mandruss☎12:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
It's true that everyone is replaceable. But I think it's tacky to point it out when someone has just been shown the door and may be weighing an appeal. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
He should not appeal for six months, IMHO. And, by then he should have realized the meaning of several posts here. I hope he does come back after a long vacation as I enjoyed his presence and contributions. And frank language (which he uses himself) is not tacky. But, an early return would just result in the same ending. O3000 (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Is there a CIR problem with this user? On my talk page and at the ANI thread about VM on the AE thread his commentary seemed totally disconnected from what was actually happening. I see this now on his talk page regarding the current AE thread. Cheers, Dlohcierekim(talk)05:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I've removed my original answer to you, Dlohc, because I don't think I'd better say anything about Sir J at all. I don't want him to come to my page, for some very good reasons of my own, so I'd better not talk about him here. Bishonen | talk18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC).
Hello Bishonen! User:Cinadon36 keeps folowing my edits in English in various articles of EN:Wikipedia and reverting them without any explanation. Please i need your help, i think that i followed your instructions and i never insulted him again, from your last warning.
Now my alert button is full of notices of reverts of my edits.
Please check that in many articles he didn't wrote anything. He just follows me and revert me. 123.
(talk page stalker)I can't really see where they attack you: This is about it, and saying Cairn info is a RS while that bunch of links you presented is not is in no way a personal attack. And the rest of your discussion on that page consists of equally polite, but informative, destruction of your argument that someone is an anarchist when reliable sources would indicate otherwise.Further, regarding their reverts of your assertions on other pages, per WP:FOLLOWING, Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended. ——SerialNumber5412914:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
1st i didn't mention at all personal attacks. 2nd the topic about Cairn is irrelevant 3rd He is following me and keep reverting my edits without explanation. If it is ok, then i have no place here. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Apologies, I misread what you said about attacks (I see you meant that you have a history of attacking them—apologies for misrepresenting you) and have struck that portion of my remark. I'm afraid the rest still stands though. Take care! ——SerialNumber5412915:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed that Αντικαθεστωτικός deletes unsourced text from articles. Wikipedia's policy is that we shouldn't delete unsourced text, it is better to add a template {{citation needed}} or mention it in the talk page and re-address the issue after a month or two. (per WP:USI). Αντικαθεστωτικος provided 3 diffs of mine. I explained the reason at two such diffs. At the third one, I have not explained but it is because I have told him so elsewhere. (ie here (today's diff). He could have asked me at my Talk Page or at article's Talk Page. Nevertheless, from now on, I will keep repeating in every edit summary my doings. Cinadon36 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The user follows me, and keep reverting at once my contribution. p.e Christos Tsoutsouvis in the content of the article he is not described as an anarchist. But someone have put him in anarchists category. So i removed him from this category with the proper explanation (not an anarchist. Left terrorists group during 1980 was socialist and nationalistic like Revolutionary Organization 17 November, and he reverted me 2times with this the 2nd time as an explanation Tsoutsouvis is linked to anarchism by some,! Is it possible to write by some? Who are they?
It is not my problem to justify that he wasn't an anarchist, but it his problem to justify that he was a one. (Just for the record the previous organisations of this anarchistRevolutionary People's Struggle). Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
That is simply not true. Your contribution that is in line with WP policies stays untouched. ie: [63], [64], [65]. I will not comment on your remarks regarding the content. If you had any questions, why did n't you use the talk page in neither of those articles? Cinadon36 (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
As i said before: It is only your problem to support that X was something. Not my problem. I won't write anywhere. Tsoutsouvis is linked to anarchism by some is just original research from you, and nothing relevant exists in his article. I think your aim is to revert my contribution, but you did it only to 50% of my contributions. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Αντικαθεστωτικός. There is nothing wrong in itself with following a user's contributions — the link on every userpage to that user's contribs exists for a reason. Cinadon36 has seen some problematic editing by you, and so he looks at the rest of your contribs. Administrators do that every day, when they notice problems — it's normal. What is wrong, on the other hand, is to "hound" an editor: to follow them around "to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work ... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor", as it says at WP:HOUND. But I can't see that Cinadon has been doing that. Are you saying he has? Bishonen | talk17:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC).
I don't much like that, Cinadon36. Why would you ask a pertinent question of Αντικαθεστωτικός but then remove the exchange an hour later, without giving them much chance to reply? I don't see that it was a WP:NOTFORUM matter, exactly. Bishonen | talk09:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC).
I did answer at the first time, asking for citations, but then I was thinking, "if someone goes to a Talk Page and state his opinion, isn't that a forum?" per: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." (WP:TPNO- it 's circular to WP FORUM) I have seen it many times, users going to articles like atheism, trying to explain the fallacies of atheism, how atheists get it wrong, and their edits are deleted due Wikipedia is not a forum. Lets break down Αντικαθεστωτικός comment (3 sentences)
"i[sic] think they are 1 or 2 greek persons in Syria." Clearly his opinion on RUIS
"Its[sic] a common way to present as it is something bigger." Nothing backed by evidence or RS, his opinion on the users who created the article (violates AGF, note: I didn't contribute)
"its a funny thing i[sic] guess". Can't see why it relates to the article.
Which of those 3 sentences is about the article?. He is not discussing how to improve the article. He is projecting his own opinion on RUIS. On the other hand, Αντικαθεστωτικός keeps complaining of censorship, (he is continuing the censorship campaign I told you Bishonen before[66]). Noone should have a free pass or not have his edits checked by various other users. That wouldn't not right. Instead of asking me what the problem is, he is trying to initiate a battle.Cinadon36 (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Edit warring at Nazi gun control argument (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) – it's one of those "is it a hoax or is it a legitimate unproven theory" edit wars, the diffs aren't super-clear, but you can see the weasel words, removal of references, and tagging (and restoration when other editors have removed it).
Inappropriate edit warring template on an editor who reverted him diff
That's just the last few days. If you look at the user talk page and archives, you'll see that a number of our fellow editors (you're one of them) have very generously spent an inordinate amount of time trying to help this editor contribute constructively. Unfortunately, this editor doesn't seem to listen to any of them. I'm concerned about how many different editors have been disrupted by this one user. I was preparing an ANEW report and realized that the other non-EW-related diffs didn't really fit; so I thought ANI; then I saw your name as the last blocking admin, so I thought I'd dump this in your lap. :-) I'm not sure what the best way forward is, but I look for your advice as to whether I should "take this somewhere" or "leave it alone" or what. Thank you! Levivich23:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, Levivich, I've given VwM.Mwv a warning about adding the NPOV template over and over, and about placing retaliatory warnings on others. His mentor, Icewhiz, is taking a lot of trouble with him, and he seems at least somewhat responsive (though I notice he hasn't created the desired User:VwM.Mwv/EditPlan page yet, but perhaps it's on its way). Bishonen | talk17:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC).
He has confirmed he will be backing off - in the archive (he's still archiving at a fast clip - I'll get him off that eventually (it's a bad habit - but he started doing that after an admin suggested it, and it is archived) - he has however started indenting his talk page post). He hasn't edited since we last discussed the editing plan - so it's OK that he hasn't created the sub-page yet (it is still on his user page). VwM.Mwv is a challenge, and perhaps a bit young, but he does have some capacity to listen. I want to get him editing less contentious articles - e.g. Israeli political parties or ventures such as SpaceIL. I'm not sure he realized (and many outside of the US do not) just how much of a big deal gun control is in the US (and by extension on Wikipedia) - much of world is quite bewildered by the complexity and heat of this issue. Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Bishonen! I left a note on VwM's talk page. I'll move along now with thanks to you and Icewhiz for donating your time to VwM.
On an unrelated and happier note, I love the picture of a lion at the top of your talk page. Did you know that... Lev means "lion"? Levivich22:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm working on the edit plan (it's gonna take a while). And I intend to bring any & all potentially controversial edits up there before making them, as Icewhiz suggested. M.M17:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
And you immediately blanked my warning without reply, falsely claiming in the edit summary that I had told you you needn't respond. You're technically allowed to do that, but obviously it's not polite or collaborative, and as Icewhiz says, it's a bad habit. Bishonen | talk17:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC).
Yeah, that was just before I saw Icewhiz's comment on the issue. But you literally did tell me that I "needn't bother tell" you in this case. [67]M.M17:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
You think quoting three words out of context shows I "literally" told you you needn't reply? I did not. I was in fact hoping you'd explain why you first said repeatedly that you were done at the article, and then a few hours later edited it again. But I don't care any more, so feel free to stop lawyering. You're lucky Icewhiz has more patience with you than I can muster. Bishonen | talk17:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC).
Thank you all, and special thanks to Ritchie333 for contributing. Er, Ritchie, your added item 12 is very attractive in itself, but I'm frankly not sure it's optimistic enough. I mean, the theme of the page is quite narrow. But we may well need more guides. Maybe your #12 could be the start of a "Deletionist's guide to Wikipedia"? Abecedare's suggestion for a #13 is lovely, and very optimistic! But probably not strictly needed, do you think? I mean, of course it's sincere, as RexxS says. It comes from my heart, and is intended as a kind of polemic against MastCell's rather horrible Cynic's guide to Wikipedia — I'm trying to show Wikipedia in a better light. Bishonen | talk19:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, I've copied the rewritten version off to my own space now. I deleted the links to Corbett's trials, the Jimbo blocks, and to Cirt howling about hounds and retitled it Guide to the WP-plexed & WP-plussed. If there need to be any modifs to the TP for crediting autoriteh / writership, don't hesitate to let me know! Thanks too for the inspiration. SashiRolls t · c13:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Excellent idea, Sashi. As you know, my own guide was inspired by MastCell's Cynic's guide — if you check it out, you'll see that quite a few of my points are in direct reply to, or tension with, some of his. (I'm still trying to come up with a sunny and optimistic response to his point 6, "Jimbo's talk page is the last refuge of a scoundrel". Difficult! But it'll come to me! I've only been waiting since 2012!) And now you're kind of responding to mine. Let's see who comes next. The guides go marching on! 🙌 Bishonen | talk13:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC).
Hey, I think I'm having a little difficulty. I will have this content in bold and I hope you agree with me that it's not needed when it comes to specific countries at the FIFA World Cup.
The FIFA World Cup, sometimes called the Football World Cup or the Soccer World Cup, but usually referred to simply as the World Cup, is an international association football competition contested by the men's national teams of the members of Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the sport's global governing body. The championship has been awarded every four years since the first tournament in 1930, except in 1942 and 1946, due to World War II.
The tournament consists of two parts, the qualification phase and the final phase (officially called the World Cup Finals). The qualification phase, which currently take place over the three years preceding the Finals, is used to determine which teams qualify for the Finals. The current format of the Finals involves 32 teams competing for the title, at venues within the host nation (or nations) over a period of about a month. The World Cup Finals is the most widely viewed sporting event in the world, with an estimated 715.1 million people watching the 2006 tournament final.
For a specific country (e.g. Germany) this content is unnecessary. I feel like I have been treated poorly. This even led to me losing rollback rights after I reverted someone's reversion of my edits. I was honestly not misusing rollback, I just wanted to revert to a correct version because they act like they don't give a four-letter word if the bolded irrelevant content is there. So Ivan incorrectly removed my rollback rights. I wonder when I can get them back. It even led me to a useless 31-hour block just for removing unnecessary content. I have been in general a good faith editor because I have taken down vandalism a lot.
See Spain for example. I don't know why users are reverting my removal if countries like Spain don't have the content. And I also wonder if I can get my rollback rights soon.
(talk page watcher) They've posted this same message on a few other admins' pages, although I think this is the first version I've seen which calls my rollback removal inappropriate. I mean, I don't work in userrights much, but using rollback to perpetuate a pure content dispute across multiple pages is grounds for pulling the bit, right? Honestly, someone tell me if I've got it wrong. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Who is this, Just Chilling? I used to have access to UTRS, but found the interface so baffling that I gave it up in frustration. If the name is a secret, you'd better e-mail me. Bishonen | talk21:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC).
PS, did you really post this some seven hours before I replied? Because I've been editing a good deal in the meantime, but I only got your "new messages" alert just now. Something wrong with the alerts, or with the timestamps? Because I have definitely not been deliberately ignoring you. Bishonen | talk21:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC).
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
Hi Bish, could you add a word of wisdom here? An allegedly new editor, who's first edit, interestingly, was to report a vandal sockpuppet [68]. Has gone on from there to editwarring (five reverts) on Richard Wagner, an FA. Example of his "improvement" there. Continues to add his personal opinions [69] to other articles and stuff he found at Reddit, e.g. [70]. Talk page messages to him from three editors (including me) seem to be having no effect, e.g. [71]. Perhaps he might listen to you. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I am writing to you since according to User talk:Qwirkle you have taken action against a personal attack of his. I have myself been the object of recent statements by him that are at best rude and unhelpful. See
Hello, deisenbe. I think Qwirkle should be made aware of this discussion on my page, so I have now pinged them. I don't think their comments have been rude, with the exception of this unnecessary sarcasm ("Congratulations"). There was no need for that, surely, Qwirkle, when an editor has done their best. But I think your other comments have been perfectly reasonable. Deisenbe, it was a good idea on your part to take the disagreement to dispute resolution, and I suggest both of you now wait for a volunteer there to open a discussion. I can understand that you're disappointed, Deisenbe, but you also have some reason to be grateful to Qwirkle for responding at all (and to the point, too) at DRN. They're not obliged to, and if they hadn't, the DRN volunteers would simply have closed your request. As it is now, the discussion there will hopefully be helpful. Bishonen | talk18:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC).
I refer to your PROD of Sanctuary Lakes Resort. I have added some raw references to the article. I think they counter most of your points in the PROD, but I am not convinced the subject is notable and have not DePRODed yet. However, you may wish to reword your PROD? Others may think the PROD is now unsafe though?
Hi, Aoziwe. I very much appreciate your coming to me, instead of just removing the PROD, as many people would do. I'll comment on your links from 1 to 6:
1 and 4 are both about the estate's push in 2014 to be recognized as a suburb in its own right. I'll assume the Herald Sun and News.com.au are reliable sources, but as far as I can see, these efforts didn't succeed, so they hardly establish notability, IMO.
2, The Age, seems reasonably independent to me, but the text is about aspects of the community that aren't mentioned in the article (social concerns about this gated community), so hardly proper as a reference. And you have indeed not put any of your links in as inline reference (footnotes); they're not "references" unless they source something in the text. Possibly you could add a sentence or two to the article based on link 2?
3, Medialaunch, is an outlet for press releases. Not a reliable source.
5, Wyndham.vic.gov.au, oh no, seriously. A "gov" in the URL means nothing when the content is so obviously user-generated. It's a blatant advertisement.
6, Trove, a library entry, also useless as a source.
To sum up, I think your number 2 could be a real reference, if you added some content based on it. I'm still quite uncertain about the notability, just like you, but if you'd like to expand the article with 2 as a reference, I think you would be justified in removing the PROD. I'd then probably take it to WP:AfD for a community discussion, which it might or might not survive. Regards, Bishonen | talk15:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC).
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have only made 2 edits to that page in the last 24 hours, the most recent of which was over 3 hours ago. I'm not even on the brink of violating 3RR, and would never re-instate a challenged edit when it is disputed by more than one other editor. Even before you issued that warning I had opened discussions concerning the disputed edit, on both User:Johnuniq's talk page and on the talk page of the project page in question, in order to properly and peacefully resolve the matter. In future please think and properly investigate the problem before issuing completely unnecessary and overly-aggressive warnings. Thanks. Citizen Canine (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Citizen Canine: 'Shonen was very restrained in her warning to you. You need to learn what edit-warring is.
Did you miss the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." or did you just ignore it?
You only opened a thread on the talk page after you'd shoved your preferred version in three times and had it reverted three times by two different editors. Which bit of "discuss first on the talk page" did you think doesn't apply?
There's the investigation done properly for you. And that's the most unusual use of the phrase "completely unnecessary warnings" that I've seen in years. --RexxS (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@RexxS:Adding a simple shortcut hardly counts as a "substantive edit". Funny thing is, I don't recall re-instating the edit after a third editor got involved. Until Johnuniq got involved it was just between me and JJMC89, who had made little effort to justify his repeated removal of the shortcut. So why are you even mentioning that it was reverted by "two different editors"? That's precisely why I didn't even consider re-instating the edit but took it straight to talk. When the warning says "Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war." when that's exactly what I'd been doing for several hours before the warning was issued, then yes, it is "completely unnecessary". Tell me, what precisely was the point of this warning? It should have been clear there was no danger of me making the edit again. When I'm already in the process of trying to resolve the issue diplomatically, issuing a warning like that is only going to anger and frustrate me and make my engagement in that process all the more difficult. Citizen Canine (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Citizen Canine: Of course adding yet another shortcut to a linkbox is a substantive edit. Fixing typos and spelling mistakes are the sort of edits that are meant to be exclusions from that notice. You didn't re-instate the edit three times; you made the edit three times after you were reverted. You need to learn that when you are reverted you take it to talk; we work on the principle of BRD, not BRBRBRD. You didn't take it "straight to talk". You took it to talk after you found that re-inserting it twice more wasn't going to work.
"When the warning says "Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war." when that's exactly what I'd been doing for several hours before the warning was issued But that's exactly what you hadn't been doing for the two previous days. So yes, the warning was absolutely necessary.
You clearly don't don't understand what edit-warring is, so you should be taking that warning as an attempt to help you avoid getting blocked, and saying "thank you, 'Shonen", instead of trying to defend your indefensible conduct. You made your engagement difficult yourself yesterday when you re-instated your change and took the edit-warring route instead of using the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Citizen Canine: Gosh, I'm so impressed by your sarcasm. Not. Has it occurred to you that the purpose of a warning might also be to help you avoid making the same mistakes in the future? Or do you still think it's not a mistake to push your preferred version three times into a page with a top-notice telling you to seek consensus on the talk page first? --RexxS (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
So I accept I was warring, and I apologise. I only pushed the edit because the rationale that a new shortcut shouldn't be used as it was unused seemed so ridiculously circular. I'm not a habitual edit warrior or anything.
I didn't need a warning to stop me re-reverting as it wasn't even a thought in my head. But my actions probably didn't make that clear, so it was justified.
I'm sorry I act like a bratty teenager sometimes. It's sorta because that's what I am. Due to some past experiences I never let people walk all over me. But regrettably, that sometimes means I can be too assertive. This was one of them. Citizen Canine (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you mean to block this user indefinitely? Or did you actually mean to block this account for 31 hours? I just wanted to message you and let you know / ask... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)21:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Oshwah, mind the dragons. I actually meant 31 hours, but now you mention it, it is of course a vandalism-only account. Please change it if you like; I suspect it's an ephemeral account in any case, so it may not make much difference. Bishonen | talk21:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
Haha... Nah, it's not an urgent matter... definitely not enough to warrant overriding the block you already placed. Worst case scenario: The user account continues their shenanigans after the block expires and we just indef it then... no big deal. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)21:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, in January you posted the only warning for BLP vandalism, would you mind blocking the IP user, now that he has done it again? Based on the type of edits, it seems it is the same user, not a shared IP. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Even after filing the enforcement request, I've been called "dishonest" by an administrator on the RfC page. Sooner or later, I'm going to give in to the baiting and lose my temper with them. It needs to have somebody wiling to impose sanctions on those who have no regard for ArbCom's requirements of decorum, civility and not turning the discussion about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general. Hope you can help. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Very reasonable request, Dino, but I don't think I'm the best admin to take care of it. I've answered more at length at AE, since I want to make a separate point about applying DS to the article itself, too. Bishonen | talk20:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC).
Thank you, Chère, and I understand completely. Perhaps one of your talk page stalkers or somebody at AE will find a little time to try to get that RfC back on track. 'Zilla would, of course, have been more than capable of enforcing, but I know how partial she is to my own pet T-Rexx. --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
File:Bishzilla Lucia Looking Right.gif listed for discussion
Dude, what I literally added facts to whitaker AND changed it to a MUCH more neutral version of the wording. "Policy issues" inherently implies that there are "issues" with his policies. That is the DEFINITION of bias
And that soros stuff is real shit man, I don't know what to tell you. You have a section JUST FOR conspiracy theories... I joined WIKI because this place is biased AF and if you want it to be neutral, you need a huge overhaul of your languange. You've spent a lot of time here on this, if you want it to turn into a joke, then you should put that somewhere. If you want it to be a lobbying arm for liberals, you need to file with the FEC. If you want it to be a long-standing neutral website, then you need to let people have their little hissy fits while others work to improve the site towards what, in writing, is a common goal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthInDave (talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to tell you that no apology is necessary, although I appreciate it. Your comments in the matter were not unreasonable, it was a confusing situation. I know it was all in good faith. No harm done. Thanks 331dot (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I have posted in my User talk but as yet have not received a reply. Could you please have a look at what I wrote and give me some guidance?
This is what I wrote on 26th March 2019:
Hi Arbitration Committee
Thank you for pointing out where I have gone wrong. My apologies, I am new to this.
My reason for joining was to learn how to create an article for our non-profit arts foundation. A colleague of mine has had dealings with the Cryonics Institute in the US. I was talking to him about how I intend to create a Wikipedia article and that I was learning how to do it. I then had an email from one of the people at the Cryonics Institute asking me if I could assist them, purely voluntary.
I did not realize that the subject of complementary and alternative medicine fell into a special category and I underestimated the sensitivity of the subject and its controversial content.
There is no conflict of interest as I am not doing this for myself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. I do not have any external relationship with the institute or its members.
I was just asked if I can make the following changes: Replace corpse with body - I don't see the problem here as the definition of a corpse is a dead body "Corpse and cadaver are both medical/legal terms for a dead body. ... Although cadaver is the older word, it has come to refer in particular to a dead body used for medical or scientific purposes". Removing the sentence containing the word 'quackery' seems acceptable as by your own definition "A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess". From what I have read the Institute is neither fraudulent nor an ignorant pretender. The other changes follow the same reasoning as above.
If you believe that I am treading on thin ice then please tell me and I'll walk away from helping the Institute!
(talk page stalker)@Mbark22: This isn't Bishonen replying to you, but I do edit quite a lot in the area that you're looking at contributing to. I'm afraid you're probably on thin ice. These sort of topics are controversial and you need to take care that you don't write content based only on your own opinion. Wikipedia should not be (and is not) made up of editors' opinions. There are simply too many conflicting ones to include on a topic. So Wikipedia requires that editors summarise only what good quality sources have already published about the topic. If there is a good source that calls the process "quackery", then you can't just remove it because you don't think it is right. It's natural for the proponents of cryonics to refer to dead people as "bodies", rather than "corpses", because "bodies" carries a connotation that the person may not actually be dead, and may be capable of being revived. But that's spin, and we won't be a vehicle for it. If we are referring to a dead body, we'll write "corpse" or "dead body", but not just "body" in these circumstances. So changing "corpse" to "body" will be seen a pushing a particular point of view, and it will be reverted. If you want to contribute to the article, my advice is to find the best independent sources that you can, and then start a discussion on the article talk page on how those sources can best be used to improve the article. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, @RexxS and Odysseus1479:. User:Mbark22, RexxS and Odysseus have explained it very well to you. Please take the discussion to Talk:Cryonics and make your proposals there in terms of reliable sources. You did receive a reply on your user talk, quite promptly — were you expecting a reply specifically from me? That's not how it works, when you use the "Help me" template — any experienced user who is keeping an eye out for those templates (I'm not) will reply. If you want the attention of a specific person, you can "ping" them from any page by writing their username, linked, like I have done here with yours. That will create a notification for them. I'm sorry you're having to get your head round all these technicalities first thing, as a new user! I promise it'll get easier as you get used to them. If there's anything that's not clear, please ask me again here, on my page. Bishonen | talk08:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC).
(talk page watcher) @Mbark22: Can I add one thing? You say above "There is no conflict of interest as I am not doing this for myself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. I do not have any external relationship with the institute or its members", but also that "I then had an email from one of the people at the Cryonics Institute asking me if I could assist them, purely voluntary", and those are contradictory. The interests in question here are Wikipedia's (which is in creating a neutral and educational article) and that of the person who asked you for help (which is in having an article that's favourable to the organization). That is very much a conflict. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Starting a collaborative project
Hi Bishonen. I was wondering how I can start a collaborative initiative/project where I, along with others can change the details in the article of the city and it's info. In this section which I was able to reach consensus (it's been a while though), I discussed how the city of Rome is a city that encompasses two countries (Italy and Vatican), yet infobox details and other details in the article need to be changed to fit this criteria, and don't think I can do it all by myself. (N0n3up (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC))
I'm afraid that doesn't look like consensus to me, N0n3up. If you feel strongly about making those changes in the article, you'd better start another discussion on talk, which links to the old one plus lays out exactly the details you want to change, and how you want them to read. Bishonen | talk09:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC).
Bish, this is pathetic. I cannot seem to avoid taking a peek at ANI or ERRORS or similar as a procrastination tool. I cannot afford to keep doing this. I need to dive into your pocket for a month, hopefully there's a quiet study off to the side I can use with no distractions. Please block me with no talk page access, no email, until 00:01 on 1 May 2019. I know your criteria, i won't embarass you by requesting an early unblock. I'm positive. Won't be able to send WP "thanks", so doing that in advance here. See you in a month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
(Good one, Gerda! 😀) @Floquenbeam: you have been blocked for 27 days. I'm sorry, but I never seem able to handle the requests for blocks up to a particular clock time safely and properly — I'm scared of them — so you got some hours extra. Enjoy, and welcome in poquet! Bishonen | talk18:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC).
Oh, hey, I wonder if I should block the Monster, too? And Aardvark and so on and so forth. Please e-mail if you wish those guys to join you in Bishzilla's pocket. Bishonen | talk18:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC).
Self-requested pocketing
Can I be pocketed by the great and mighty Zilla? The Irish coffee and cakes are very enticing. Maybe if I'm lucky Jimbo will stop by and he can lecture me on the virtues of his various friends on the Twitter while I enjoy my cake. (For clarity since I just saw the above thread: pls don't blerk me, just pocket time)TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Welcome in pocket, little user! ['Zilla sticks little user in Victorian saloon, no, sorry, salon. Pats down firmly, listens to tiny squeals of protest, nods in satisfaction.] Sit in sofa! bishzillaROARR!!pocket07:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC).
Thai Pongal Page
Hi Bishonen
Please keep an eye on the Thai Pongal Page. A person who goes by the name 'Pandian Tamil' arbitrarily removes quite a chunk of material from that page. I do not check Wikipedia that often but have been an editor for many years. This is just an alert for your attention if relevant.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Dipendra2007. There seems to be a conflict as to whether the festival is Tamil exclusively, and whether it's religious or secular. I tried looking at the sources, but it's patchily sourced, and some of the links are dead, or of dubious reliability. I do see that Pandian tamil has been removing material pretty persistently, but I find it difficult to judge whether the removals are proper. Another admin, Keith D, obviously watches Thai Pongal. I think you'd be better off appealing to him. Anyway, I've pinged him now. Also, how about you, RegentsPark, do you have an opinion? Bishonen | talk18:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC).
No opinion unfortunately. The edit summaries left by Pandian tamil are less than encouraging but I can't judge whether they're right or wrong. My suggestion, if they repeat the deletions, drop a message on their talk page asking them to use the article talk page. Then we'll see what happens. --regentspark (comment) 17:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all. The holiday spans several states under different names with a different emphasis. But anyway, we have Keith on board to keep an eye.
Looks like my talk page is being stubbornly vandalised by an IPv6 hopper. Any chance of a semi? How big is the range block? --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, Sitush seems to be away and I am having to deal with a new caste warrior on my own. In the first 24 hours of his account, he made some 30 posts, starting with my talk page (no idea why). All about Kamma (caste) and the other castes he wants to shoot down/compete with. This post should give you an idea of his approach. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
They haven't edited since you gave them the ARBIPA alert, Kautilya3 — naturally enough, since they're blocked. (Thank you, young Boing!.) But it doesn't look promising as regards caste promotion. Bishonen | talk10:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC).
Aha, that guy. He seems to like this little ole page, though it never does him any good to post here (because of my clever tps's, regrettably not because of anything I do). Bishonen | talk16:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC).
Wow. Thanks, mon général. I can't help feeling sorry for the guy. He probably simply very deeply doesn't know what kind of site Wikipedia is. Just in case he returns as a sock, I've put the bio link in my little redlink collection, to see if it suddenly turns blue, because, you know, why wouldn't it. Bishonen | talk16:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC).
Very very small stalky type here. You can do that here by opening a new request. Looks like he has only edited en and commons so far. (Not knowing the history here, I'll leave the actual request for one who does.) -- Small stalker vanishes in a puff of dust. Antandrus(talk)21:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I realise there is a high probability of him getting unblocked. But just to say he/she is very aggressive in my talk page (you can view it) often and shadows me for no clear reason. I have not time to debate with his aggression--which he turned back on my and reported, but just would like to inform you.
I see the December 2018 spat in your page history. He's certainly pretty persistent, though I think "aggressive" is too strong. Bishonen | talk11:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC).
Additional comment. I wrote not to support his unblock, but was willing to give him a lesser sentence [72] and he removed my comment. Of course, he may get his wish, but boy, look at his attitude. BlueD954 (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed. Don't worry about it: any reviewing admin will read the page via the history, and see everything. Bishonen | talk10:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC).
Thank you for that reminder. I will keep it in mind and seek to be more objective as I review the posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsduker (talk • contribs)
Hello again, Mrsduker, welcome to my page. Please note that you can sign your talkpage posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end. When you save, that will be automatically turned into your signature plus a timestamp.
Could you please post a description of your conflict of interest — i.e., could you mention that you are employed by Harvest Bible Chapel as Associate Communications Director — on your own userpage or talkpage? This is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation, see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. And when you say "be more objective as I review the posting", I hope it was clear from my "Conflict of interest" post that you should preferably not edit the article directly at all. Please instead make suggestions for article edits on Talk:Harvest Bible Chapel. Bishonen | talk05:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC).
Motion: Amendment to the standard provision for appeals and modifications (April 2019)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Thank you, Alexbrn, and woof, Roxy. I see User:El C has blocked 183.90.37.95 for two weeks. FYI, El C: a previous member of the same little /23 range, namely 183.90.36.6, edited the article with similar harassment in February 2019, see [74], and I blocked them at that time. Obviously those two IPs are the same person. I'm very tempted to block the range 183.90.36.0/23 for a month or so, but I see there are quite a few constructive edits from other IPs in it.[75] Unfortunately! So I've simply re-blocked 183.90.36.6 for two weeks. Can any clever-er rangeblocker advise me further? Bishonen | talk19:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC).
Thanks, Bish. The page has also be semi'd for 2 weeks, but we can lengthen that if and/or when disruption continues. El_C19:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm certainly not cleverer, but if you're only looking at a couple of IPs, then making the individual blocks is scarcely any more effort than a rangeblock and has no collateral damage. Using Twinkle from the IP page is a quick process. --RexxS (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure, and both have been blocked. But my concern is that since the individual has moved from one IP to the other, they're just as likely to move elsewhere within the range at some point. It wouldn't have to be deliberate. OTOH, if Gua sha is all they're interested in (I can't face checking right now), we can semi it if/when disruption breaks out again. Bishonen | talk14:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC).
Indeed, semi would be a preferable alternative, especially given disruptive edits such as these: [76], [77] from diverse IPs who want to defend the pseudoscience, and the total absence of any constructive edits from IPs that I can find. --RexxS (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Postscript: It's been semi-protected for a couple of weeks anyway, so we can look again when that expires. --RexxS (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Help for remove a photo?
A few days ago I uploaded a poster photo from the movie The Last Moment to illustrate the article of the same name, but I made a mistake: The photo I uploaded was of the film of 1922, white the film I wanted to illustrate was of 1928, although the title is the same (the film of 1922 has no article). I would like to know if you could delete my photo (The Last Moment).
Hi Bishonen. I fear that Parabellus is a sock. Have a look at his contribution history. [78]. His first edit was on 11:00, 30 April 2019 [79] at a Talk Page where he attacks Jingiby, mentioning a diff (this one) that was posted on the 10th of March 2019. How to deal with this issue? Cinadon36 (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi bishonen, i am very sorry about reverting Cinadon36 contribution. I didn't check his history. When he informed me that he was probably a soc i didnt do anything again. I am not so familiar with English Wikipedia soc/puppets. Btw can you check in the same article thisThisΑντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
(talk page stalker) They're similar, including some quirks (the use of the phrase "baffled (all) the efforts"), but not identical. That, coupled with their fairly prolific contributions, suggests to me that a CU is necessary; there may be sleepers. Vanamonde (Talk)16:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. They're definitely back and socking, using another account also - see the history here - a recreation of an article originally written by the master. That Fanofrain account has also been editing Koli stuff, which was the master's primary interest, IIRC. An SPI will have to wait because I've only got half a usable screen on my laptop here - looks like the ribbon cable is on its way out. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
And peering through my fuzzy screen at the history of Mukne Dynasty suggests to me that there might be half-a-dozen other accounts all in bright shiny red. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
They're persistent, aren't they. I was looking through their contributions hoping to find some pages it would be worth protecting, but the edits are all over the place. Vanamonde (Talk)17:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There's not much I'd be comfortable doing from a technical perspective to stop them preemptively. Block and report to SPI for CU is the best method here. They are pretty easy to spot technically, so CU will usually catch sleepers if they exist. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
No probs, Bish, and thanks to Tony. I'm still only able to see half of my screen but when back in action there is going to be a fair amount of CSD'ing going on for the new articles, most of which rely on Raj era sources. I think there are a lot more socks in the farm also - far too many of the redlinked accounts that edited Mukne Dynasty made one or two cursory edits elsewhere before going to that article, and hadn't edited since. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Paid news, private treaties and the reliability of some newspapers/etc as sources
Bish: thanks for the offline comments. As we discussed, I am now posting the following on your t/p to welcome additional comments/thoughts. Sorry, I have been a bit slow in getting this done. - MSW
"Paid news" in India is the practice through which organizations, public figures/celebrities, politicians, political parties, brands/movies pay cash or equivalent to a media group or television channel or a newspaper or a magazine or a journalist, to be in the news, for sustained positive coverage, and to avoid negative coverage. This is either a limited time payment(s) or a contract.
"Private treaties" (or "brand capital agreements") in India are signed, long term private confidential agreements between a person or party or organization and a media group or television channel or newspaper or magazine. A private treaty gives an equity position, or equivalent ownership/commission/payment interest to the media group/owners. Such an agreement financially benefits the media outlet, in exchange for manufactured/plugged news, create positive coverage/buzz and avoid negative coverage over the period of contract.
This is a widespread practice and has been a growing phenomenon over "six decades", according to a 2010 investigation by the Press Council of India, their official media ethics watchdog (1, p. 4): Other sources state the same,
Quotes on paid news / private treaties
The New Yorker story (slightly paraphrased): "the surrounding stories were written by members of the reporting staff and paid for by the celebrities or their publicists. Most of the section was filled with ads, or with stories that were ads; a similar section appears in each city in which the Times is published. (This is group that publishes The Times of India etc; and this is the group that started the paid news and private treaties practice, later adopted by The Hindustan Times group, numerous newspapers, televisions, magazines there). According to The New Yorker story, one of the owners of The Times Group stated, "what existed before [in India], when reporters were slipped envelopes with cash or accepted favors in exchange for positive coverage. Why shouldn’t the paper, instead of the reporters, collect the bounty?"
Maya Ranganathan in Indian News Media: From Observer to Participant (SAGE Publications, p. 122): Paid news is a practice where those who are able pay media outlets to not only feature in the news but also to ensure positive coverage in a sustained manner. [...] Consequently, even a media literate reader/viewer remains oblivious to the fact that the 'news' that is so featured is not a product of rigorous journalistic processes. The debate on 'paid news' has been constructed around the assertion that it is a blow to democracy, that it violates the ethical principles of journalism and works in the interest of the few, rather than in the interest of the public, all of which is no doubt true. [....] The payment could involve the publication of an advertisement masked as news, or eulogistic accounts of an individual, product or organization (not identified as advertorial) or even to running 'a negative campaign' against an individual, product or organization. (Ranganathan later states that "media companies [in India] have set up elaborate marketing divisions to canvass for 'paid news'.)
PG Thakurta's article (p. 12) on "Manufacturing News" states, "The phenomenon of paid news wherein newspapers, magazines and TV channels are paid for eulogies of particular candidates and political parties, which then masquerade as independent news, became widespread on the eve of [Indian] Lok Sabha and assembly elections of 2009.
etc
Bishonen and I, in our offline discussion, felt that this is worth a wider community discussion as it may raise questions about the reliability of Indian newspapers, magazines and television-digital print media from our WP:RS perspective. Your thoughts and any relevant information on this, on whatever side it might be, are therefore most welcome. Other questions:
Do such 'paid news' and 'private treaties' indirectly raise the same serious concerns we have with "paid editing" in wikipedia? This, on first blush, seems to be just one step removed. How can we rely on a source that publishes partly or completely a form of "paid editing"? According to the sources such as those cited above, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to distinguish between news and advertorial, since the disclosure practices are either hidden somewhere in the fine print, or not followed, or non-existent.
Do our WP:COI issues apply, perhaps indirectly since the publisher (and the article's authors/journalists) who write 'paid news' disguised as news articles have a conflict of interest?
To both your questions, my first answer is yes. But more simply, The Times of India and the like should not automatically be regarded as reliable sources. ¶ Ignorant me hadn't previously heard about this sleazy industry. But now that I read about it, the sycophancy I've seen in articles in Indian newspapers with august-sounding titles -- articles linked to from Wikipedia hagiographies of people of non-obvious notability (notability in the everyday, non-Wikipedia sense of the word) -- suddenly becomes all too understandable. -- Hoary (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I knew about the situation and have long opined that many Indian news sources are not worth the paper/pixels. But it does depend on context and, pending evidence to the contrary, I think The Hindu stands out as being reliable and old copies of The Times of India (from, say, before 2005 or 2010) should be de facto ok.Hoary, it is worth bearing in mind that Indian manners tend towards what people in other parts of the world might consider to be somewhat flowery, so while sycophancy is an issue in news reports there are times when it is just the natural style of address etc. Hence the lovely messages I sometimes get on my talk page along the lines of "Dear Sitush, sir, thank you for changing my edits. You are a bastard." - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, it is also worth bearing in mind that, for example, Private Eye routinely presents coverage of arguably similar situations in the UK press. One example is the relative slavishness of The Daily Telegraph when it comes to matters relating to China - they have a print contract with China and some other big-money connections, so they don't want to rock the boat. Same for the Evening Standard with businesses associated to George Osborne. I think all news outlets nowadays do have an eye on (at least) not causing offence and sometimes out-and-out-but-subliminal etc promotion. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Second what Sitush and others have said above. Some of these issues are particular to Indian media, while some of it is getting a peek at how the sausage gets made; in general, wikipedia editors should be better aware of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. As for takeaways, I would suggest:
Be aware of what sections of those sources are being used (see, for example, this discussion on the relative reliability of the various Times of India sections; as the New Yorker piece Sarah linked to confirms, the city supplements are self-admitted advertorials).
Above all, employ some critical reading skills and editorial judgment before citing any particular piece from any source. For example, it should not take any deep knowledge of, or insights into, Indian media to realize that articles such as this or this, which I came across at Sandip Pal, are pure PR fluff.
The last one IMO is the best check against falling for promotional/paid sources but I am not sure how amenable it is to formulating as a enforceable guideline or applying at scale, especially when UPEs on wikipedia intentionally disregard it. <sigh> Abecedare (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Color me deeply disturbed. This needs to be discussed at RSN. I'm really shocked to hear this but am not sure what to do about it. I agree that it explains a lot. Doug Wellertalk09:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I just never have enough time even to check my watchlist carefully, and I spend at least 6 hours a day here! I keep finding rabbit holes I need to dig into. Doug Wellertalk06:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The difficulty isn't so much in employing critical reading skills and editorial judgment, @Abecedare: it's in arguing with the UPEs and indeed with clueless fans, and in overruling them. (While assuming good faith, you know.) Take your two links at Sandip Pal: this one is easily ruled out, as it's actually "sponsored content" — it says so right in the URL — but this second one is harder. Will it impress the user (who according to themselves just happen to be interested in Sandip Pal, not paid at all) if I say "Can't you see that's obviously promotional?" No, it wont. If I try to argue with them about the nature of the source, I'll be lucky to escape being called racist. I know you're aware of these problems, Abcd; indeed, as you say, the problem is in formulating them as an enforceable guideline. Well, before we take it to RSN, can I ask if anybody (HINT HINT Sitush and Ms Sarah Welch) is up for starting a page listing specific Indian (and perhaps other) media who go in for paid news per Sarah's sources in the collapsed section above? Something, mutatis mutandis, on the lines of Sitush's excellent User:Sitush/Common which is mainly about caste sources. Or are we ready for RSN right now? Bishonen | talk14:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Good catch on the sponsored content; I had missed that disclaimer in the url! The parallel content, close publication dates, and promotional language with some very distinctive phrases ("debut in the direction space") indicate that all the threeEnglish-languagesources are warmed over press-releases but, as you and others have said, we can't expect any of that to convince our "not paid at all" content creators. Incidentally, the wikipedia article contains details not in any of the cited sources ("covered Jordan extensively during that stint") but we can be sure there are innocent explanations for that too. ;-)
More seriously: relying on press-kits for foundational facts is hardly uncommon (for example, this NYT piece takes many of the biographical details from this media-release and even screws up the subject's country of birth in the process of summarizing) and not by itself reason to reject a source. The issue with some of the Indian media is (a) the bare scrutiny they seem to apply before re-printing or re-working the PR material, and (b) monetary payments influencing the decision to publish.
Since Abecedare paged me:- (1) The issue largely boils down to editorial discretion. You need to watch the style/tone of writing, the rate of concurrent reporting by other media-units, the similarity between those reports et al (2) I have been planning for a long long time to start a page documenting the reliability (and best use practices) of different Indian media-houses. That linked RSN discussion was the first of such efforts. (3) Read Cobrapost#Operation_136_:_Part_1 for further interesting stuff concerning the Indian media. ∯WBGconverse16:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Like Doug, I am deeply concerned and not sure what our approach ought to be. Bish: +1, if someone (WBG?) can start a page wherever that might be appropriate, I will help expand/add to the list. I suspect the list might be long from all the sources I have read so far. A similar phenomenon termed brown envelop journalism is a similar serious problem in Africa, and equivalents exist elsewhere. WBG: The Cobrapost story is among the sources I have recently read. It has three parts. The Times Group has alleged that they were doing a reverse 'paid news' sting on the Cobrapost reporters they alleged were on "bail for fraud and forgery". The India Today, The Indian Express group, etc have all contested the Cobrapost version. A complex mess this all is indeed!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
*(ps)WBG: That Cobrapost's wikipedia article has issues. It seems to have been largely expanded by an IP and then an SPA, who strangely also expanded the article on Cobrapost's founder in the same burst of edits. Diannaa rev-del'd parts of it. The article relies on the Cobrapost website as a reliable source for an article on Cobrapost. Strange. 1, 2 give a bit more balanced picture of the various sides. There is more, all of which is better discussed on that article's talk page. Let us focus on the broader 'paid news / private treaties' issue here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Bish/WBG: I will go ahead and start a list in my userspace:sandbox this week, because I am reading more sources. It will be easier for me to just add to that list as I make progress. Others are welcome to expand/revise it too. We can always move it. I will include sources for every media group/newspaper I add to that list.
After reflecting on the comments above, I wrote down the questions below. In these questions, the term "paid-news-INMD" refers to any Indian newspaper, magazine or digital-news website that publishes paid news, with or without private treaties
Is a paid-news-INMD acceptable as a reliable source for en-wikipedia? what if it is disclosed (advertorial)? if it is undisclosed? if there are credible reports that the group is a paid-news-INMD but the group's disclosure procedures and article-labeling procedures are unclear to us?
Would a limited ban or full ban of paid-news-INMD sources seriously limit the ability of en-wikipedia editors to find sources for some articles? Would that be a problem? Would it help improve the quality/honesty of our articles or would it weaken the project?
Are there circumstances – such as developing news – when a paid-news-INMD source may be an acceptable source? Would requiring the use of two or more paid-news-INMD sources from independent groups possibly help in some circumstances?
When should paid-news-INMD sources be strictly unacceptable in en-wikipedia?
Very worthwhile, and a promising start. I think that it needs a bit more work, though. The description of this stuff that appears both above and in what are currently the two opening paragraphs of User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties is one thing; however, we're also told that the page will list "Media groups, newspapers, magazines and news websites that publish paid news, or private treaties, or both – with or without disclosing such relationships". Umm ... take a look at "Guardian Labs". It's "paid content" at The Guardian, so I suppose The Guardian should be listed too. And don't assume that what's at The Guardian has been checked for quality: consider "Distilled and delivered: the birth of a new whisky", which is "paid for by [blank]" and whose opening paragraph reads "Whisky has always had a special power to evoke a sense of place. Such is the intimate connection between the location of a distillery and the whisky it produces that a great single malt has the ability to speak on behalf of where it’s from – conveying a sense of the history and character of its home community." Which is what I would call "bollocks" (more precisely "booze copywriting cliché bollocks"). Now, while this Guardian non-article is junk, it, together with those that are financed similarly, announces that it's "Paid content" and is on pages differently designed from the great majority there. So I think that they're innocuous. They should not be cited (other than in extraordinary circumstances), but their existence doesn't debase the majority of what's at The Guardian. -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hoary: Good point. If the paid content/advertisement is obvious to our editors during the sourcing and verification process, it should not be a problem. I have, therefore, struck the "with or". I have added "or unclear disclosure", anticipating those cases where a website or newspaper tries to game the process... discloses in small or regular font on page 17 that page 3 news was partially or wholly paid by the way!, or does something equivalent on a website. It should be as obvious as The Guardian link you give. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Nice work Ms Sarah Welch and an eye-opening documentation of the problem.
However, I wonder if in trying to be comprehensive about listing all the publications that may be problematic, we unavoidably dilute the remedy to a difficult to enforce '"may raise the same concerns" as COI and paid editing' advisory. It may be worthwhile to separate out the worst-known actors and practices, for which we can then offer stronger prohibitions. For example, based on the evidence presented in the New Yorker article including statements by the the publishers, I would propose:
Articles in metro supplements to Times of India cannot be used as an independent source on wikipedia, or as evidence to establish notability.
Reason: they're advertorials! Quote: Tucked under the section’s masthead, four words in small type inform the reader that the contents are an “advertorial, entertainment promotional feature.” Jain insisted that this meets the transparency test. “It’s on my masthead,” he said. “It says ‘advertorial’ clearly.”
Note: Same policy should apply to any other supplement of ToI, other Times Group publications, or any other newspaper that contains a similar disclaimer. And while it is not always clear when reading an article online whether it was part of such a supplement, with some effort that can be checked by looking at the e-paper
A Times Group publication cannot be used as an independent source for any content related to its equity partners listed here. Such articles should be regarded as sources self-published by the related entity.
Reason: duh. The publisher has self-admittedly obtained a financial stake in these companies in exchange for promoting them (and, allegedly, suppressing negative coverage).
These proposals obviously don't address all the problems that have been uncovered but they do help draw some clear red lines. Thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Abecedare and others: Thank you. The draft list is intended as an aid for our deliberation, and it is at this point not intended as a proposed action/ban/exempt list. All your comments are already propelling that deliberation and helping me/us refine our approach. As WBG notes, there are indeed a lot more sources and more work needed. On disclosures by these media groups: well, unlike The Guardian explicit disclosure, the Indian situation is messy. The editors and managing directors (CEOs) of the major Indian media groups have admitted that they publish paid news, or articles per private treaties, or both. However, neither the publication nor the author of the article discloses the relationship/paid news at the end of an article, or in a clearly visible equivalent form (this is in contrast with peer-reviewed scholarly publications in subjects such as health care and pharma 12, and analyst publications about corporations and their products in the US/Europe/Japan/Singapore/etc 3, where such disclosures are required).
Now here is the more troubling part. According to Anuradha Sharma's paper on "paid news" published by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at University of Oxford, pages 32–35 (the section starts at page 29), internal documents and interviews of former Indian media group employees suggest that they have "senior editors" to champion the interests of their paying clients, carry stories, clean up and troubleshoot articles, and integrate content [in favor of the client] into different sections of the paper. While doing this, the top editors and media group management also claim that they have a "Chinese Wall" between their editing staff and the staff that sells or manages "ads, paid news and private treaties". In other words, these Indian groups are "disclosing" they do it, yet "not disclosing" right at the end of the paper article or the website page so that we and our fellow editors can easily check. I am unclear who and what we can trust here, or what our approach ought to be. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
If something rather official happens, I would be grateful for one of you to ping me, as I only became aware of this very discussion yesterday, but I find it very important. I only contributed to a few India-related articles, but clearly remember when I was looking for sources in relation to pseudoscientific topics and controversial gurus (an extant artefact). Since I had no experience with Indian news outlets, apart from those included there I eliminated a number of others because they were blatantly propagandist. Among sites that remained, a few seemed better, but even then, the quality often varied from article to article. Since I do not read Hindi or Tamil my experience is limited to English sources. Learning about how serious this paid advertizing issue is, it explains a lot... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Hoary and Winged Blades of Godric: and others: I have added some more text before the list, added more sources, and expanded the list a bit. According to Anuradha Sharma's Oxford University published paper on paid news (see page 7), "as of 2012, there were around 93,985 registered [media] publications, and 850 licensed television channels" in India. A comprehensive list could be very very long. I have intentionally not added some large media groups yet, as well as select individual publications such as their Mint newspaper, because I am still reading through the relevant sources. Additionally, I have kept newspapers and other publications from Africa and other regions out, for now. I welcome WBG and anyone else with relevant information to edit the list or merge/append as appropriate. Please let me know if you have additional suggestions to prep it for RSN or another relevant board. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Is your draft combined with this updated list reasonably sufficient to move forward with community-wide deliberations? Another request to you and others who may have better access to internal reports of Indian organizations... ThisFrontline article by Rajalakshmi states in the third last para that the Press Council of India released a report on paid news in India "running over 3,000 pages". Has anyone seen this? I have the 13 page downsized summary that was initially released after the Indian media executives/journalists in India voted to suppress the full paid news report, and the 71 page addendum they released after they were pressured to release more of the paid news report. But, so far, despite some effort and phone calls over the last week, I haven't been able to find this 3,000+ page report on the paid news / private treaties in India. I would appreciate a link to this report. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Sitush, yep, they tried to bury it. Unless I am missing something that Outlookindia-Scribd link is the same as their 71-page report I linked above. If the Frontline magazine is right, there is an even longer version with 3000+ pages that the Press Council of India released later. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I missed that. I've been digging around but cannot find anything. I wouldn't fancy reading 3000 pages! - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
On their old website, it was apparently at http://presscouncil.nic.in/Final report on Paid News.pdf but the Wayback machine only tried to get it on four occasions and even on 16 Oct 2011 it returned an error. Since it was also attached to their press release, some morally sound journalist (contradiction in terms?) somewhere must still have a copy. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I have seen the Frontline newspiece and I tried to learn about it, since about two weeks back.
There existed a preliminary draft report, that was about a few hundred pages and contained lots of raw material:- interview-transcripts, more examples of paid-coverage, images of rate-brochures and allegedly, more names of regional media. That's what I have heard from a few (~5) journalists, whom I expected, to have a know-how of the circumstances. Interestingly, none except one had seen the raw material and even that part. journalist rejected of the draft being ever publicly available.
That prelim. report got shortened to the 71 page stuff, which was withheld before being published under the purview of RTI.
I have been trying to get access to that report (few hundred or few thousands or whatever) but the chances are bleak. ∯WBGconverse15:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Amicus autem populus
Amicus autem populus (talk·contribs) doesn't seem to be paying attention to their talk page and pretty much every edit they make to caste articles has been reverted or should be reverted. They've had various warnings + the sanctions alert. - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps they don't know they have a talkpage. I've blocked for a week; hopefully that will help them find it. Bishonen | talk09:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC).
I gave a 4im vandalism warning to the IP who added the material. I may have subst'd it incorrectly as I added comments about why homophobia is unacceptable, but they did not appear in the message.
The edit was restored by 71.246.146.17(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log), who is clearly the same person as the edit summary stated "I don't see why I had to be threatened on the user talkpage for my contribution. This is a one-sided article written entirely from the gay point of view, it needs balance. At least explain politely why you disagree with these facts. Thanks."
I have no idea how comparing Clementi, who was bullied into suicide, with Hitler or Judas Iscariot is an example of "balance" nor how such rubbish becomes "facts," but I have undone the re-addition with the edit summary "rvv 71.246.146.17 is restoring vandalism made by 71.246.145.168, and for which I gave a clear warning. Addition is homophobic, unsourced, unencyclopedic, hostile, disrespectful, and without merit of any sort."
I would ask for a block if the edits came from the same address, but they don't. Is a range block of some sort possible or appropriate? Are additions like these eligible for rev-del? Was I wrong to jump to 4im?
Thanks, Risker. Bishonen, I saw you removed an edit summary, but it appears to be the one from the IP who removed the offensive material... did you mean to remove the summary from the trolling post re-adding the material? I'm confused. EdChem (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
EdChem, the edit summary contained the highly inappropriate name of the "section" the vandalizing IP had added (it is an automatic edit summary when removing a section), so the rev-delete of the edit summary was consistent with the rev-delete of the content. Hope that helps! Risker (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Risker, you are right, of course – I had forgotten the sub-heading was there, just remembering that the vandalism-removing IP had made no inappropriate comment, hence my thought that the redaction may have been accidentally directed at the wrong summary. Bishonen, thanks for that piece of clean up. :) 14:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the good IP—90.175.231.240—did nothing wrong, but nevertheless needed their edit summary revdel'd. Happens all the time. Bishonen | talk15:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC).
Zilla much impressed by handsome creature and especially by magnificent tail. How big Mokele-mbembe? Fit in pocket? No? Never mind, welcome in harem virile young Mokele-mbembe! bishzillaROARR!!pocket16:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC).
Not sure what to do with the developing situation at User_talk:Risto_hot_sir#Inappropriate_links. I have the feeling that it is going to keep going round in circles. I could escalate it somewhere or I could walk away and just let it fester in my head that we're effectively acting as a proxy for Hindutva propaganda. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a quick look at User:Manmohansinh saini's edits at Saini? He's been unilaterally doing a bit of what looks like caste puffery, trying to claim the Saini caste as rajputs (it's on his deleted userpage too). He's been reverted several times by Sitush and I, and I've warned him to stop and seek consensus, but he just waits a little while and does it again. I'm obviously involved, having made some reverts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, they're the latest in a long line of contributors who do not like the idea of the Saini community being connected by name with another community, even through a dabhat. There have been past discussions on the article talk page, which has them archived. We need the dabhat, various experienced bods have said as much ... but the Sainis think they are tainted by association. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the block. I've just noticed something else similar, at Nayab Singh where User:Manmohansinh saini made two edits to add "Saini" to his name despite neither of the sources calling him that. I've reverted both additions, which seems enough for now, and I'll keep an eye on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Bish. There is an equally long-running palaver at the Chamar article if you're looking for something to do :) A whole host of new accounts have been trying to sanitise it for years. Possibly socking but as likely to be incentivised by comments made on some caste-affiliated Facebook page etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Colley Cibber Apology small.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ★ BigrTex03:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Good idea, BigrTex. I don't know what I was thinking, but then it was a long time ago. I probably didn't know how to request deletion. Bishonen | talk08:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC).
Where is block message
Hi. I reported user 50.234.120.42 and they have been blocked, but no notice is on their talk page. Who puts it up? I'm new to this so please excuse my ignorance...TheDoDahMan (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Uninvolved admin needed
Bish, back on April 28'th I had responded to an ANI thread "Range block needed" by blocking the one named account Hammy0007; concluding that the named user and Malaysian IPs were the same person and had been editing disruptively; declining the range block request as infeasible but volunteering to block individual IPs or "new accounts" were they to crop-up.
Move forward to the last couple of days: I have been involved in a content dispute with 60.50.173.223 at Indus script and related articles (see this and this discussions for an explanation of the content issue, although that is perhaps not really needed), who I now realize is the same user! With my admin thinking-cap on, I would say: looked at individually, 60.50's slow edit-warring and IDHT conduct does not merit a block yet but looking at the user's whole edit-history shows that engaging with them is a waste of time.
I can't and won't act in admin capacity, of course. And coincidentally, Doug Weller and RegentsPark who are familiar with Hammy0007 and the original ANI thread have both reverted or interacted with 60.50 as editors in the current Indus script dispute. We are running out of uninvolved admins in this area! Can you take a look?
Listed below are some of the IPs used (the link should be quite apparent but let me know if you'd like me to spell it out over email).
Thanks. That's all that is needed. I mainly just wanted another admin to review and confirm the evidence of sockpuppetry since I don't expect the user to stop their activities anytime soon. I'll copy some of the above to Rameezraja001's SPI for future reference. Abecedare (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
Miscellaneous
The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
I would just like to add a comment in relation to the recent unblock. I find it heroic and acknowledge that the community supports it, but at the same time I worry that if a desysop or ban result (or anything else that may make you to ultimately decide to retire), this would be very unfortunate, because I think you are very precious. Of course, more damage can also result of this affair in general (and that's unrelated to you or the unblock, of course). Anyway, just expressing both my appreciation and worry. —PaleoNeonate – 08:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Another good move. Brave and courageous step, but if you have to go through RfA again I'll be adding a strong support for you doing the right thing. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
A goat for you!
Because goats are awesome, and when something needs to be headbutted they do it courageously.
You've once again shown why you are so valuable to us!
Bravo! As I told Floq, you've got an automatic vote from me if anything happens and you need to stand for RfA again. I hope WMF will see sense and it won't come to that. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned at WP:FRAM, I think anyone losing their admin bit because of this WMFuckery should get it back on request as a former admin in good standing without the need for an insulting RfA. ReykYO!08:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
+1. Just learned about WMF handling of Fram, Floq and this whole unbelievable series of events. I am shocked. I have read WMF's initial justification. WMF comes across as having little clue about the amount of vandalism, disruptive editing, harassment and abuse the editors and the admins face in their efforts to build and maintain en-wikipedia. The only silver lining here is the willingness of admins like you, Bish, to speak up and act. Thanks to all of you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I certainly hope there's some sense in San Francisco this morning. You've been one of the project's best and most valuable administrators for quite some time, and here's hoping it stays that way. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
You don't seem to need any more barnstars as you have plenty now, so instead I'd like to give you this barn to keep them all in (or hang them on, or whatever Americans do with them). It's just one of the old barns that's been hanging round the back of the Boing! estate for years, and you obviously have more use for it than I do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Ha, thank you, Boing, very useful. I know no more of what Americans do with barnstars than you do, probably less. But I do appreciate them all, and will most likely decorate the inside of the barn with them, for cosiness, after I've installed my desktop computer there. (Barn, what barn? It's my study!) Bishonen | talk14:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC).
I took a look inside before I wheeled it round to your place, and I'm sorry about all the dust and cobwebs. I honestly don't think it's been cleaned since the days of my great grandfather, Boing! said Zebedee IV. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It's silly wa's the win's are strewin! Oh no, how awful. Burns can be dreadfully sad. :-( And I was just going to move in, too. Dust and cobwebs sounds just like my current "study", so that part's fine. Bishonen | talk17:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC).
Ach, wheeling things around is easy enough if you do it the way old Archimedes said ("Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and before you know it I'll have a hernia" or something).
Oh, and speaking of contraceptives and time machines, my great granddad knew that Zaphod Beeblebrox III chap. Didn't like him much, mind - thought he was a bit full of himself. Apparently told him "If your head gets much bigger it'll split into two". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I've just this minute saw your unblock (at ANI) and I'm lost for words!,
Your actions are not only brave but they're also very much appreciated!
You truly are a hero infact you're just amazing all round! :)
Thanks again, Take care, –Davey2010Talk12:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Courage comes in many forms. Daring to defy is but one of them; and yet that, more often that not, deserves proper plaudits. Accept this as but one of many. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤)13:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
The WP community will not stand for secret trials, with secret and unaccountable judges, no opportunity for the accused to defend themselves, secret accusers, secret accusations, secret evidence, and to top it off, no appeal possible. Thank you for defending our values. Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Cripes, I was about to thank Bish for a minor warning given elsewhere. Makes all the other crap look trivial. O3000 (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Because lord only knows you've got enough barnstars, and pretty soon even that barn Boing gave you is going to fill up. Here's a nice, cute kitten to frolic about among the barnstars; thank you for standing up to the WMF in the face of everything that's happened. It's much appreciated.
Gaaah! Sorry, misread something that came up in my watchlist and thought I saw a deop happen. Stricken. Though I reserve the right to un-strike if the WMF does follow said pattern. rdfox 76 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: I've got this talkpage and Floq's watched for the duration of the current Category 5 Shitstorm, and saw a User Rights Log entry for Floq come up that mentioned restoring all non-admin permissions (because apparently the WMF took everything but autoconfirmed and ECP away--nice competent work there), and somehow, my brain saw "Floquenbeam" and substituted "Bishonen," so I assumed it was being done to correct a poorly-done deop of Bish, not Floq. Clearly, I need to eat something, maybe go give the dog a walk, and otherwise get away from the computer for an hour or so and let my eyes uncross. rdfox 76 (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I was saying that when the WMF makes a change, they do it via meta, so you wouldn’t see it. Just letting you know for future reference :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Imagine one here! Anyway, thank you for doing the right thing. -- You were the first admin to get 100 supports on their RFA (if I remember correctly); may you also be the first to get 100 barnstars for a single action. (Give a few to 'zilla to keep her happy.) Antandrus(talk)19:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Hehehe! Yes, I think I was the first, but I wouldn't have dreamed anybody but me remembered. I'm still very proud of it! Or, well, slightly proud. Bishzilla's RFA is actually a finer specimen. Bishonen | talk20:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC).
I'm late to the party due to my timezone, but I want to express my deep appreciation for an honorable and principled decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I've been holding my tongue on the whole WP:FRAM mess for a while, except in relation to a loosely related side-show on Rob's talk page, because I have very mixed feelings about the whole affair. But while I don't go in for barnstars or the like, I figured that if I was gonna post that long rant on WT:ACN I should probably also chime in here to say that that was a guts-y, and classy, move on your part. (By "that", I of course mean the unblock, since I probably need to disambiguate from all the other guts-y and classy moves you seem to be making these days ;-) ) The community thanks you! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Starship.paint. I didn't indeed know about it, and don't quite see in what sense I would be a party, either. Maybe on the principle that "you may as well deal with Bishonen too as long as we're here", I guess. Bishonen | talk09:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC).
OK, here's one (apologies for the distractions, Bish). How many places on Earth can you walk one mile south, one mile east, and one mile north and end up back where you started? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
i think I might have first seen that in Martin Gardner's Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions. Near the South Pole you can walk a mile east and do a complete circuit around the pole arriving back at your starting point. A little closer to the South Pole, you can do two circuits while walking a mile east, and so on. So any point that is a mile north of those circles of latitude will fit the bill for your puzzle (as well as the North Pole, of course). -- T-RexxS (rawr) 21:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
On December 2016 I was on a journey, Hurtigruten, from Bergen to Hammerfest to the russian border and back. And I really loved the polar night. Nobody needs the midnight sun, we all love the midday night... :D --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
"Therefore, the measure covers more than one user account in this case." vaguely suggests sock abuse.. did anyone run a CU? - Alexis Jazz22:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
That's been covered in multiple places, and the consensus is that it simply refers to Fram and EngFram. There's been no accusation of socking. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I also found the summaries, it's a bit more clear now. Fram was banned for one edit (according to Fram, and WMF doesn't say too much, so I assume that's correct) and if Fram makes even one edit on enwiki they get globally banned and locked. (so there's not much of a point in unblocking EngFram..) I've probably said worse things than that edit, so perhaps I'll be next? - Alexis Jazz04:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Let's be fair: even Fram's message suggests T&S had concerns about long-term ongoing behaviour of which the three diffs provided were intended as examples. Their concerns may well be hogwash, but it wasn't just about that one diff.PS. Bish: on the North Pole? Quit bragging; you're practically in a mediterranean Arcadia. :) --Xover (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
100 barnstars
99 small ones:
********************************* (33)
********************************* (33)
********************************* (33)
And one big one (ok, it's Barnard's star, but that's just like a
barnstar except bigger):
I hope your barnwarming party was as festive as it appears to have been, Bishonen. I wondered if you had given any thought to the point the WMF seems to be making about the poor state of community health. Perhaps this example or this one (self-censored for the time being) or this one (self-censored for the time being) would be sufficient starters?
Do you think community processes currently work as they should? What lessons do you think were drawn from the Sagecandor episode? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c07:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Sashi. Sorry, but I don't want to open up yet another venue for discussion of these questions: it's already on many userpages, as well as WP:FRAM, WP:RFAR, WT:ADMIN, the Village Pump, etc, etc. I'm not up for commenting at his time. I don't know if you've noticed I've said little since I unblocked Fram. I plan to keep it that way, at least right now. That's not to say I object to being asked, or that you're unwelcome here. But I've got nothing now, and little Wikipedia time. (Least of all have I got time to read up on the Cirt episode, which I only half remember.) Bishonen | talk15:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC).
Hi. Yes, that story is all over the internet. So far the comparison with Peter Brook's Marat / Sade is my favorite analysis/analogy, though I don't have all the facts and back-channel storytelling available to me. However, as you probably sussed out, the diff I provided you of Kolya Butternut was one that I would have liked comment on. Here it is again. Is this appropriate behavior? What should an admin alerted of behavior like this do (knowing that the same editor filed an ArbCom case against me which was quickly and unanimously rejected)? I don't mind if Bishzilla, or another of your TP stalkers takes action on this for the sake of community health, but I did come here to inquire about M. Butternut's actions not about M. Fram's. Who will step forward to justify/condemn the actions in the diff presented above?🌿 SashiRolls t · c16:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm like a grammophone record with my precious resource, I know, but it's just true! Sometimes I don't think this resource is valued enough. I love the frog cakes, and they go well with the roarr caption, too, IMO. In fact I've been surprised by how many of the photos suit the caption (maybe not the owls so much). BTW I just added a new image I couldn't resist, link in case it takes ages before it comes around. Roarr to you too, little fox. Bishonen | talk16:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC).
A simulated edit conflict resolution beta feature for you!
Help? Peter Sellers is was scheduled to be FA on 24 July, and the authors and friends some are seemed to be worried about discussions about the unspeakable topic that day. Can you work your magic and create a circle of flames so that even the bravest will not dare to even ask why the little thingy is collapsed, let alone want to discuss?? Every time that would happen, I'd be blamed, and I had enough of it. I have preached to leave TFAs alone for years. - It's been almost five years now that I hoped we could just laugh about it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) As usual your mind cannot seem to move away from IBs; you are completely off the mark as far as my comments are concerned. I made it clear (with a link to User talk:SchroCat/Archive 24#Peter Sellers) of my discomfort to that particular article being on the FP. Since then, Sellers is not going to be on the MP - the decision to change has already been made. Anyway, as I have made clear in both discussions, it's not my decision to make, and if the TFA co-ordinators ever decide to ignore my comment and run it, then I'll not be the one complaining about it. It's time for you to discuss anything but IBs, I think - it's a bit like listening to a broken record. - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
? You do not appear to have either read or registered what I have said. My request for that particular article not to appear on the MP has nothing to do with IBs; it is a subject I avoid as much as possible - and certainly one I do not go round hinting about on other people's talk pages. I am not sure what could have been "expected" about that. The only thing I do expect is for you to post on someone else's talk page about IBs, and then claim it's a subject you never discuss. - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry this is painful for you, Gerda. Please try to let go — I know it's easily said. But posting about it on my well-watched page isn't a good way of stopping others from paying attention to you, such as blaming you. Thank you for the flowers, and I'm glad you chanced on Savannah the fennec fox. She's only ten months old and is training to be an animal actor. Or, well, she was in 2009, a redoubtable year in Wikipedia history: Bishzilla was admonished by ArbCom, and somebody or other sought arbitration against Jimbo Wales. Interesting times! Bishonen | talk17:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC).
Now I met a wise owl among your pics, thank you! I will be blamed, posting or not posting, and it's no longer painful, if it ever was. Interesting times, like 1510. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, LaserLegs. I can do that, but since I don't know you, I will impose a 24-hour quarantine first. If I haven't heard from you before 14:17 tomorrow UTC that you have changed your mind, I'll place the block as soon as I'm near a computer. (Mobile, bah.) Would you like me to mention it on your talkpage, so people who come there know you can't be reached, or do you prefer discretion? Bishonen | talk15:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC).
I've been breathing what seems like spilled gravy and stale farts from a "traditional English gentlemen's clubroom". -- Hoary (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Request for protecting Kulin Kayastha from persistent vandalism
You know what, Ekdalian? Without even a discretionary sanctions alert, I'm simply going to indef this user. They may be a sock, or they may simply have been canvassed from a caste forum, I don't care which. Done. If there's any further influx of likely socks at the article, please let me know and I'll semi. Bishonen | talk09:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC).
Dear admin, I request you to look into the history of Kayasthas in India, and the legal proceedings that ultimately lead to their present varna status, being Kshatriyas. It all came as the result of a series of court ruling from various High Courts in India. Even the British government placed Kayasthas among Kshatriya ranks and declared them twice-born (dwija). I request you to prevent deliberate Shudra branding of a progressive caste, that has produced leaders and scientists in our country and also keeping in mind the sentiments of members of the community. Wikipedia and almost all websites declare Kayasthas as being one of the highest Hindu castes in India, alongside Brahmins. A Shudra is considered to be the lowest of all caste which is in itself contradictory to relating Kayasthas with Shudras on the basis of a single erroneous source, when there are several others to prove it wrong. Unfortunately, editors like Ekdalian fail to realise this (limited being their knowledge or perhaps some personal vendetta against the community) and engage in edit wars, calling other editors 'sock' of another fellow editor. I humbly request you, Bishonen sir, to look into the matter, do a little bit research about Kayasthas and put an end to blatant defamation of a community. Please consider your decision before taking rash or even harsh steps. Editors like Ekdalian should not be allowed to twist historical facts and blemish the image of a community, by doing so on a reputed platform like Wikipedia.
Thank you sir,
With Regards - Semper Curious Semper Curious (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Mr. Bishonen, here's something about Kayasthas
Dear administrator, here's a piece of information regarding the exact Varna status of Kayasthas (source Wikipedia) :
The last census of the British Raj in India (1931) classified them as an 'upper caste' i.e. Dwija and the final British Raj law case involving their varna in 1926 placed them into the Kashtriya varna.
According to W.Rowe's account (that later scholars disagreed with), during the British Raj era, certain law cases led to courts classifying Kayasthas as shudras, based largely upon the theories of Herbert Hope Risley who had conducted extensive studies on castes and tribes of the Bengal Presidency. According to Rowe, the Kayasthas of Bengal, Bombay and the United Provinces repeatedly challenged this classification by producing a flood of books, pamphlets, family histories and journals to pressurize the government for recognizing them as Kshatriya and to reform the caste practices in the directions of sanskritisation and westernisation. However, scholars from the University of Berkeley as well as the University of Cambridge have disagreed with Rowe's research by pinpointing 'factual and interpretative errors' in his study as well as criticizing his study for making 'unquestioned assumptions' about the kayastha movement of sanskritisation and westernisation.
H.Bellenoit gives the details of the individual British Raj era law cases and concludes that since the kayasthas are a non-cohesive group and not a single caste, their varna was resolved in the cases that came up by taking into account regional differences and customs followed by that particular caste. Bellenoit also disagrees with W.Rowe by showing that Herbert Hope Risley's theories were in fact used to ultimately classify them as Kshatriyas by the British courts. The first case began in 1860 in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh with a property dispute where the plaintiff was considered an 'illegitimate child' by the defendants, a north-Indian Kayastha family. The British court denied inheritance to the child, citing that Kayasthas are Dvija, "twice-born" or "upper-caste" and that the illegitimate children of Dwijas have no rights to inheritance. In the next case in 1875 in the Allahabad High Court, a north Indian Kayastha widow was denied adoption rights as she was an upper-caste i.e. Dwija woman. However, in an 1884 adoption case as well as a 1916 property dispute, Calcutta High Court argued that Bengali kayasthas have started using names like 'Das' and classified the Bengali Kayasthas as shudras - although the court did acknowledge their Kshatriya origin. The Allahabad High Court ruled in 1890 that Kayasthas were Kshatriyas. Finally, in a property dispute case in Patna in 1926, the Patna court characterized both the 1884 and 1916 Calcutta courts rulings as inconclusive and ultimately ruled that the kayasthas were of Kshatriya origin and hence twice born or dwija. The Patna court cited smritis and Puranas, several colonial ethnologists, such as William Crooke and Herbert Hope Risley, and used their qualified endorsements on the dwija origins of Kayasthas. The British census of 1931 also lists Kayasthas as one of the upper (twice-born) castes.
Kulin Kayasthas are considered elites among Kayasthas, which naturally negates any Shudra linking.
Thank you for sparing your time to read through, sir.
Regards,
Semper Curious Semper Curious (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Request for protecting Kulin Kayasthas from being consistently branded as Shudras.
Dear administrator, Mr. Bishonen, I would request you or any other admin active on this page to protect the article on Kulin Kayastha as it is now, and prevent any editor from disfiguring the community's image through low caste branding. Semper Curious (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I just was archiving my talk and was reminded that you sent me an email - I really do apologize for not responding at the time. It was a rather complex issue, and during my "considering my reply" it just continually got pushed to the back burner ... and eventually it was off the stove. (perhaps that's too much "American speak", I'll translate if needed :-)). Anyway - if time permits and I'm up for it I will try to find the original email, research the issue(s) it involved, and provide a response if you'd like. I really am sorry Bish - it wasn't a deliberate ignore, just one of those senior moments that got away from me. Hope all is well with you and yours. (notwithstanding the current state of affairs on wiki as I know them - I'm sure I'm missing much) As I said - all my best. — Ched : ? — 13:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Did I..? When? You probably shouldn't spend perfectly good time looking up something I've no memory of. Anyway, it's nice to see you somewhat back with us! Bishonen | talk15:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC).
Self-requested block for Lepricavark
Please block me for six months. I've reviewed your page on self-requested blocks and I'd like for you to apply such a block to my account. I've got too much stuff to do in real life to continue spending so much time on rote Wikignoming, and I don't intend to return when the six months are up. Pursuant to the question you asked of LaserLegs in an above thread, yes, I would appreciate it if you left an explanatory note on my talk page. As a friendless editor who primarily worked alone, I don't anticipate that my absence will attract much attention, but a note on my talk page might dispel any confusion for anyone who does notice. Feel free to waive the 24-hour waiting period if you wish. Thank you. Lepricavark (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Amid all the current hostile hullabaloo I find the above statement “As a friendless editor who primarily worked alone....” profoundly sad, and can’t help sincerely regretting that amid all the template posting and whatnot which attacks most user pages the lack of some friendly interaction can completely escape some users. Truly sad. Giano(talk)15:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, a heads up that I've indeffed Lepricavark for socking since your block. In addition to a block notice on their Talk page, I've made some additional comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings from the past
I am no longer in the game, but it's nice to see you are still standing up against the morons who are paid donation money for turning the encyclopedia into a toxic playground of advertising agencies by chasing away the actual qualified volunteers. I was mildly surprised by this only because I wasn't thinking of Wikipedia at all when I stumbled upon it. I wasn't surprised to see you mentioned in the article.
If things get too weird, let me remind you there are other hobbies. In my case, preparing free modern editions of out-of-copyright music has turned out to be less interactive, but overall much more enjoyable.. Hans Adler08:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow, now there is a name from my past before wikipedia, and a different and unused username. I used to argue with homeopaths on the hpathy forum, where you did the same sort of thing, only far far more politely!! -Roxy, the dog.wooF10:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there - saw your note at DRN talk but the thread had been closed, so thought I'd just pop in and say hello!. I figured that I've still possibly got something to contribute here now and then, even if it's much different from what it was before, so might as well I guess! Hope you're doing well. StevenCrossin05:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Wclifton968 didn't seem to learn from their recent block.
Hey there, reaching out to you directly as you were the blocking admin during the last incident. I know there were issues with Wclifton968 making disruptive edits. Well, recently they put this onto Anti-fascism without a deceptive edit summary:
I reverted as vandalism and left them a templated warning, using a lv. 3 in light of their recent disruptive editing in hopes they'd consider that they were crossing the line again.
(Also they called me a fascist on their talk page which, considering how much work I do keeping pages related to fascism and anti-fascism neutral, I particularly take offense to.) Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has accepted the WJBscribe case request under the title Reversion of office actions and resolved it by motion as follows:
Community advisedOffice actions are actions taken by Wikimedia Foundation staff, and are normally expected not to be reversed or modified by members of the community even if they have the technical ability to do so. In this case an office action was taken against Fram(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA), who was blocked and whose administrator rights were removed by the role account User:WMFOffice in implementing a Partial Foundation ban ([85]). No similar action had been taken before on the English Wikipedia, and it proved highly controversial.
Although official WMF policy states that Unauthorized modifications to office actions will not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved, JEissfeldt (WMF) (talk·contribs) indicated that the WMF would not implement further sanctions against the admins involved in reversing these actions ([89]). In recognition of that decision, and of the exceptional nature of the circumstances, the committee notes without comment this series of events. The community is advised that administrators and bureaucrats are normally expected not to act when they know they do not have all of the relevant facts, and that this is especially important with regard to office actions where those facts may be highly sensitive. As a general rule, wheel warring may be grounds for removal of administrative rights by the committee as well as by the WMF. Lack of sanctions under these exceptional circumstances should not set expectations around similar future actions.
In other words the Arbcom simultaneously surrenders and fence sits. Frightened of upsetting the editors and frightened of upsetting the WMF. They need to find some courage. Giano(talk)09:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Did you see this press releast from Wikimedia DC effusively praising the FramBan? [90] You can see Wikimedia DC board of directors here. [91] Gamaliel disclosed that he is a member of this same board. [92] Next have a look at the evidence Fram presented against Gamaliel that forced a resignation from the ArbCom (quite a painful thing, I'd guess): [93] Surely this has nothing to do with Gamaliel and his Wikimedia DC buddy Kirill Lokshin falsely denouncing me for deleting the Signpost's disputed article about Fram.[94][95] When I innocently asked Kirill to retract his baseless accusations, his angry responses exceeded all reason. [96] Finally, 28bytes asks an interesting question. [97] Very curious isn't it, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. JehochmanTalk14:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Well I have never liked Kirill Loshkin, always holier than thou and sanctimoniously righteous. So it’s no surprise to me, but then no one ever takes any notice of what I say until it’s too late. I dare say there is something super secret about Fram or someone has alleged something serious about him, but the WMF is ramping things up by not coming clean and sending most people’s imagination into overdrive. The current situation is fair to neither Fram, the editorship or the project. All are suffering. This superior attitude of we know something you stupid people don’t is deeply agitating to all. Giano(talk)21:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Time to drop sticks, I think, and look for positives to take from this whole fracas. No matter how we manage to move forward from here, Chère, you and Floq can be proud that you did the right thing. Rawr -- T-RexxS (I'm Spartacus) 21:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Liz: while you're right in general, it's the word "unnecessarily" that you need to focus on in any particular case. Although adminship is no big deal, it nonetheless behoves admins (and other experienced users) to help set standards for the community. It's a sad fact that there are times where one has to stand up for what is right, and the world would be a worse place if no-one were prepared to engage in conflict to defend their society. It's a question of ethics, and you'll find there is such a thing as a "just conflict". --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The actions of Bish, Floq and others were instrumental in forcing a crisis and bringing WMF to the table. In this case, escalation was exactly the right thing to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Noone denies these are historic wikitimes. As in every historic time I know of, historic actions are needed. Bish, Floq, Boing, and many others rose to the occasion. What's wrong with that? I can't think of anything. Kudos all around. Dr.K.05:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think anybody here is trying to intensify conflict, Liz, but who am I say? Bishonen says that I am often too quick to assume good faith. JehochmanTalk01:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Prophetic?: "We are rapidly getting to a stage where editors will quietly disappear in the night, and no one will be allowed to question why. Giano 14:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)" --IHTS (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the roarrrring cookies greeting me! Proud co-aothor of Kafka, I recommend you read some of his writing while away, about unresponsive bureaucracy and non-transparent controlling systems. Or better pick flowers? Anyway, thank you for your stance, and the reminder of "incredibly toxic personalities", a phrase which I hated in 2014. I received an enlightening explanation of what "toxic behaviour" may mean by Nishidani.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe she has achieved notability now as she continues to be an internet sensation and being one of the most followed celebrity in India and acted in leading roles in multiple films, TV ads etc. 2405:204:D28E:878:49A8:9CF3:AFBB:2078 (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
In that case you'll have plenty of reliable, independent, published sources available to write the biography, won't you? --RexxS (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Click here → Draft:Priya Prakash Varrier ← Read all of the sources and then summarise the best ones in your own words to create the draft article. Don't forget to state your sources and link to them if they are online (we call those references). When you think you have done a good job with the sources submit your draft and someone will help you through the next steps. --RexxS (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Abide by the consensus that lead to the article and the draft's repeated deletion and create an article about someone who meets our notability criteria and that hasn't been a target of overt promotional editing, likely in violation of WP:PAID?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots16:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@LessHeard vanU: I suppose you don't quite realise how good it has felt for many of us to see you back (even if it's a limited extent). "Only once in a while" is sooo much better than "never". And all of the watchers are excellent in my book. --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen - should I address this issue (concerning armed insurgents within the group targeted by US helicopters on the 'Collateral Murder' video) on the Julian Assange talk page? I don't see that it's a controversial addition - with regards to the Wikipedia article I cited (airstrike of 12 July 2007), the second paragraph states: "In the first strike, the crews of two Apaches directed 30 mm cannon fire at a group of ten Iraqi men, including some armed men, standing where insurgents earlier that day had shot at an American Humvee with small arms fire. Among the group were two Iraqi war correspondents working for Reuters, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen." And again here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike#Attack_on_personnel where you can follow the references used to support the claim (principally the redacted military report 'Investigation into Civilian Casualties Resulting from an Engagement on 12 July 2007 in the New Baghdad District of Baghdad, Iraq'). Rosenkreutzer (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Rosenkreutzer. It's certainly controversial — if nothing else, the fact that Thucydides has reverted you twice, with reasonable edit summaries, shows that it is. So yes, please take it to talk, as Thucydides has already asked you to do. Never cite a Wikipedia article. If a Wikipedia article contains the fact you want to insert, with a reliable source for it, then cite that source, or sources. (Those sources do not appear in the lead of July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike, but in the section "Attack on personnel", which is a proper arrangment.) Thanks for asking. Bishonen | talk11:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC).
No, please help yourself, I am going to have a glass of wine in the sunshine for an hour and then play with Sibyl Lady Mendl in my sandbox! Same characters keep cropping up in my life these days! Giano(talk)16:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
blocked user still here (oh look! he is everywhere!)
Hi Bishonen! Remember the little chat we had some months ago about a user using an IP address. [98]. He resurfaced these days.
Some more users with the same editing pattern, in en.WP (duck test +): [110],[111],[112],[113] Creating various accounts and occupation with Pireaus and Olympiacos FC are some of his most blaring features.
Hi Ivanvector. I am very certain that it is the same user: his the range of his IP address are so similar to the blocked user at el.WP, he also uses same phrases and he is interested in the same topics. As for m:SRG I will see if I can do it myself. If not, I will let you know. Thank you for your intervension. :) Cinadon3619:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. I saw you were one of the few admins to permanently delete accounts. I would like to delete mine since I don't use it anymore. (N0n3up (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC))
Well, I'm a little baffled about the goat, as I'm not sure what the appreciation is for. I haven't interacted with Rong Qiqi. Nor AFAIK has Floquenbeam, who also got a goat from them. Bishonen | talk21:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
Unsurprisingly it was the Fram thing. Please don't listen to that naughty Giano; the goat is old and wise and better as a companion than a meal. Rong Qiqi (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Do consider the lovely idiom 'get someone's goat', which must sound odd to Swedish ears, given that get in their language means, precisely, 'goat', but not, as in English, connoting a lecher. Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Softlavender. I was somewhat puzzled by that, and checked in Frankie Rubinstein’s A Dictionary of Shakespeare’s Sexual Puns and their Significance, 1989 for confirmation, to no avail. The earliest OED registration of goat as lecher is post-Elizabethan, in Thomas Traherne (1675) The lecherous ring in Iago’s ‘Were they as prime as goats, as hot as monkeys’ (4.I.243) arises from from the preceding adjective ‘prime’, which like the noun ‘pride’, connoted sexual excitement. It’s a bit like the case of ἵππος/hippos in classical Greek. The word just means ‘horse’ and was almost always heard in that basic sense (as probably was 'goat' in Shakespeare), but in certain contexts, if we are to believe Aristotle, it could mean ‘female lecher’. Goat is gender-neutral, and buck (Swedish bock) survives as a male specifier for a number of species of animal, as white slavers' usage reminds one of sadly.
I can’t find any youtube version that comes anywhere the comic brio with which my mother and her pianist friend, the boistrously plump Aunt Nell, sang Paddy McGinty's Goat in the old music hall style long before Val Doonican repopularised it in his 1964 version.The lyrics and Val Doonican’s version are here. Nothing like the wonderful performance, with its lilting leers, buried in my childhood’s memory.Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Bit late back, recovering with an afternoon nap from a night of sleepless duty. I’m glad you pointed this out, SL, and jagged my complacence with the wonderful ‘An admirable evasion of whoremaster man/to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star.’ I was relying on memory and my own Sprachgefühl. You’ve compelled me to think (which I don’t do that often), though I still trust the 1989 OED more thanthe otherwise hyper-cluey argot-wise Partridge. On reflection, my point was one of ‘psychosemantics’. In English, the set of discriptive terms for animals is generally neutral, - when we use the substantive form the usual impression evoked is simply denotative of the species, mainly without prejudice. When we use animal words to connote a trait, we make them take on idiomatic ‘colour’ by modifiers that slant the descriptor towards a humoural trait we partially associate with each type. If you hear the word ‘toad’ the idea of lickspittle sycophancy is not immediately present (to the contrary, if one gets over the common shiver of prejudice at their unfairly assumed ‘ugliness’ it is more likely that older readers would think of the lovable, decent, but manically distracted Toad of Wind in the Willows) E.g.
Goat/goatish (sexually predatory)
Pig/piggish (greedy, disagreeably overbearing, which pigs are not)
Cow/cowish (fearful, but cow-eyed suggests an alluringly large-eyed, coyly innocence of glance)
Owl/owlish (demurely sagacious, reclusively wise)
Bear/bearish (churlish (now almost, clumsily prone to falling))
Bull/bullish (pushy ()nows almost always, of stock rises)
Ant/antsy (fidgety but ants don’t fidget, they never waste time. )
Duck/ducky (Am.fine, spot-on)
Boar/boarish (cruel, sexually blunt)
Swine/swinish (oafish, tell that to a swineherd)
Goose/goosey (touchy, nervous)
Fox/foxy (devious, sexy. )
horse/horsey (almost invariably and chauvinistically, of a woman deemed unattractive)
fish/fishy (suspicious, but there’s nothing intrinsically suspect about piscarian wariness of the angler’s intent to catch and fillet them)
cat/catty (spiteful, but cats aren’t spiteful)
dog/dogged (stubborn, but dogs aren’t obstinate)
mouse/mousy (timid)
elephant/elephantine (clumsy. Ever see them work logging in a forest? Far from clumsy)
rat/ratty (mad, but rats are very intelligent)
bat/batty (mad, thought of thus, against Thomas Nagel's advice, only because of their squatting in belfries)
Toad/toady (obsequious, not somethinhg one associated with toads)
Swedish get is probably what lies behind English dialect 'git' used in the Alf Garnett series, if memory doesn't belie me, to refer to a silly old git/old goat (See Sitush below)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)
FWIW, this is the editor who was rampaging around Katherine Maher's talk page. I warned and warned and warned them, until a smarter administrator indeffed them. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
So are several people in my family ambit, or partially (total deafness in one ear) my nephew who is a mechanical genius and works the world motorcycle circuit, and my best friend from childhood, a distinguished classicist.This, coincidentally comes back to the T&S issue. In Japan to coincide with the International Year of the Handicapped in the early 80s, the Japanese government re-engineered usage, so that no one would offend the incapacitated or disabled:thus the word for blind (mekura-'eye-dark') was advisedly replaced by me ga mienai hito (a person whose eyes cannot see), and the word for 'deaf' (tsunbo) was dumped for mimi no kikoenai hito (a person whose ears cannot hear). As with English, I'm afraid I can't adapt myself to such regulatory rigging of 'proper' or 'politically correct' usage. Governments should leave language alone, and if they are sincere about such unfortunate conditions, then they'd prove it more wisely by allocating far greater funding to assist the handicapped from school onwards. I.e. put their Pentagon-orientated money where their cost-free gift of the gab is.
As said elsewhere, the blind can hear more in a conversation than most speakers (as the late totally blind Andrea Camilleri remarked during his performance of his theatrical piece 'Conversation with Teiresias' in Syracuse (Sicily) last year), and the deaf can see more into people than those with pitch-perfect hearing. Nature almost always compensates. Beethoven's greatest works were composed after the onset of serious deafness, extending in to his total loss of hearing. Isn't it true that we admire more the late string quartets than the symphony and piano concertos composed before total deafness overtook him? Idem with Edison whose deafness led to the invention of the phonogram. To be 'indeaffed' is to be sent to Coventry because no one wants to hear you, different from being deaf. Everyone wanted to hear Helen Keller. Shakespeare as usual has the last word, when he had the Earl of Gloucester pronounce the immediately memorable lines
I thought that was funny. I was born profoundly deaf and have never had an issue with this sort of thing, which is distinct from bullying etc. But then I am a lover of word play.
I have occasionally pricked someone's bubble here by referencing my deafness, a notable recent example being someone who suggested that I was tone-deaf. That's a comment I'd usually let slide but I think that person is known for being hypersensitive to certain social issues and so I queried the irony of their remark, which was made unwitting of my situation but, for want of a better phrase, gave them "a taste of their own medicine". I also commented on Iridescent's talk page recently about some WMF video thing that is useless because of the lack of decent subtitles. Context is everything, though, and the world would be a sad place if people cannot see humour for what it is. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Back on the goat vs lecher issue, I think such people are usually referred to as old goats, as with David Lloyd George. Are old goats (the animal) notably lascivious? George Melly, who used to put it about a bit, famously remarked that he was glad when his old age meant a loss of libido because, well, it had been so tiring. - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
George Melly probhably picked that up from some dowdy Latin master at Stowe School, alluding, by way of some hope the anecdote might win over his randy adolescent charges to a (premature) Christian austerity, to Cicero's Cato Maior de Senectute where that magnificent drone riffed on the virtues of senescent detumescence. Yes, an 'old goat' gets women's goats for their folly in believing the sags and wrinkles of those of advanced age have an intrinsic erotic charge for the lithely nubile. In Australian dialect at least, the genius of language allows the same attribute to women of a certain age who retain a certain exuberant interest in the flesh. They are or were called 'artichokes' when that idiom was still vibrant. Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha! I'll be emailing T&S shortly with that diff to get you permawavedoff - attributing to me and my poverty-stricken imagination all the bullshit I document!:)
Spare me days, that caused me to clamber up the library stacks with a jinky ladder, slightly groggy after a winey dinner, just to defend my honour against the dastardly insinuation I made it all up, and nearly had me croak it (another T&S complaint issue -incitement to suicide- in the works) in the apocryphal manner ascribed to Alkan.
For Aristotle: ' Of female animals the mare is the most sexually wanton D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson tr. Aristotle,Historia animalium, 1910 p.571, but also Aelian, De Natura Animalium, esp.Bk.4.11
μόνας ἀκούω τῶν ζῴων τὰς ἵππους καὶ κυούσας ὑπομένειν τὴν τῶν ἀρρένων μίξιν: εἶναι γὰρ λαγνιστάτας. διὰ ταῦτά τοι καὶ τῶν γυναικῶν τὰς ἀκολάστους ὑπὸ τῶν σεμνοτέρως αὐτὰς εὐθυνόντων καλεῖσθαι ἵππους.(I have heard that Mares are the only animals which when pregnant allow the male to have intercourse with them. For Mares are exceedingly lustful, and that is why strict censors call lecherous women 'mares'.(hippous)'tr A.F. Scholfield
There is some consolation that Aristotle did add elsewhere that whereas stallions are past it by 33, mares are still keen for another 7 years, until they're 40.
As for downunder artichokes, See Aussie Talk, Macquarie Dictionary of Australian Colloquialism, Macquarie University Press 1984 p.9 under 'artichoke', e.g. 'a debauched old woman'.
Wiping the sweat off his Greek f(r)ont, the besotted geezer toddles off to the fart-sack, feeling his honour intact, his pride redeemed, until he realizes 'honour' is a lecherous double entendre aurally, and 'pride' in Shakespeare means sexual arousal. Dammit. There's no escaping the filth, and there's no way the T&S can cleanse the Augean stables/staples of languageNishidani (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
There are so many life forms listed in this section – I've started to wonder: which of those (if any) are eaten by Bishzilla? If that includes eating fish, I'm heading for the door! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
thanks
I have it on good authority that you are responsible for this. EEK! ANgry-fence-cat's "roarr" made me jump! Speaking of "roarr," best regards to Bishzilla. Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, as I think you know, Dlohcierekim, the responsibility really rests with JamesBWatson. I merely poked him about it, which he was kind enough to acknowledge. Did you get the manul looking out of a hole when you edited this page? It is a bit alarming, sorry. You can enjoy other critters (and actually also cakes) roarring if you evoke my edit notice repeatedly, merely by using Preview as many times as you like. Bishzilla is fond of the roarring frog cakes. Bishonen | talk10:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC).
3O and languishing ANI threads
The cakes look delightful.
Would it be wrong to ask an impartial, uninvolved admin (that would be you) to look at a languishing ANI post? I was going to request a third opinion before posting, but the affected editor pre-empted me. I think there are serious civility (toxicity) issues, but the "toxic" editor has accused me of stalking, so I want no further part in this editor's editing. I can trust you to tell me if I'm wrong and to decide what if anything needs doing. Thanks Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: I'm just going out; I'll take a look later, unless one of my gallant talkpage stalkers has taken care of it. Meanwhile, do you happen to have a link to the ANI of 8 July that you mentioned on User talk:Bomber7600? And where's the accusation of stalking? Bishonen | talk11:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC).
I've warned both [117][118], and made it clear I consider you uninvolved. Hopefully there will be no more nonsense, so I've closed the ANI thread. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but I did not actually DS warn them. That was QG. I have no further plans of being aware of this user and never wish to. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my memory played tricks on me (the DS alert had been removed of course). Anyway, as long as they were alerted by somebody, they can be expected to take note of what it implies. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: For your information, my warning was obviously rejected, so I've topic banned TracyMcClark from the Electronic cigarettes topic area for six months because of their clear personal attack, their unsubstantiated accusation of stalking, and their inability to grasp the seriousness of the warning. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, why would I write article talk pages, when I need to write that editor, article talk pages are meant to dicuss about articles not editors. bye, and that certain person Is not readin comments before starting revert war, you are blaming wrong person, thanks and pls stop posting to my talk page also, I dont need comments there, when Im right -->Typ932T·C19:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
No, that's fine, I won't post to your page again. Unless of course I have to block you for continued harassment of Davey2010 after being warned, because in that case I'll leave a block message for you. As for discussing articles, not editors, you're always supposed to discuss articles, not editors. Please see the policy WP:NPA: the second sentence of it is "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Bishonen | talk19:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC).
Hi edit warring should be discussed in person talk page, not article talk page. Im not sure you understand the situation, I was not talking about the article, I was talking that behaviour of editor who doesnt read hes talk page and starts edit warring. Talk pages "Talk pages (also known as discussion pages) are administration pages where editors can discuss improvements to articles or other Wikipedia pages" "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." Maybe that clears talk pages purpose here in wikipedia ->Typ932T·C19:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Typ932, I don't think it's likely Bishonen will get blocked for anything she did in connection with you. I count 22 user talk page edits by you since you made that odd edit on the 166 article--and yes, you should have explained, in the edit summary, why you did this. Now get back to article space, please--you've done enough in user talk space. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah like that dave with his crap comments in edit history, why I need to explain anything when editor before me post comments like that, bye last post about this thing -->Typ932T·C20:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Please indent properly; I've done it for you this time. Don't argue with Davey2010 about edit warring. He obviously doesn't need warning about it, because he knows the rules for edit warring, as he showed by warning you. Also, you weren't talking about edit warring, you were purely being annoying and posting multiple posts about stuff like "you'd better check your settings" and such like. I understand the situation fine: after my comment above, you have realized that I can and will block you if you pester Davey again, so you're scared to do it. That's good, I'm pleased. But it doesn't mean you get to pester me instead. As Drmies says, you need to get back to article space--you've made enough ignorant accusations in user talk space. I don't believe your excuse here, by the way. Bishonen | talk20:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC).
Thanks
Hi Bishonen, Hope all's well,
I just wanted to say a big thanks for helping yesterday,
Usually I don't react like that even if I do find the notifs annoying but yesterday was a day from hell and the edit conflicts with the editor every time I tried to do something really didn't help,
Anyway many thanks again for your help it was much appreciated :),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk09:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I thought for sure it was going to end in a block, but I was glad to see it wasn't necessary after all. Yes it must have been very aggravating. Bishonen | talk09:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC).
Blocked user
Hi Bishonen. Last week you indefinitely blocked User:SNF-87 for trying to game the semiprotection restriction and for clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you for doing that, but, unfortunately, it looks as if they're now back with a new username to do the exact same thing all over again. We've been having problems with this editor making personal attacks and removing sourced content in articles for months now – by my count they've already been blocked at least four times, so I'm not convinced that they they'd respond well to the dispute resolution process. What's the best course of action here? Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
You mentioned you had a little script that added a royal crown to a user name if they were an admin. Could you possibly divulge that code and how to implement it? It sounds like it could be not only useful, but kinda "groovy man - like far out" (although perhaps "totes cool" is today's lingo) — Ched : ? — 17:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
M poor dear antiquated Ched, crowns are soooo outré. My young little Bish, I would like a tasteful tiara with a tasteful number of tasteful diamonds and tasteful pearls. Thanks ever so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I have the aqua highlighting in my momobook.js by importing one of Mastcell's scripts - but never my own coding to adjust .. I'll look into it. Is there a list of those little icons I can pick from? — Ched : ? — 18:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I forget most of what I learned in school (C++, Cobol, VB, etc) and never did study much about javascript and style sheets. Well - did a bit of self taught .js back when Excite had chat rooms and all. Anyway - going back to my highlighter - seems better than the little icons for my taste. ty guys and girls — Ched : ? — 18:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ched: I'm sorry, I added the crown script ages ago, I don't know where it is. But the effect is very pretty — (better than pearl-clutching, Bbb23!) — perhaps a talkpage stalker would like to dig it out of one of my monobook or common... uh... pages?... for you? (One of them takes precedence? That's over my head completely.) Though I must say the Floque's drama emoji for admins is also very fine, and you see, above, that he has told you where to find it. Bishonen | talk19:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC).
{{yo|Ched}}? .. hmmm neato. No problem Ms. Bishonen - I found it in your common.css. I tried both the beautiful crown and the drama emoji. For now I'm going to stick with the highlighter. I actually have very little in my common.css, just the edit section. (I commented out the crown and emoji for now) Since I liked the old monobook look - I use that skin and import .js files into that. Greatly appreciate your time though. — Ched : ? — 19:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Ched: I'm late to this party, but I use this, which allows me to do both icons and colors: that way I can separate all admin and advanced permission holders without remembering too much stuff. Amorymeltzer is quite good about keeping it running, too. Vanamonde (Talk)19:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Incandescently obvious sock redux
I'm about to ping you at Talk:Latino about a circumstantially obvious undeclared sock of Lauracerffer (talk · contribs). I'm trying to assemble diffs and stuff, but you may have more background on this particular case, not to mention more tools, and thus be able to deal with it more rapidly than I could. If your plate is full, no worries; feel free to ignore, and I'll carry on investigating on my side, and report back eventually. Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mathglot: looks kind of obvious, yes. Now that you've asked about previous accounts on their page, perhaps it's as well to leave it till they reply.
I notice that after I'd blocked Lauracerffer, Bbb23 changed the block to a CU-block for abusing multiple accounts, long before either Teresa samonetta or GiannaZarelli had been created, so I guess there must have been earlier socks. Maybe it's time for an SPI? Beeb, would you like to create one, since you're aware of more socks than me and Mathglot? Also pinging Doug Weller, who tried (with little success) to educate the previous incarnations about how to contribute to Wikipedia. Doug, you're also a CU, how about it? Bishonen | talk08:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC).
I tried to get guidance from WP:SOCK and WP:SPI about whether or not to simply ask the editor about alt accounts, and I couldn't find anything there about it (maybe something should be added?) So, I based my decision to ask her, based on analogy to the guidance I've seen at WP:COI about asking users politely about COI issues, or pasting one of the templates that effectively does the same thing. I hope by asking her, I didn't complicate things.
I sympathize with Doug for the pain he went through earlier. I was tsk-tsking my way through it. Some of that stuff could become a case study for future Rfa candidates on keeping their cool under stressful conditions. I got dissed by her a tiny bit at her User talk page, but that was nothing compared to what Doug went through. Meanwhile, I'm busy designing my WWDD (What Would Doug Do?) bumper stickers and T-shirt designs for Cafe Press; any help or suggestions would be most welcome. Mathglot (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
As long as there's no hurry, which there isn't here, simply asking is a good thing, IMO. Incidentally, for slightly different circumstances (disruption while logged out), one of my socks has a fine template you'd be welcome to use. Bishonen | talk09:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC).
@Mathglot: Thanks for the embarrassing compliments. I hope I can live up to them. I see they deny having any other accounts. I've given an only warning for those attacks on here. I note that the editor posted this to someone else at es.wiki: "Why did you delete my addition "people, respective cultures" on the "Latino" article? If you're Spanish, and live in Spain, are you not proud of being a Latino and enjoying Latin culture? I hope you're not being misdirected by the USA's rash 1997 corruption of the word "latino" as a shortened form of "latinoamericano" for the USA's census. We Latin Europeans (in case you happen to be one), are proud of our Latino countries. I know I am (I'm an Italiana from Lazio, Rome, Italy). I won't be bossed about by naysaying Anglo-Americans, and you shouldn't either. Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Corsica, Malta, San Marino, Monaco are just some of the Old World's Latino countries. Yes, we use Cultura Latina which originated in Rome beginning 1200 BC. And it is, we are Latino people. The term "latinoamerica" was only created in the late 1880s. The USA's silly misuse of the word "latino" for a person from Latin America who comes to live in the USA is both futile and foolish.
Especially since the USA is being latinoized more each year. So is Anglo-Canada. There isn't much of Anglo-America anymore. The French Canadians are Latin People. America is growing up; it's becoming a continent (as we Latins say it is) instead of country (as the Anglo USA community thinks it is). If you're really an Old Word Latino, you should embrace your Latin roots. I know I embrace mine. Being a Roman, it's impossible to give up the cradle of European culture so the USA can consider Native Americans "Latino". You'll notice people in the USA don't naysay their Celtic, Scots, and Anglo-Saxon ethnicities. Yet, they expect we Latin Europeans to forget our Latin cultures, ethinc designations, and roots. It's just NOT on! We Latin Europeans have the right to be called "Latin people" and our Latin cultures need to be embraced and noted here on Wikipedia. We don't disrespect and naysay other people's cultures. We don't like ours naysayed and disrepected. Don't you agree?- The previous unsigned comment is the work of GiannaZarelli ( disc. • contribs ). 19:16, June 13, 2019 (UTC)
You folk are funny. Why anyone would want to ask a sock/person who is known for their aggressive rants whether they've ever edited with another account is beyond me. Their response was predictable, as was my block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd happily buy a dozen of those stickers Mathglot speaks of. I thought that trash edit push was dead and buried a year ago, or would have helped out. Astonishing the insistence on 'I'm an Italiana from Lazio, Rome, Italy': This is certainly untrue, since the editor in question has a feeble knowledge of Italian, and has zero knowledge of Roman dialect (I'm an experienced translator of it). Best wishes, as always, Doug. Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Went back through my Email archive "Toshiba CK6R4" and searched for said reply: couldn't find it. Any ideas please?
Sorry, I don't know what this is about, 185.3.100.28. (You can sign posts on talkpages by typing four tildes ~~~~, which will convert automatically to your username or IP.) Bishonen | talk08:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC).
Request for protecting Nath (surname) & Debnath from persistent vandalism / unsourced POV edits
Some obvious socking there, and quite charming comments on your page, about your jealousy of Brahmins. I've blocked both accounts. Since all the disruption has been coming from them, I think I'll leave the articles for now. Thanks for reporting, Ekdalian, and could you please let me know if more socks turn up? Then I'll semi. Bishonen | talk10:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC).
It's a little like "He flung himself upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions." EEng14:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Since it would be a shame to get blocked before being able to assist in bringing the Moors murders sourcing to at least GA level, I've modified the header of this section to something more neutral.
ive been looking at this too. What edition of Staff's book The Lost Boy are you checking against? I suspect it's not the 2007 edition cited in the article but the revised 2013 one, in which some of the text may well have been moved. Perhaps this is why you tag all these failed verificaton errors. I suppose, If you're checking a source it surely makes sense to check against the source that's been cited. Giano(talk)18:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Bish - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catahoula bulldog. I just went back over the cited sources in the article - removed the garbage citations, and added tags. I asked Tone to review the close again. Also take a look at the editing experiences of the iVotes - which is great that new editors are getting involved. A few WP:WikiProject Dog editors and I are trying to clean-up articles about breeds that are not breeds, rather they are dog-types, if that, and most are not cited to RS because there are none. I don't think WP considers self-published dog lover/puppymill/hobbyist books as RS, and the same would apply to websites. I want to avoid the back-and-forth with the newbies (so far, I've managed well and have tried to be encouraging) so if you will just take a look at what we're dealing with, and share your thoughts, I'll go from there. AtsmeTalk📧18:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm a little short of time, and not much good with dogs. But I see Tone has relisted it. I hope some of my stalkers will check it out. Bishonen | talk20:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC).
That block (71.31.30.66 ) should be for personal attacks, they did some small vandalism yesterday but today their edits weren't vandalism they were simply blanking TP warnings the main issue was the comments in edit summary. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Really? There was so much of it I had trouble getting an overview, and of course CLCStudent was wrong to revert their blanking of their own talkpage; I'm surprised CLC doesn't know that. But what stood out for me was their redirecting their own and another IP talkpage to User talk:Jimbo Wales. Bishonen | talk20:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC).
It's a notable difference that these IPs are not attacking Doug Weller, or saying you're Doug's sock, so maybe not the same. Anyway, I've semi'd Merle Haggard for three months. Check out the protection log — apparently it was exactly the same thing 3 years ago: "11:54, 21 April 2016 Nyttend changed protection level for Merle Haggard [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 11:54, 28 April 2016) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Persistent disruptive editing: Addition of copyright infringements by multiple IPs)." Persistent seems right! Incidentally, I do see your ping on Talk:Merle Haggard now, but I did not receive your notification. Unreliable, pings are! 😟 Bishonen | talk16:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC).
Haha, you're right that that did kind of seem like a defining feature of the previous account. Thanks for taking a look! Nblundtalk16:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The thing is, I suspect they're right. I can Cinderella a source saying that Haggard was listening to Armstrong and got some inspiration from him. I can't afford the Merle Haggard autobiography it you'd expect that to mention Garner. Doug Wellertalk18:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that gross incivility often gets people blocked and lead to their comments being oversighted within seconds. I notice that other times it doesn't. Here, for example. I suppose that the advantage to this double standard is that I can always link to it to show how en.wp is more toxic for some than others. I noticed that the person who reverted it reported a lot of people for vandalism in the moments following, but didn't report the guy for incivility. I wonder why vandalism is a greater crime than repeated personal attacks? (see also the antz talkpage) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c20:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Vandalism that targets an article is often defamatory in nature; which BLP doesn't permit, but which could also open Wikipedia up to legal trouble. Same with copyright violations. Personal attacks are disruptive, and unpleasant, but they're rarely as urgent a problem...I, and several others, will often take down personal attacks that are egregious, under RD2 or RD3; but not all admins will, and if it happens on your talk page, it's less likely to be noticed. Also, for the record; oversight and revision deletion are similar but different; all admins can delete revisions, and read deleted revisions; only oversighters can oversight (or suppress) revisions, and read those that have been suppressed. The bar for suppression is considerably higher, and run-of-the-mill vandalism will be suppressed only very rarely. Vanamonde (Talk)21:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
SashiRolls, your comment above is too involved and serpentine for me to be able to tell if you would like the comment revdel'd or not. I can do that if desired. (I don't think any oversighter would like to suppress it.) Meanwhile, I've blocked the user for 48 hours. Bishonen | talk21:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC).
Sorry, should have said, I removed it. Revision deletion only, does not qualify for suppression. Personally, I have a low bar when it comes to that sort of crap. Vanamonde (Talk)21:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
To be a bit more blunt than Vanamonde: we mainly suppress personal attacks if they are calling you a pedophile or other sex criminal. I’d be fine suppressing allegations of being an actual member of a neo-Nazi group as well, but not “he’s a Nazi/fascist for liking [thing]!” Obviously things are evaluated individually, but sex crimes would be the most common cause for suppressing personal attacks. Agree with his revdel, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reaction once I mentioned it. Sorry to trouble you all. I gather this was retribution for something I wrote. I guess it's safer not to edit wikipedia if you don't want the antz to come marching in. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c21:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit. I really do appreciate the culture of fr.wp where ArbCom cases are filed by the name of the prosecutor. Nevertheless, I do appreciate you blocking the single purpose account the instant I reported the attack. I'm not optimistic about the likelihood of Bulldog antz becoming a collaborative encyclopédiste, but you never know. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c09:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Take a look at ANI's TOC right now: "User:X", "User:Y", "User:Z and WP:CIR", etc. Lots of usernames, lots of alphabet soup. Nblund's original header is quite typical. Not typical of fr.wp, admittedly. Bishonen | talk09:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC).
It isn't often that I chortle with glee, while reading WP. But the appearances of Bishzilla make me laugh aloud! Ohh, the raptures... her graceful snout, her fiery eyes, her learned and idiosyncratic discourse! She brings joy to the hearts of all who love her, and worship from afar. (Like *really* far away, those flames look dangerous!) With gratitude, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!21:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The protection had expired. Do you think it should be indefinite? We don't often do that. Did you check the IP's so-called contributions? Quite a bio spree — a democratic politician spree. It's probably one of those perennial proposals to semi all BLPs indefinitely. Though even that wouldn't have helped in this case, as two out of the three are dead. Bishonen | talk09:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC).
I'm sorry, I got distracted there and didn't notice your were already dealing with it. Do you want me to remove the username block? --kingboyk (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
On second thought, and after reading the thread on Alexf's talkpage, I wish you would unblock him, kingboyk. He's a new user (and a highly qualified one) doing his best, and all he's met with is don't do this and don't do that, and also you've been blocked. There isn't really any doubt that he is who he says he is, IMO. Bishonen | talk16:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC).
I've unblocked. I propose to essentially retract the block by removing the block template and the request to unblock. Is that OK or should I leave the notification and change the unblock request to 'accepted'? --kingboyk (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I dunno if there are any rules for that. If it was me, I'd just remove both and write him a nice welcoming little note. Bishonen | talk16:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC).
Bloodofox is a wiki-friend and I have formerly collaborated with them; I broke my promise to myself to make fewer than five edits to Wikipedia this month, for the second month, because of their ping and because there are few of us left fixing Norse/ancient Germanic messes. But was the copyright violation at Völva only the failure to attribute when restoring the pre-rewrite version of the page? If so, a new editor would be unlikely to realise that copying within Wikipedia without attribution counts as copyvio, and in light of the personal concerns they revealed on their talkpage, I'd like to plead for some mercy for this well intentioned editor, perhaps in the form of a message from you explaining the coying problem and suggesting they ask for unblock with a promise to cease the insults as well as the death curses. I have been trying to fix the mess of bad links, bad Norse, lack of bolding, on the page and talk them down on their talk page, but I type slowly. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, Yngvadottir. I'll certainly think about it, since you ask, but they've been very aggressive you know. Look at their edit summaries altogether, not just the "death curse" but the others, and at their aggressive edit warring at Völva. The mythology wiki that I linked to at the noticeboard, here, is marked "copyright Wikia". Of course Wikia is not Wikipedia. Are you saying you think that's actually an unacknowledged copy from an older version of Wikipedia's Völva article? Bishonen | talk17:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC).
Yes. As are many Wikia articles. (It may even have an acknowledgement somewhere in the history.) See this version before Bloodofox started his rewrite, the second edit of which was the move from the Völva title - see the move template on the redirect page above the history-purge template someone has added; I've made a note there with that link.
Yes, they've been very aggressive, and to a friend of mine, I'm not pleading for any change to the block. But see their talk page response to me for where they're coming from. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Slow typing sucks, doesn't it Yngvadottir? Many's the time I've tried to intervene in a dispute at ANI, only to have my response become obsolete before I can act. Then I revise my response, only to find it has *again* evolved beyond me. Same thing's happening here. I tried to agree with you about the copyright thing, but it's already been redacted by another admin, and arguing about it just seems like *so* much effort. I tried to respond to the unblock request, but it was already responded to before I was done. Then I tried to leave a comment for them with some advice, but before I could hit "save" they've escalated and doubled down and gone off the deep end. Now I feel forced into removing talk page access. Before I do, do you still think there is *any* hope here? Do you want to try talking to them anymore? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I can't say I've much hope, but I've invited another unblock request, so please hold off a little with the tpa removal. I've withdrawn the copyvio charge. Bishonen | talk20:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC).
I don't have much either, but I've done my best to put the case for seeking to return to editing minus imprecations, and repeating here my thanks there for the strike-out and statement about copyvio. Yes, they lie. Water is wet. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Could you ask an Oversighter, please, Gamla bergtroll? They're the only ones that can do it. You can use the e-mail link at the top of Wikipedia:Oversight. Please don't put the link anywhere else in public, and ask them to oversight it here on my page also; I've redacted it. Bishonen | talk09:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC).
I'm sorry; I got that last night when I was on my phone and couldn't easily revdel, and then completely forgot about it overnight. My bad. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey, folks! I'm only now catching up. I'm assuming someone posted the Litro article by Carl Raschke's son? None of the information about yours truly there is accurate. It's either wholesale invented and fictional—like much of the writer's account of how Wikipedia works—or means that he and his father harassed some poor uninvolved guy in the U.S. based on who-knows-what criteria thinking it was me because he didn't like what scholars had to say about Painted Black. I considered posting it on my user page for a while, but thought it wasn't worth my time, and figured it would be funny whenever it surfaced. Thanks for looking out, nonetheless! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Done, but I had to dig out a template first. Does anybody know why Twinkle is being completely unhelpful with blocks atm? My little stalkers? Bishonen | talk11:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC).
👏 @ young Deepfried and Boing. I just tried it again, and Twinkle seems to have recovered. There you go, I thought my best move would be to wait for some other admin to take it to VP or the Twinkle talkpage. Bishonen | talk14:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC).
re Filet-o-fish king
They had the same "special" signature here, just FYI. They really look like they're WP:NOTHERE imo. They've already been in an edit war and personally attacked someone twice, along with this. - Frood (talk!) 04:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know, it's been used in several places. Toddst1's page was just an example (a good one, since Toddst1 had reported them to AIV, apparently without noticing the sig). The user is now saying it was an embarrassing mistake. Well, maybe. I've replied on their page. Bishonen | talk04:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
I took a look at the contributions, spotted some nasty anti-Semitic trolling a few days ago in addition to all the other nonsense, and based on that have upped the block to indef. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
It looks like a bad-hand and badder-hand account then. I blocked this [121] yesterday and there has been an IP-hopping anon sticking antisemitic remarks on (mainly but not exclusively) fast food articles for the past few weeks. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 06:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I noticed the McDonalds chicken McNugget vandal over the summer. Or was it McGriddles? He was obsessive about vandalizing fast food articles. I had hoped he had gone back to the third grade now that summer was over. LizRead!Talk!03:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I thought I remembered someone (ie troll) using the name of various fast food items from a few months ago. El_C is there a LTA page for this one or should we just post on your talk page when they pop up again? MarnetteD|Talk16:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think there is, but I can't remember what the sock name is. The LTA usually edits my talk page and pings me on each spree, so no need. El_C21:24, 5 September 2019 (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.
Excuse me, but I saw bad language in one of your userboxes.
The userbox I’m talking about is the one about...
...speaking?
Mind my language, but it said “S*ut u*” in the text of the userbox.
Can I edit your userpage to change the text to something more appropriate?
Rng0286 (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Interesting message to someone who doesn't even have any userboxes. From the contribs, they're not a troll, so I have poset a civil (-ish) query on their page. Bishonen | talk09:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
Er, Bish, you do have userboxes: I assume This user loves the sound of her own voice. You probably think that if you ignore her she might eventually shut up, but you reckon without her inflated sense of her own importance. (my emphasis) is the offending phrase. I suspect the OP doesn't realize this is self-directed and thinks someone else has vandalized your userpage and they're doing you a favor in pointing it out. ‑ Iridescent09:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, the obscured term was "S*ut u*", I see. I misread it as something to do with fucking. Thanks Iri. I never thought of that as a userbox, let it be said. I do have one that I'd call a proper userbox, celebrating my block log. Thank you for your concern, Rng0286, but I like it as it is. Out of curiosity, what would you have liked to change the bad words to? Bishonen | talk09:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
Also, Rng0286, please decide on what you want to say, preview, and then save. It's quite disappointing to get a message that I have five messages on my page, and then it turns out that they're all you, changing your mind while crafting a short post. Bishonen | talk09:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
I came here to say something funny about Swedish, but now I see this is serious, Bishonen. The civility police have come for you. Any last words before you are banned?JehochmanTalk10:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Men för höge farao, don't hold back, Jehochman. I've never heard anything funny about Swedish. Speaking of farao (a euphemism by way of having the same first letters as the dreaded Fan Himself), I just heard an actual euphemism for "shut up" on QI, from Alan Davies: "Shut the front door!", much emphasis on "shut", expressing amazement. ((Obviously the listener who hears "Shut the f" is supposed to supply a different ending than "ront door", with the same intonation.) It might be a little confusing to say "if you ignore her she might eventually shut the front door" on my userpage, though. Bishonen | talk11:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
When I was a kid, a teacher told me if I said "gee wiz", I would burn in hell for eternity as it's a euphemism for Jesus and violates the Ten Commandments. Thought those days were long gone. (Is it getting warm in here?) O3000 (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I can’t abide bad language of any description, it displays a very limited vocabulary. Giano’s wife swears a lot; whenever I stay with them, all I can hear is filth being muttered under her breath, but then she’s from Venice, and we all know what they say about people from Veneto - all that filthy water sloshing around. I’m afraid Mrs Bishonen any more of these complaints about you and I shall be forced to contact the WMF and have you sent to the same dark place as the unfortunately vocabularied Mr Corbett. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
My dear lady, given your nobility, ignorance is to be expected, but not forgiven, esp since part of the baggage of soi-disant civilized life in your lofty parts is pointing out the fauxpas of the lower social orders, and every tit deserves a tat (or is that every pip deserves a pat? or something of both?). As a professional lout and linguist I am obliged to point out that asserting that 'bad language - - displays a very limited vocabulary' is characteristically ill-informed. The foulmouthed can avail themselves of a far wider variety of terms for a number of fundamental objects in the natural world than are available to the tony toffs and toffesses of the aristocracy. Witness Giuseppe Gioachino Belli's sonnet on the membrum virile, listing 51 terms current in Romanesco. Respecting the rights to parity between the sexes, the poet also wrote a sonnet on the corresponding female part which I can't link because it concerns advice as to how to lay a certain Catherine. Unfortunately, the sexism of history resulted in only 41 terms for country matters on the distaff side. Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow... as you have a link to the essay "Complete bollocks", I would have thought that would have been more of a problem! - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Eeeek, don't rat me out, SchroCat..! And people, this is all very amusing, but I worry the not-very-experienced user will feel bitten by the sheer amount of commentary, and, well, the amount of cussing. Perhaps we'd better be done here. Bishonen | talk16:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
You had better archive this section then, but before you do. Seriously, am I the only one here who hasn’t a clue what it’s about. My English is fluent and I like to think quite good, but something here is being very lost in translation for me. Giano(talk)16:47, 5 September 2019 (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.
Deepcruze
Deepcruze (talk·contribs) has long been on a Dalit-promotion mission. I've just reverted them again but yesterday left a couple of notes on their talk page because I am utterly fed up of trying to clean up their mess over several years. They removed my remarks without comment, which is typical as they seem rarely (ever?) to engage with other contributors. I realise that removal constitutes acknowledgement of having read the stuff but is this the last straw? - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why, but the community is as unreasonably fixated on removal of messages being perfectly all right under any and all circumstances, as they're unreasonably fixated on socking, under any and all circumstances, being a capital crime. (Compare the recent RFAR on Eric Corbett.) So, no, I don't think the removal of your comments and SpacemanSpiff's can be used against Deepcruze. But I'll take a look at the situation generally, as time permits. Bishonen | talk10:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC).
Thanks. It's not the removals per se that are the problem. It's the unwillingness to communicate, which seems to have gone on forever. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Yep. Definitely not encouraging. Except for one short, meaningless, post after they were blocked, their contribution to User talk:Deepcruze is entirely one of removing the comments of others. Add the fact that a mere 1.5% of their contributions are to article talk pages and all their contributions to user talk pages are the removal of content from their own page, and we can safely say that they are not here to contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia.--regentspark (comment) 13:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I spot-checked their last edit. It's more than shabby, it's verging on original research; they added three sources to the claim "ABVP and NSUI which field mostly Jat or Gujjar candidates for important posts in DUSU", each of which refer to a specific election only, and not to a generic trend; the only source previously supporting the content was a now-defunct right-wing web news outlet, which wasn't terribly reliable. this edit, since reverted by Sitush, added "the oppressed majority comprising 85% of India's population" as a qualifier to a group previously identified only as "untouchables"; the source supporting it, however, is only reporting a quote from a politician claiming to advocate for said demographic, and doesn't make the claim in its own voice. SpacemanSpiff has given them a warning about caste-related GS, which, as luck would have it, is still valid for three more days. My approach would be to apply a caste-related topic-ban, along with a warning that the continued failure to communicate and to use sources properly will result in an indefinite block. I'm INVOLVED with respect to Indian political parties, and don't want to place the actual sanction. That said, they essentially haven't edited the Article Talk namespace at all...so I'm not exactly opposed to an indefinite block. Vanamonde (Talk)19:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, I'm keeping a weather eye out for the expiration of Spiffy's alert. I need to write up something, though. Topic ban or indef? They're specially interested in caste pages (Dalits), but not exclusively. I also suspect them of copyvios whenever they write in good English, because their own English, in their rare more personal edits, is rather primitive.[122] But I find it hard to tell whether the texts out there are copied from Wikipedia or not (of course they often are). I've been had that way before. I know the mirror sites, that's all right, but everybody seems to steal from Wikipedia, with or without acknowledgement, these days. Bishonen | talk20:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC).
Re: "Everybody steals from Wikipedia"; have I told you I once found a supposedly scholarly journal article that had lifted several paragraphs from a Wikipedia page I was the main author of? Wrote to the editors, got no response. *shrugs* I would be thoroughly unsurprised if they are copying; I would also be unsurprised if they are some sort of shared account. But I'm not finding slam-dunk evidence of either. I ran a version of a page entirely written by them through earwig's detector, and found nothing [123], which to me suggests that their paraphrasing skills with respect to basic factual information is sufficient, but when they get into more complex stuff, it might indeed be a language problem rather than deliberate source misrepresentation. I'm a bit of a softy; I like to start with the lesser sanction. If they have some basic competence, they should be able to demonstrate it outside of caste-related topics; if they don't, it will turn into an indef soon enough. Vanamonde (Talk)20:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hmmz - roaring Owl. Anyway, I've left Deepcruze a note on their talkpage. Perhaps they will engage with that.--RexxS (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I got a roaring manul, meow! Excellent note on their page, RexxS, and yours too, Sitush. The more I think about it, the less point there seems to be in topic banning that user. If they remove the currently latest posts on their page without response, I'll indef. Unless somebody feels like trying to persuade me otherwise while we wait? Bishonen | talk15:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC).
Hello Bishonen, I removed your PROD from the article Tunde Bakare because I thought there was enough content online for the subject to pass WP:GNG. I have added several citations to the article. If you have time please visit the article to see if your concerns have been helped, or please tell me how I can fix those problems if those issues still are present in the article. Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to contribute to my RfA and for sharing your own experience. Being compared to you is flattery more than I deserve and to have you do it while addressing the concerns of some neutral and oppose editors is beyond what I could expect. Thank you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Immanuvel Devendrar
Hi, we seem to have one of the periodic campaigns to substitute revisionist caste history/naming etc at Immanuvel Devendrar. A whole bunch of anons have been having a go these last few days. - Sitush (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey Bishonen, Many thanks for blocking them,
Obviously we're all volunteers here and aren't required to be here 24/7 but the report had sat there all day without any sort of comment .... so I just assumed everyone passing wasn't bothered and felt no admin intervention was required, ANI is pretty quick when it comes to reports so just assumed no one cared really,
Kinda wished I left it open longer but anyway thanks again for your swift actions :),
Many thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk19:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dear, Vanjari Caste is redirected to Banjara. Kindly note the difference between two. And keep both pages separate. As I am not a regular user, so don't know how to make it. Goresm (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a dispute that goes back for many years, as with the Ezhava/Thiyya and Balmiki/Valmiki issues. I'll take a look at the talk page later. Just off the top of my head, I note that the letters B and V are often interchangeable in Romanisation of Indic names. - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Goresm, now that I've read Sitush's and Regentspark's replies to you at Talk:Banjara, I have to stand by my reverts of your changes and repeat that Vanjari (caste) should be a redirect to Banjara. I hope you, too, read their comments carefully. They are both very knowledgeable about Wikipedia's principles for caste editing, and about the kinds of sources needed. Please note that your personal experience is not enough of a source. Bishonen | talk19:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC).
I noticed the copyvio warnings and comments about poor sourcing on your talkpage. I haven't researched your contributions myself, but the comments on your page are enough for me to think it would be good for you to be aware of the discretionary sanctions for Indian subjects. A DS notice isn't an accusation or a warning, it's just information. Bishonen | talk17:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC).
Thank you. I understand, although I think it is a bit strange to base your action on the words of one or two editors on my Talk Page (although I'm perfectly OK with Diannaa's attribution request). You might want to check for yourself. Regarding sourcing, you might also have a look at this for example [125]. Best पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk)17:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The BL knows who the authors are IRL, as you can see, but would not divulge these books when I searched for "Malacrida" by itself. That was unfair of them. But the main problem is my search skills are rotten to the core, always have been. Why didn't I look for the titles? Admittedly, I had Life Begins To-day wrong from my source (Lucy London), as Life Begins Here, but I could have found the other one, and have got the pseudonym from it, if I'd had more sense. Good job this is a collaborative project, and thanks again. Bishonen | talk21:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC).
I've got it from my source that Nadja Malacrida, otherwise Louisa Nadia Green, was regularly heard on BBC radio in the nineteen twenties and early thirties. She used to recite well-known pieces of poetry. Also, apparently, even though she died in 1934, she appeared in some early BBC TV broadcasts. So I tried with my usual lack of success to search the BBC archives. Would anybody more cleverer like to try? Little talkpage stalkers? Andy? Bishonen | talk15:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC).
Yeah no I can't help. I'm too ignorant and senile, and I have to go practice biting newbies, because not doing that is bad for the encyclopedia. I done been tole. KillerChihuahua15:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde, I thought I had got my pdf. problems licked, see [126], but with your link there's a new twist: I immediately get a screen that says "Your session has timed out. Please go back to the article page and click the PDF link again." What new deviltry is this? Even if your session has timed out it shouldn't be telling me that, surely? It is a bit of a weird-looking link — is it a search result? Bishonen | talk17:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC).
Huh, strange, I get the same now. It was a search result which I then plugged into google scholar, which automatically links public pdfs and/or those my institution gives me access to. Maybe this was one of those. Anyhow, the source is this one, and if you don't have access I'm happy to send you the pdf via email. Vanamonde (Talk)17:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Sent. Hope it's helpful. With respect to citing; I think the url I pasted should be fine, but you could even just add the doi and not use the url. There's a pesky bot going around dumping urls from journal citations that have dois (I use those a lot, so it's been in my watchlist a lot) so I suppose someone somewhere decided that that's what we're doing. Vanamonde (Talk)18:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
And received, thanks! You mean I could use the link https://doi.org/10.1093/english/efn039 ? Oh, hey, btw... I could have sworn I used it before, and was redirected to the abstract, but as I tried it again just now, I got the whole long form. These are mysteries. Anyway, in case the doi link blows hot and cold for me, I now have the .pdf you attached. Bishonen | talk18:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC).
Oh, great, Andy. Brilliant. And I got even better results with "Nadja Green". It looks like all her readings were in 1934. I had the impression that her taste in poetry was very conventional, but she actually read Hopkins' "Pied Beauty".[128] Not necessarily her choice, of course. And most of the readings are of tested Victorian favorites — Coventry Patmore, Swinburne, Walter de la Mare. There's some prose as well — Thomas Hardy and, believe it or not, D. H. Lawrence. I guess I can't make much of the text selection, though, as most likely it wasn't done by her. Bishonen | talk17:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC).
Vim
I have taken it upon myself to research the Face of Vim for You, however, in these rather gender conscious days I’m not sure Wikipedia will permit her Poor Nadja to be so portrayed. There is this poor female who obviously has a very stressful life; then there’s this unfortunate woman clearly suffering some form of digestive disorder. Indian women fare better, a little dab of Vim behind the ears puts a smile on the face. However, for those with more precious possessions, there is a solution to conserving the Meissen dinner service]. Neither will socialising with friends improve a woman’s worries, her friends have noticed her personal problems. All in all, women had a tough, grime trodden time of it. There is, though, hope on the horizon, her daughters will live in an emancipated society, and she herself, may even get lucky with him. What heady days those where for women. Sadly, I can find no trace of Nadja. Giano(talk)10:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
LOL, thank you, darling. I nearly exploded as well.[129] It might be possible to ask the Vim people, I bet they have good archives, but I can't shake the feeling that I'd first need to know when the Nadja adverts appeared. I have asked Lucy with the Nadja blog if she knows the year, but no reply yet. Bishonen | talk11:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC).
Are you quite sure it’s Vim she advertised. I am thinking of writing an article about the plight and horrors women encountered in the 1930. Who would have thought the washing up could produce such a reaction. However, back to Nadja, would she have even known what a saucepan was or risked exploding while trying to clean it. There is a Marchese-type lady using Vim! But she looks as though she may have some more pressing health issues than exploding, screaming and passing out. Nadja had none of those.Giano(talk)12:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC).
Ah, Tomteskur, with the famous infinitely reflected gnome on the tin. Unfortunately I can't find an image that does justice to it — they show at most one reflection — so to compensate, I tell you instead that cocaine cures both toothache and dandruff.[131] Google images is a richness to drown in. Bishonen | talk20:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC).
What, the Shoe Event Horizon? All this talk of ancient consumer goodies, those cardboard tubes of cleaning powders with tin lids seem to have been entirely displaced by plastic bottles of gels – but how long can we sustain plastic? Retreats to memories of pre-plastic times. . . dave souza, talk 16:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC) – ah, here we go aww! . . dave souza, talk16:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Vim is just Vi but with a graphical user interface. The truly blessed thing of Vi is that you can find it on any reasonable computer system (including Macs!) if you can get a shell (or terminal window). You never have to install it; it's always there and always has been (since 1976). Then you find the file you need to hack and use vi to open it, and without ever lifting your fingers from the keyboard (no stinkin' menus! no fussy mouse!) you enter the magical commands that modify the file to your liking. JehochmanTalk21:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Right, I noticed. When my son visits, he does stuff just like that to my computer, with the terminal window. I know better than to interfere or ask questions. Bishonen | talk21:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC).
Yes, I've seen it, Andy — didn't I put the date? I thought I did. Anyway, I've also had some contact with Lucy London — I just got a letter from her today. She sent me the 1922 photo I've uploaded on Commons (a bit of a bloody waste of time, that), and also, quite fascinatingly, a Vim advert with Nadja. I can't put it anywhere on Wikipedia to show, though, since it was published in 1929. Not unless I get permission from Henkel, who seem to be the current owners of Vim; I've written to them. Just for interest, shall I send you the advert? It's hilarious — so modern — a celeb endorsing a product! I can't attach stuff via wikimail, AFAIK, but if you care to drop me a line, I'll be able to reply, with an attachment. Bishonen | talk22:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
You mentioned the year, not the date - the latter may not be worth inclusion, but I thought it might help us to track down more details (though I tried subsequent to my last post here, and found nothing new). Mail sent, thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
In the past, I've had success with looking at Amazon or some other book-seller's site for the book. Sometimes the jacket is pictured and you can make out detail on it. Sadly, I've had no luck in this case. However, while checking out a Google search on the book title, I came across this: https://www.rookebooks.com/product?prod_id=23641 which has a couple of pretty images. It also has Piero Malacrida's signature, which could be added to the infobox, which would please Andy (if nobody else). Anyway, do you think the hassle of figuring out the copyright of images in a book published in 1935 in London is worth it? --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
RexxS, as the leading woman of Wikipedia’s Ladies in Mauve movement I am both shocked and horrified that you should think a man’s signature could ever improve a woman's Infobox. Ms Malacrida was a woman in her own right. An avant gourd poet ahead of her time, kindly respect that. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Mea Culpa, My Lady. I was thinking of the Marchese's article, but I now realise it has no infobox (and I expect it should stay that way to please His Excellency). Out of interest, does avant gourd refer to the time before Life of Brian? --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, it should stay that way. Please keep your sacrilegious nonsense for yourself. Ms Malacrida was one of the leading avant gourds of her day, and as such falls under the parasol of my Ladies in Mauve movement - think aubergine. I shall shortly categorise her accordingly along with her beautiful bathroom fitments which were also avant for their time. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Authorship of the artwork is resolved, though that opens up further questions of who commissioned it, and where it is now. Also, unrelated to that, there are more sources on both Malacridas, at [133]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits16:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Can't find that user-time thing of yours
Hi, Bishonen, I recently came upon a brief quotation of yours in some board or Talk page, where you recapitulated what seemed to be a value of yours, which sounded like it might have been oft-repeated, where you spoke about your feeling about how preserving the time of constructive editors was an important goal, or resource, or something like that. The way you phrased it was much better, and I've forgotten the details of it. In any case, it could be a helpful quotation to reference in a situation I'm dealing with, but I can't find it, now. Do you know what I'm talking about? If you can give me a link to that excerpt, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, right, I'm like a grammophone record with that. I vary it a bit, because I can't remember any specific phrasing either, but here's a recent one. Bishonen | talk18:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC).
The reason I removed the sentence "Opponents of Islam (such as Ibn Warraq, Sam Shamoun) have worked to find internal inconsistency and scientific errors in the holy book, and faults with its clarity, authenticity, and ethical message." is because the source doesn't mention or say anything about what is being claimed it says (you can see the source here.[1] Look up the source and see it for yourself. There is NO MENTION of anything about Ibn Warraq or Sam Shamoun at all. The sentence seems to be editorialization. Also Sam Shamoun is unreliable and non-notable source, he is a Christian missionary with no academic background on Islam whatsoever. 46.212.241.21 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
You probably want to take this to the article talk page, where all the regular editors of the page can see your argument and weigh in. KillerChihuahua20:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I struggle to take an interest. The IP can't take it to talk, as it's CheckUser-blocked for a week, presumably for use by one of our LTAs. It will be blocked again if it continues to be so used. It may well be right in this instance, though, and I won't revert. Bishonen | talk09:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC).
You probably got the ping, but someone is going to yell at me if I don't formally notify you. I referred to a warning you gave Sir Joseph, here. You don't have to bother with it if you'd rather not. Vanamonde (Talk)22:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Globally locked, too. Goes back to Shameel Done, which is apparently a LTA. I should have spotted the recent socking at the Khokhar article but misread "SCP" and "SOP" as being the same, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Ahmed SCP
[134] - just wondering if you're trying to get a sleeper check done or just filing it for record purposes (I'm starting to wade back into SPI and this came across my screen, so thought I'd check). Hope you're well! StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes!09:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying to do too many things at once here (tears out clumps of hair). Now I go see if I can close the SPI I opened — I'm never sure how. Bishonen | talk10:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC).
I added the Ahmad spelling variant as well for future reference. No need for tonsorial adjustments, we're all here to help out when needed. --RexxS (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Temporary undelete request
I am trying to show that an admin's past interactions with me constitutes a conflict of interest. There is some evidence to that effect on the talk page of Amy Sequenzia, which has been deleted. The article itself cannot be undeleted because it may contain libel, but I would still like to pull some diffs from the talk page if you can help me with that. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Now, now, you know I don't like being called dude. Says so on my userpage. Next thing you'll start talking about football and beer and bacon and god knows what else.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Wikiman2718: does this request mean that you would like to have the talkpage and all of its history e-mailed to you? That's a little overwhelming, and I'm frankly not sure how to do it. There are 97 edits in the history. Only two of them are by Bbb23, and those are quite short — they're certainly not block threats or anything like that. Are those the edits you want to be able to read? I don't see why not, since the talkpage wasn't deleted because of anything objectionable in it (as far as I can tell), but simply per G8, "talkpage of deleted page". I'd be prepared to send you those diffs, together with the immediately preceding diffs by other people, that Beeb was responding to, for context; but only after a sanity check : @Drmies and Bbb23: my dudes, would there be any objection to that? Bishonen | talk01:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC).
Well, that certainly is an unusual request. And if, indeed, my dude Bbb is supposed to be involved, yeah--there are two brief comments and there isn't even a slim chance that someone can get "COI" out of that. I note that Wikiman said, on Bbb's talk page, "If my memory serves me right there may have been more to that effect on the talk page of Amy Sequenzia"--memory did not serve them right. Bish, if you like you can send them the darn talk page, but I think it's a waste of time.
Now, that AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Rubin, that's interesting: Bbb claims he acted only as an administrator; Wikiman claims Bbb was pushing a fringe view. The AfD provides not a shred of evidence that Bbb even had an opinion on the matter; he only had an opinion on the matter of Wikiman's crusade--so when Wikiman says, in that AfD, "Please do not push fringe positions", their comment is misplaced: Bbb did not push any position, but only remarked that at AfD the question is whether notability is established.
Wikiman also says, in the AfD, "And I most certainly am on a campaign to eliminate this garbage from Wikipedia". That's fine: we should all be eliminating garbage. But if that becomes one's only goal, and if one thinks one can achieve that goal by making false accusation and mixing up administrative with content-related commentary, one quickly falls into WP:CIR territory, and that is where Wikiman is headed if they don't stop bothering Bbb. Consider this a warning, Wikiman: stop hounding. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Those two diffs should be fine, thanks. I'd like to see what they say. And whether or not the accusation is false is yet to be determined. And @Bbb23: I would appreciate if you returned the last edit I made to your talk page and leave your edit summary as a responce. I know that it is your talk page and you get to determine what stays on it, but the way it is now makes me appear more rude than I was, and you less so. I want the page to reflect that I did everything in my power to reach resolution there before proceeding. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Wikiman2718: You really can't ask someone to rejig their talk page so that it suits you. You're not exactly a newbie, so you ought to know by now that Wikipedia keeps every version of each page. You only have to click on a date in the page history to see the page as it was at that time and creating a permalink is then simple enough so that you can demonstrate to others how a page looked. However, I really don't recommend you pursuing a complaint if you're going to be relying on permalinks like this: Special:Permalink/916938298 #Conflict of Interests, because 99% of uninvolved editors are going to see your comments as abrasive and a personal attack, and it will end badly for you. Just because another editor points out that merely using unreliable sources isn't a valid reason for an AfD, it doesn't mean that they support the nonsense spouted in the sources. They are most likely to be trying to explain to you that you need to arguing about not meeting WP:GNG – which is quite possible if all the sources are crud, but you have to make the argument that no good sources are left, otherwise you waste other editors' time. So please, pretty please with sugar on top, drop the stick and head back to doing productive work on Wikipedia. Heaven knows there's enough of it to do. --RexxS (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@RexxS: The reason I requested that bbb23 revert this diff (read the edit summary) is that the talk page as it stand makes it look as though I am escalating the situation without having fully attempted to resolve it through discussion with him. I certainly hope that was not the purpose of his revert. Additionally, I think that I made my argument very poorly on the talk page (I was less than civil, and the second and third diffs should be swapped), and that I can do it better if given another chance. And I believe that I can show that bbb23 was pushing a pro-FC view. For example, it this diff, he says "[Wikiman2718] is the one who put in the phrase "scientifically discredited" in the article." He implies about as strongly as he can without actually saying it that he believes facilitated communication is not scientifically discredited. The collection of all diffs together makes a stronger case for that.
I would very much like to return to productive editing, but I am having difficulty doing that due to the activity of two tag teaming editors across multiple pages. I tried to address the issue here, but was ignored, and here, but was met with premature closure by bbb23 and a personal attacks from the editor that I reported. If you look at the article now, you will see that the stonewalling is ongoing. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Wikiman2718: Well, I thought I'd e-mail you the diffs, but it turns out you don't have wikipedia e-mail enabled. Very well, I'll simply put them on your page with some surrounding dialogue, as there's nothing in any of it to excite anybody. As Drmies says, I think you'll be kind of disappointed. Bishonen | talk09:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) And while we're on the topic of unfounded accusations being thrown around I notice, Wikiman2718, your reference to "two tag teaming editors across multiple pages". Be aware that an accusation of WP:TAGTEAMing is serious and is not evidenced by the fact that more than one editor (including me) is reverting your bad edits. That is more evidence that you are editing against consensus - edit warring even given that you have tried to remove any "fraud" category from Cupping therapy a dozen times in the last few weeks.[136]Alexbrn (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
As I already pointed out multiple times, no consensus is needed to removed outsourced material. I have a hard time believing that you don't know that. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
That claim is false. No other editor besides yourself has argued that the claim is sourced. And I did not answer your question because I had already answered it here. So in summary, you are making repetitive and unreasonable demands for sourcing to counter the misrepresented source you have presented. This is WP:SEALIONING. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
If you want to say what this "the source" is (other than the FDA), please do so at the article Talk page as I - and presumably others - don't know what you mean. If you continue edit warring it will likely end up with your being sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
For reference, this is the source in question. Alexbrn maintains that the source says that fraud and quackery are synonymous, and then cites sources calling cupping therapy quackery as justification for the fraud cat. However, the source does not state that fraud and quackery are synonymous. So in summary, he continues to misrepresent the source, repeats his unreasonable sourcing demand, threatens me with sanctions, and claims not to know what I am upset about. Classic WP:SEALIONING. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
So, you're wanting to use a 10 year old essay by Stephen Barrett to undercut the position of a major medical body (the FDA)? While Quackwatch in many circumstances is a useful source, this just seems a bit pathetic. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, this source is yours, pulled from the health fraud article.[1] As the diff shows, you used that article as justification for the claim that fraud and quackery are synonymous (when it only says they are sometimes synonymous) and this is the source that it cites as justification. The source states that the FDA uses an atypical definition of fraud, which can be confusing, because nobody else uses that definition. So exactly one who undercuts the FDA? To summarize what I said here, the answer is everybody. If you have anything else to say, lets move this to cupping therapy or to my talk page. I'm starting to think it's a bit rude to do this here. Sorry, Bishonen, and thanks for your good humor. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
According to our strongest RS (like the FDA, or MEDLINE[137] - which specializes in medical taxonomy) "quackery" and "health fraud" are synonymous. So, in the absence of "quackery" category we apply the "health fraud" category to topics which are well-sourced undoubted quackery. 16:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind my guests discussing amongst themselves, but this has moved quite a ways from the original thread. Moving it to Talk:Cupping therapy for other editors of the article to see sounds like a good idea. Bishonen | talk16:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC).
Anitakeshri (talk·contribs) has been editing, including while logged out, at Kesarwani and related articles but seems not to realise they have a user talk page. I think this is going to need an attention-grabbing short block. I've done a lot of reverting, some of which was for copyright violation but most is simply because they're pushing some POV based on a source from the 12th century. I'm not the only one who has reverted them. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that the "Viking War Raider Machine" (or whatever its current iteration is), will be moved hither and yon before all is said and done. The WWE folks are a .... umm ... passionate - yes that's it "passionate" lot. Given how often the WWE changes direction, story-lines, and wrestlers names - it's difficult to predict what next month's flavor of the month will be. Good move and all - I'm not complaining of course, just that I noticed it and thought "Bishonen is editing WWE articles? - hmmm - seems more a job of Bishzilla if anything") lol. (plus it was an excuse to drop by and say hi - :)) I hope the entire family is doing well. Cheers. — Ched (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
[Little Darwinbish bites Bishzilla shrewdly on the leg. Unfortunately can't reach to bite ass!] "Head of family"? Bah humbug. Darwinbish CEO of bishonen conglomerate![139]darwinbish21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC).
Little Tryptofish is, however, the CEO of the fishes. But the WWE context gives me a great idea! I think the Bish conglomerate would make a superb wrestling team for a pay-per-view. Pile-driver cannot beat incineration! (I'll handle the money.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Darwinfish very ready join the little Tryptofish team — fishes safer than bishes! Meanwhile, surely the great Bishzilla make fine WWE team unto herself. darwinfish22:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC).
I have the same complaints from the same User:Cinadon36. I can't contribute in EN:WP. I am getting reverted in few minutes cause he constantly finds excuses to revert me at once.
First due he reverted me cause he thinks it is due (a third user reverted him cause he is just saying just nonense just to revert me), now he finds that a book from famous historians is not a RS and now when i did the same, and i deleted a fringe and conspiracy theory from a militant amateur anarchist historian, now he is saying that this section was for too long in English WP!!!
I fear that this attitude is something that we can find it in Greek Wikipedia, where many users think that he is constantly chasing users.
Αντικαθεστωτικός, I see from your recent editing and Cinadon's that you said you'd take him to WP:ANI if he reverted you, and he did revert you (encouraging you to take him to ANI). Please do. ANI is a better place for this than my page. Bishonen | talk07:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
Ok, I have answered to the ANI. I should have gone there first. Αντικαθεστωτικος does not respect BRD. What is the proper way to deal with this irritating behavior oh his? Cinadon3619:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
DYK?
I've written to various people and companies to try to get to use a photo of Nadja for Nadja Malacrida. For instance to Studio Lafayette,[140], which owns the US copyright of a fine portrait from 1929 (=only five years from being PD in the US). And to Vim to try to find their advertisements with Nadja in them. But no luck so far. Anything I find can always be added later. So I've moved my sandbox version to mainspace. If anybody feels like putting it up at DYK, feel free. Bishonen | talk14:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
PS, please hold your horses; I coincidentally just got a message from Lucy London (compare most of the footnotes in the article), with a couple of images attached which I can probably use. Watch this space. Bishonen | talk14:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
Well, never mind, I'll never understand how to upload to Commons. I thought I ticked all the boxes, but it has already been tagged for speedy because it seems "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status." See File:Nadia Malacrida at marriage, 1922.jpg and [141]. Now I know what Giano complains about. Would somebody who possesses the esoteric licensing info that they sent me on a wild goose chase for like to edit the image page? If it hasn't been speedied yet, that is. Bishonen | talk 16:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC). PS, now nominated for deletion.[142] That's fine, I no longer care. Bishonen | talk16:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
Disgraceful, it’s a miracle anyone uploads anything. I haven’t a clue how to sort it out. Dr K is the man to ask, he’s very clever at that sort of think. Rex is too. Sorry, I don’t know how to do DYK either, but User:Johnbod does. It would be nice to see Nadja there, especially as I denied her irritating hubby his moment of glory there. Lovely page, most informative and a deserving subject. Giano(talk)17:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@Giano: I was an idiot to try uploading to Commons — it won't happen again. I still don't understand what was wrong with the templates I put there ({{pd-US}} and {{pd-old-70}} as recommended by RexxS, unless I misunderstood him) in the course of uploading the image, only to find it immediately tagged for speedy. Were they in the wrong place? How can that be? I didn't put them in any "place" as such, I merely answered the so-called Upload Wizard's questions as best I could. The whole procedure is incoherent AFAIC. "Wizard", ha. It was nice of Lucy and Paul to send me the image, wasn't it — only a bit unfortunate that Commons doesn't want it. But I got another image from L and P as well, I'll e-mail it to you — Nadja with a celeb endorsement of Vim for cleaning modern bathrooms! It's amazing! Unfortunately from 1929, so I suppose Vim owns the copyright. I have to write to them again, now that I know more. In any case, it'll go on Wikipedia, not Commons. Bishonen | talk18:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
Happy to take it through DYK if you'd like me to. I'm reading through that RFA at the moment, but I'll get around to it once I'm done. Vanamonde (Talk)17:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but please leave it for now, Vanamonde. It should have an image, really, and I don't like adding one that's got a big "nominated for deletion" notice on it. People at DYK would most likely complain about that, and I'm not in the mood for it. Bishonen | talk18:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
If you need a picture, I’m quite happy to give a picture of one of her husband’s luxuriant bathrooms; I’m sure you can work it into the story somehow. “DYK: Nadja Malacrida became the face of Vim, after seeing her face reflected in her husband’s well scoured bath.” Giano(talk)19:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not seeing the passage of WP:N, based on current sourcing.
The most-exploited source is a poem-collection from a publisher of no/little repute and the biography (over there) is written by someone, of no/little repute.
Going by Murdoch (who seems to be the sole source to have covered her), I guess we need to wait unless somebody manages to eventually rescue her :-)
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Winged Blades of Godric}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
I am perplexed as to your indentation as well as your expectation that the wiki-articles of the two authors, who have covered her, might change my evaluation.
Hi, I'm Winged Blades of Godric. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Nadja Malacrida, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
It's better if you write to me in humanspeak, Winged Blades of Godric, because I don't understand what you mean by saying I "reviewed" or "curated" Nadja Malacrida. I'm lost with that terminology. I wrote the page in my sandbox and have just moved it to mainspace. How does any of that amount to me reviewing and/or curating it? A little embarrassingly, I'm not even sure what distinction your "unpatrolled" is invoking, though that is a word I've seen before. And does your first message mean somebody who published four books of poetry isn't notable? Really? (Oh, and, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~.) Bishonen | talk19:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
Apologies but I did not have a choice to deliver the messages outside of the NPP interface, (which's the sole way to unreview a page). The community has requested WMF to enable us to unreview pages w/o dropping a message.
You are an auto-patrolled editor (all sysops have it, by default) and when you are moving anything to mainspace, the stuff is getting reviewed automatically and accordingly, indexed for potential search-engine-crawling.
As you might be aware, new-page-patrollers are tasked with determining whether the pages which are introduced in the main-space are fit for indexing or not (to put in a nutshell). I chose to un-review i.e. un-index this part. page because, it did not seem to pass WP:N, in any conceivable manner.
On the broader locus, there exist many authors who have published dozens of books of poetry but ain't any notable. WP:NAUTHOR may be looked at, for guidance.
I also apologize for the part about signature. That NPP is mainly aimed at newbies, the template contains this tip always. Not in the hands of the (un)reviewer. ∯WBGconverse19:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The message posted to your t/p (which also gets cross-posted to the article t/p) ought be same; I was attempting to maintain an uniformity due to a late-edit to the message on the article-t/p. ∯WBGconverse19:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Godric, that was a bit unnecessary. A socialite as prominent as that is likely notable. In addition to Murdoch, there's a paragraph or so here, a seemingly substantive amount here, and what looks like an entry here, though I can't access it. Vanamonde (Talk)20:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Who's who entries are not remote indicator of notabilities and this has been consistently established at multiple AfDs.
There's a substantive amount of an advertisement of Hutchinson's (the publisher) publishing Malacrida's autobiography, (which is located at the end pages of Dunckley's work). You may have cited their catalog, as well :-)
I have the first book (as a digital copy) and from first glances, there's mere two lines about her and then, a paragraph about her death. ∯WBGconverse20:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, I'll respond to "If the article does not improve, we will meet at AfD :-)", even though I think you were probably speaking to RexxS. It's my talkpage, though. (I have no idea what or who the smiley was for.) Anyway, I'm surprised you didn't put it at AfD right away, in preference to the gobbledygook about reviewing, un-reviewing, curating, un-patrolling, and so on, which you put on this page. I've read your explanations about how you can't help what "the template" says, but I beg to differ: I think you can. We need to take responsibility for anything that's signed with our signature. We probably all post unsuitable templates sometimes, because some fool bot does it automatically, but when I've done it, I hope I've always retraced my steps and altered the unsuitable text, making it suitable, or removing it. You might find me in some page history telling experienced users stuff like "don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~" for a few minutes, but I hope you won't find it still on the page — at least not if I was fully awake at the time. Is it your contention that the template which you say is 'not in your hands' is uniquely sticky, and you can neither remove it nor change a tittle of it, once it's been posted? (Nor add anything to it?) Is that it? Or will the WMF, which I see you invoke in this context, sanction you if you do? Really?
I don't understand what happened here, WBG. I've always had a good impression of you as an editor, and I'm pretty sure there's never been any bad blood between us. The conclusion is that you acted in good faith. But, well, why — what for? Didn't you even look at the way "the template" (actually two templates, surely) came out, and make some reflection like "she's unlikely to understand that", or "I'd better not leave it on a user's page in that form", or possibly even "I'd better add something explanatory in ordinary words" or "I'd better not leave that there at all?" Most especially, at the risk of repeating myself, why didn't you go straight to AfD? Isn't that the place for a non-notable biography? Bishonen | talk17:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC).
WP:DTTR is a good essay, for a reason. I understand that two boilerplate messages can be easily perceived as patronising. And, I am sorry that I did not have very efficient means to abide by it.I and others have been trying hard and long-enough to convince the WMF to let us have greater customization options, on the wiki side, as to PageTriage (the software running over Special:NewPagesFeed that allows us to curate pages). See this thread opened by me, days ago, after a botched effort by WMF had robbed of our ability to write any customized message after un-reviewing through the interface and then, they refused to fix it.Luckily they listened to us, after Barkeep et al chimed in in that thread of mine and this bug(??), when fixed successfully, is expected to allow us to exercise control over the message content as well as about, whether to send any message, at all. (If this was already implemented, I would have not posted the second message on your t/p, at all.)Now, you raise an interesting point about manually editing/removing the messages. That could have been done; though we are generally expected to let the messages about un-reviewing stay due to certain high-voltage conflicts, we have seen in past around this locus. I remember a case, when I entirely removed an unreview-message from some patrollers' t/p and days after, he went batshit crazy, as to why I did not inform him of un--indexing. Mileage may vary and all that. But, the stuff about signature could have been edited out, certainly.As to a prospective AfD, I did intend to do my own search on BNA, prior to taking that way out. Also, per policy, there exists a vast number of intermediary steps that may be taken help of, including consulting the creator or slapping a notability tag, when the reviewer ain't sure of someones' notability. And, I am pretty sure that if I had taken it to AfD, some would have commented about how I had not provided you with any chance and all that .... To end with, I absolutely don't think that there's any bad blood between us and I continue to respect you as one of the most efficient administrators on the project; especially in around the messy areas around ARBIPA.But, at the same time, I do think that one of your talk-page-stalkers' behavior was highly confrontational and borderline abusive (for which you are obviously not responsible). Asking someone (who is not a flyby vandal) about whether he is trolling usually leads to nowhere productive. ∯WBGconverse17:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Report of inquest is in The Times - "Motor-Car Over Embankment." 6 Oct. 1934, p. 9 (also report of accident, 4 Oct, p. 14.) Same paper has a brief note that her estate ws ca. £20k - "Death" 30 November, 1934, p.10. Also a fair few mentions in the Court Circular pages etc, marriage announcement - the usual socialite type of thing. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
why is this debate even taking place over a woman who was a marchesa (notable), wrote several published books (notable) and was sufficiently well known in her lifetime for her activities to be reported in the national press (notable). Then there is the small matter of her being one of the few qualified women aeroplane pilots at this time. I am at a complete loss to understand the problem here. Her husband has a page, her uncle has a page, I hope this isn’t some sort of surreptitious anti-women campaign because it needs knocking on the head if it is. Giano(talk)12:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't normally assess article quality based on who wrote it versus what the content is, but both Giano and Bishonen have overseen more FAs than I've had hot dinners, so the odds that either (in conjunction with Andy Mabbett) would deliberately put a non-notable biography in mainspace are about as likely as Boris Johnson being a trustworthy and credible politician. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Old comment
You commented about me in this thread ages ago. For some reason, the article popped up on my watchlist today and I'm not impressed. I can't really stub the thing again but it might help to have some eyes on it because I've been pretty disparaging of what has been going on - copyvio, misrepresenting sources, all the rest of it. Tbh, it is far too vague a subject to ever form a decent article but articles about Brahmins generally tend to fly below my radar because they have a habit of using obscure, native language texts of dubious reliability. This one, thus far, hasn't really hit that point but doubtless it will if I keep complaining. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Some admins drawing false conclusions from an irrelevant source in 'Banafar' page
The book cited as reference in the page 'Banafar' mentions some individual person as of mixed Rajput and ahir race but this doesn't mean whole Banafar community become mixed Rajput and Ahir .If some person marries other of different tribe ,this doesn't mean his whole community become 50% mixed .The admins are not opening and reading the source cited it seems. 1 of the policies of Wikipedia is that unsourced claims will be challenged and removed .Then why some admins are making conclusions from some irrelevant articles and instead of removing that unsourced claim ,you are blocking me? Fake information is being spread through your page .People will question Thakur Singh (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
You have just breached your topic ban, here and at the Banaphar article. It is also obvious that you have not correctly read the cited Hitlebeitel source, which does indeed say that the Banaphars are of mixed Ahir/Rajput origin, not merely that one person is such. You're going to find yourself blocked, I'm afraid. - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Special award
For your steady hand during the Wikipedia constitutional crisis of 2019, I award you this polar exploration vessel. It made it to the ends of the world and back home. More or less in one piece. Haukur (talk)
That vessel fared rather better than Franklin's then. My wife's late cousin William Battersby wrote a jolly good book on the Franklin expedition. Guy (help!) 19:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I enjoyed their edit summary comment "stop reverting" to you, who had at the time reverted exactly one time, whereas 8675309 themselves had reverted repeatedly. But I think I'd ignore for now. Bishonen | talk19:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC).
You folks are hilarious. "It's not a POV-only warrior, but I do wonder if the account might have changed hands at some point..." How do you come up with this stuff? It's always been me.8675309 (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
You switched from buffing up an article on a sports team to edit-warring batshit craziness into an article under discretionary sanctions. That's not exactly normal behaviour. I note you did it again, and were reverted again. Guy (help!) 08:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Has something changed?
One of your stalkers may know the answer to this: For the last few days whenever I check changes on my watchlist, instead of instantly seeing two columns of text instantly showing me the difference, I have to wait ages while some demented bar flashes across the screen, then I get a single text with highlights of differing colours. I loathe it! Have I inadvertently clicked something or is this the future? Giano(talk)18:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Giano: Is there a little triangle below the "Revision as of..." headers and above the diff? Click on it and see if it goes away; you might have accidentally selected the "improved diff view". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, we are looking for a person who can help us in removing the page on Wikipedia due to negative comments on the page. please feel free to contact on sunil@socialvive.co.in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmayymahajan (talk • contribs)
I'm afraid I can't help you. Firstly, we don't remove pages because they have negative content, assuming that this content is sourced; and secondly, I don't know what page you're referring to. Is it Immanuvel Devendrar, that you posted below, on the middle of my page? I don't see any negative content in that, though. Bishonen | talk11:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC).
we want a service for our Wikipedia page. Will you be helping us? also, provide me your contact details soc that I can tell you more about it
No, I won't be helping you. What you're asking for is inappropriate. In a pig's eye will you be getting my contact details. Bishonen | talk11:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC).
(talk page watcher) This isn't the firm directly doing this. Based on the email address posted on-wiki, it's clearly a very amateurish digital marketing company, whose so-called 'SEO expert' has probably 'promised' his client he can get the reported series of serious financial irregularities removed. I don't think that's ever going to happen. Checking this editor's company website it's funny to see they've forgotten to renew their webhosting service. I think they need blocking per WP:NOTHERE. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It looked as though you were away from the keyboard for a bit, and it didn't seem that honorable Bishzilla was troubling you about it, as it wasn't an emergency - so I try to help where I can. :) — Ched (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I can't tell for sure, and in a way it doesn't matter. Their edits to Raheja Developers are very disruptive, especially the lack of edit summaries, and they can be indeffed on the strength of that alone. Well, after a sharp warning, which I have just given them. Bishonen | talk15:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC).
gaber77
You removed my edit of the entry for hypocrisy stating that it is not meant to attack individuals and not to post my opinion. My update was neither of those things. It was a factual example of what hypocrisy is. A person states one thing, then states the opposite. I am not going to argue for you to put the content back, but I do think your reasoning for removing the content was invalid.
gaber77
That's not how Wikipedia works, Gaber77. Personally I may think your example is good; but that's not the point. The article isn't about your opinion or my opinion. You didn't even offer a source for this being an example of hypocrisy, and moreover the latest example. (Really? Surely we get new examples every day.) You did provide a link to where Lindsay Graham said the things about Nixon/Bill Clinton that you quote, so in that sense your contribution is sourced, but you don't have a source — let alone a reliable, preferably academic, secondary source — for offering Graham's attitudes to Nixon vs his attitude to Trump as an example of hypocrisy. You're offering an argument from yourself — almost a little essay — that's not what WP articles are for. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. I'll just add that the heated field of American politics may not be ideal for a new user to dive into. I'd advise you to edit in less contested areas for a while first, to get a feeling for how it works. But that's just advice, of course — it's up to you. Bishonen | talk21:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC).
Makes sense. Thank you for your feedback. I will take your advice. gaber77 | talk
You say "Wikipedia:Keep off my talk page! is an essay, not a policy or guidelinme.", but there is not any policy in the reverse direction, either, is there? Wikipedia:User_pages#Ownership_and_editing_of_user_pages only says that it is "sensible" not to edit a talk page when asked, it does not mention blocks; then how could I be blocked for writing on MrOllie's Talk page? Further, you say that I would be blocked specifically for harassment, but how could it be so if I have not harassed anybody? Does Wikipedia really work that way? Notrium (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
BTW, talking to MrOllie is not my hobby, it is just that explicitly forbidding me from talking to him for no apparent reason seems like unnecessarily stifling freedom of speech. Notrium (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
You can certainly be blocked for harassing people, and needling them on their page after you have been asked to stay away is a form of harassment. Arguing that you don't have to comply with a guideline just because it doesn't explicitly mention blocks is pure wikilawyering; please read the whole sentence you quote a fragment of (="sensible"). As for your freedom of speech on a website run by a public charity (=the Wikimedia Foundation), please see [143]. Bishonen | talk05:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC).
Or in other words, a) Wikipedia is a privately owned establishment, and failure to abide by Wikipedia's terms and guidelines runs the risk of being barred from editing Wikipedia, and b) freedom of speech is not an aegis to avoid the consequences of failing to abide by a privately owned establishment's terms of service, and, c) freedom of speech neither protects nor permits a person to harass another person.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Bishonen: You are infuriatingly misrepresenting my previous comment when you say that I argue "that you don't have to comply with a guideline just because it doesn't explicitly mention blocks". I in fact claim that the guideline you keep trying to lean on simply does not exist.
On another note, Wikipedia:harassment does not mention "needling", and I am not sure what do you mean by it, but after perusing a dictionary I am quite sure it is not, in fact, harassment. And I am definitely sure I have not harassed anybody.
@Apokryltaros:, @Bishonen:, you should really (and I mean this sincerely) try to step out of your particular bubble: try to imagine how your comments look to an outsider (one who is not, for example, familiar with the "wikilawyering" slang word). Even a sensible Wikipedian could easily see that you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of, only worse - you accuse me of "wikilawyering" before appealing to irrelevant legal arguments, when I was simply appealing to your morals and common sense. Also, since you already touched the legal stuff, I should mention that it seems inappropriate for you to be appealing to the WMF corporation's legal rights when you are not in the role of WMF's representative, but in the role of a simple Wikipedia user, exactly like me.
All in all, it must be mentioned, you are both being grossly uncivil.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Notrium (talk • contribs)
Summary of the above. You don't get to do whatever you want here, there is no right to free speech, and you aren't entitled to annoy people. This is eing explained to you, politely, by experienced users. Please listen to them. We aren't required to extend unlimited patience. Acroterion(talk)14:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
On 12 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nadja Malacrida, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nadja Malacrida said in a Vim advertisement that it was "no use having new ideas of decoration if you have old ideas of dirt"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nadja Malacrida. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nadja Malacrida), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Since I seem to have got you partially interested, I thought I'd complete the seduction with an example of how to include page numbers. [144]EEng05:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like your impartial read of the recent edits in the Thai Pongal Page. There is an editor by the name of 'Pandian tamil' who removes large chunks of appears to be significant material that other editors included some years ago. I try restoring those paragraphs/sentences but he reverts it. Not sure how to proceed. You may perhaps look at it with a fresh objective perspective. I could be wrong but he comes across as very PoV.
Hi, Dipendra2007, welcome to my page. I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable about the subject. I've done what I can, which is full-protecting the page for a week, in the expectation that the conflict will be worked out on the talkpage, instead of by edit warring (which never helps). Pinging @Sitush, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, and Utcursch: Help? Bishonen | talk16:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC).
I saw this note in the morning but couldn't figure it out either. Will try again tomorrow (unless Vanamonde can fix everything like he usually does!).--regentspark (comment) 21:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I took a deeper look and here's what I think. Pandian tamil has been removing large chunks of unsourced text which, per WP:V is acceptable. They also appear to dislike the use of god along with sun, which, in and of itself, is also acceptable. Dipendra2007, it seems to me that you need to initiate a discussion to find a "god" compromise and to see what parts of the unsourced text is retainable. For example, instead of sun god, you could try "Surya (the Hindu god of the sun)", assuming the connection between Thai Pongal and the god (rather than the sun) is sourced. And both of you need to stop edit warring so Bishonen's protection is a step in the right direction. --regentspark (comment) 00:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Bishonen.
And thank you RegentsPark. Useful feedback and suggestions.
I have not really contributed to this particular page. My sense, right or wrong, is that deletion of large chunks of material without discussion may not always be a good idea. I hear you guys though. I do not check Wiki regularly but intermittently do so and will keep in mind. Thank you to all once again.
Best regardsDipendra2007 (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dipendra2007: The Thai Pongal article has been on my to-do list, along with other edit war-prone Tamil-related articles. It would be wonderful if you and others watching that page can save me some/all the effort, by reading and summarizing scholarly sources such as 12345 etc. Bish: I came to your page to just say "hi!", nothing more. But then this section gave me reasons to write all this other stuff. Hope you (and others above) are enjoying the season!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
(ps) Dipendra2007: I just completed reviewing some of your edits and contributions over time, along with the sources you cited that allegedly support the content (e.g. in Puthandu). I am concerned with the OR-WP:Synthesis, and other issues, which I assume in good faith was inadvertent. Further, as RegentsPark mentions above, the real issue is finding relevant peer-reviewed sources on the subject, and summarizing these per our content guidelines such as without OR and CopyVio. After you have had a chance to review our content guidelines, let us discuss these on the relevant article pages and work collaboratively. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Sara, I hadn't checked Wikipedia since October 15. I liked your edits on the Pongal page. On Puthandu, I briefly head home in late December. I will try to provide the citations after reviewing the material and alert you once done for review. I hear you on why 3rd century and why 8 century etc. I will try to provide the citations or revised language once I get a hand on the source material. Cheers. Dipendra2007 (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi B, I'm curious about this unblock, although I do respect your decision. At the time the user page was deleted, it was a mere sliver. Now it really feels like fake article/webhost territory to me. I would be interested in hearing a contrary opinion about this. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, when I found the deletion discussion, I realized different opinions were possible. I had been going by your edit summaries, and I was also influenced by the user's vandalism of your userpage. I wish now I hadn't touched it, because I don't mean to discourage any other admin from blocking, with my stupid block/unblock effort. It's just, I wasn't altogether comfortable. Their block log was previously clean, so they can't exactly be notorious. I'm in two minds about it, though. Whpq was certainly very right when they made the point about the user's other attempts to create an autobiography.[145] That is not a good look! Bishonen | talk21:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC).
Thank you for your all-around roarring presence, on top of that crying is okay here. And thanks for a roarring pie and a roarring thunderstorm ;) - My talk page is more quiet, but today has roarring music (a conductor friend had her birthday), and musing about qualification for adminship, which means teh rulez. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Generally I can defend myself, but what to do with shit like [146] or [147] directed at other users? Who of local sysops—but you—may take appropriate actions despite unwritten “licenses” (given to certain Wikipedians)? I mean licenses to post ad hominem stuff, defame and threaten opponents. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry Incnis Mrsi, I'm dealing with a plateful of RL atm and don't have the time to research this conflict, especially since I'd have to start from scratch. Bishonen | talk16:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC).
No in-depth investigation is necessary for my last question. There is boorishness and other disruption by “semi-protected” (from WP:NPA blocks) users of the English Wikipedia. Which sysops can override their “licensed to harass” status and deal with shit effectively? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Bishonen would likely hate it, but Bishzilla would probably love it, and be good at it. When was the last time Zilla ran, 2008? Now that the community seems to be edging closer to a willingness to have a non-admin on the committee, I think it's time for another run. Please speak to your lizard about this. (yes, yes, I know. Eyes and teeth gleam, "'shonen's lizard?", threat to eat me, etc.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, something like 2008 or 09, yeah. I'm afraid she's still exhausted after that attempt. Ten years is nothing in her chronology, especially not when it comes to resting up. Why don't you all focus your efforts on the always dynamic first Lady of Wikipedia? Surely everybody wants an aristocrat on the committee — nay, ruling the committee! Bishonen | talk17:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC).
It is so very true that my inbox is deluged with appeals for me to join the Arbitration Committee demanding that I lend my famed perception to that august body. However, I strongly believe that women must not be forced to divulge their most private details to the WMF. It's sexual harassment. Only the other day, I had a recorded delivery letter allegedly from Coutts insisting I repay my unauthorized overdraft immediately. Of course, I fed it straight to my beloved Crippen; gross impertinence! However, just imagine if I had been a little weak and defenseless woman like poor little Mrs Bishonen, I may well have sent them funds. It's giving details out over the internet that encourages fraudsters, sharks and other whatnots. My privacy is paramount, so I must decline. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Curses, I was just planning on dropping requests (phrased somewhat differently) to run as an Arb to both you and Bish, you'd both have my full support. Perhaps Darwinbish is eager enough for power... Nosebagbear (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Regular Darwinbish
Darwinbish considering everything she can do as an arb
I've been watching Bish's talk page for some time, and I don't want anyone to think I've followed anyone here, because I haven't. (And I haven't gone to any admin's talk page who wasn't already involved, to get a closer.) But I too would like to see a close there. Could be Bish, could be any other admin watching here, could be anyone with a pulse for that matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@MB: No communication, SPA, no reply to questions, and re-insertion of challenged material without any comment. I've blocked indef until they start to communicate. You may consider it reasonable to restore this version of the article in the meantime. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Intractable behavior in regard of the Me Too movement article handling
Hello Bishonen. You probably remember me as that editor who, well, broke Wikipedia under the username UpsandDowns1234. Life has gotten a little stressful for me and the current WikiBreak script is broken ATM so I was wondering if you could place a block on my account until 1 January 2020?
About two years ago in the summer I requested one, but you declined it because I did not know how serious a self-block is. I do not want the block to look bad on my block log, but I think a break from editing is a bit necessary, especially with personal matters that may make productive editing difficult. (PS I requested a block on wikiHow with success as well.) AwesomeAasim01:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes I have. I was also wondering if you could lock my talk page until 1 January 2020 in addition to the self-requested block (so I do not get tempted to check messages during my break)? PS I am getting a laugh at one of the discussions at the top of your talk page :D AwesomeAasim00:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'll revoke talkpage access and use of the wikimail feature and so on. Are you sure you've read User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks all through, because that stuff is all there? My talkpage is the best, because I have the best stalkers! OK, I have blocked you for 47 days; that should be at least roughly til1 January 2020. I hope you have a good break and come back refreshed. Bishonen | talk00:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC).
@Ivanvector: Er, good. I think I see the calendar widget. It seems to need some caressing before it'll appear — is that the one? Will it insist on the hhmmss even if I use the widget? I'll try it next time. People requesting blocks often do want a specific expiry date. Thank you. Bishonen | talk13:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC).
You can use a natural date format in the expiry field. If you enter "1 January 2020" the block will expire at the start of that day (00:00). You might be able to actually leave out the year. - I usually just enter "25 december" to block schools until Christmas. You can also enter things as simple as "Thursday", which will be next week. -- zzuuzz(talk)19:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Really. [Making a note of all this stuff.] I suppose the trouble is, nine times of ten, I (and probably other klutzy admins also) simply use the dropdown to set the block time, so I don't tend to learn the other ways of doing it. Bishonen | talk19:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC).
Shocking. Truly shocking. So you admit to being a klutzy admin? Shame on you. Now I, as a totally nonklutzy admin, long ago found that the block-thingy accepts a date and time in almost any format that one could reasonably expect to be read unambiguously as a date, using, for example, "November" or "Nov", or whatever you like. That contrasts with trying to set a block for a specified time period, which used to work fine, until years ago someone fiddled around with the software for some god-only-knows-why type reason, so that now a block time such as "3 years" gets saved as something absurd like "2 years 364 days 22 hours and 11 minutes" or some such crap. Hmmph. That's what happens when you let klutzy programmers loose on the software. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson12:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Ha. I hadn't heard of it either, but I'm glad to see Bish stands for Brand-new idol SHiT. I can feel a new sock coming on! Bishonen | talk13:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC).
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.
Hi Bish and Bishers--any suggestions on what to do here? These accounts are SPAs, and don't have the decency even to explain what they're doing. Look at their reverts, and count YouTube/Instagram/iTunes/qq (and look at what I removed from the associated discography). I'm losing patience with these fools. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Can you go and accept the speedy deletion nomination here, quickly, please? I don't think it should be left for long, because the editor is likely to use one of her sockppets to remove the tag. 213.205.192.249 (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Why? Have you no sense of humour at all? Couldn't you have left it for Bishonen to deal with? After all, leaving it couldn't possibly have done any harm, as no admin would ever have deleted the page. Now I'll have to sulk. 213.205.192.249 (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't "to avoid sanctions", it was because I mistakenly thought it might be funnier by making it part of the joke pretending it came from some random person. Evidently I misjudged it, as you don't seem to have seen it as a joke at all. Oh well, I'll go away and log into my account and do something else. Sorry to have taken up your time with "rampant assholery" when you could have been doing something much more mature and constructive, perhaps connected to "Bishzilla" or "The Lady Catherine de Burgh", or another one of those really constructive characters, so much superior to what I have done that you can afford to dismiss it as "rampant assholery". 213.205.192.249 (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
No, I didn't and don't think you were perpetrating rampant assholery, or I would have put Darwinbish's template on your page (instead of merely asking if you wanted it). I'm aware that the template doesn't fully fit you. I assumed you were trying to amuse, not offend. It would be a lot funnier from your account, though. Bishonen | talk21:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC).
Question about getting a deletion decision reversed
Hi, Kolg8, welcome to my page. Since pretty much your only interest on Wikipedia has been the deletion discussion of List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming, which I closed as Delete, I assume your question is about that. You were told before, by User:Dmcqhere, that you can start a discussion of my close by listing it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. In their first sentence, Dmzq says "Well you can appeal the ruling by going to Wikipedia:Deletion review". On Deletion review, first read the instructions for listing an AfD on that page. If you find them confusing, go to the talkpage Wikipedia talk:Deletion review, say what you want to do and why, explain that you're an inexperienced user, and ask for somebody to help you format the listing. Before you do any of this, though, you may want to recall that Dmcq also said "However I don't think there is much hope for a reversal of the decision. Regards, Bishonen | talk03:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC).
User talk:Vcuttolo
Arctic fox enjoying the sun
I read your reply to their novella and I get the impression that you read the entire thing. I was a bit confused. Do you deserve a barn star for reading the entire thing or a trouting for reading the entire thing? I finally decided that an Arctic fox sitting outside my office enjoying the sun was required. I hope it doesn't eat the cygnet. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq06:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
And enjoying the snow, CambridgeBay! So cute! Today is the first day of snow here; yours looks more settled. Sure, I read it, but not slowly. Have you seen that it's not always a cygnet? It's a "carousel". Now, as I write, it's five owls, also going "Roarr". Do you think the fox would like to ride the carousel? Bishonen | talk09:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC).
Hi again, CBW. If Vcuttolo takes my advice and posts another ub request, you may get to give another admin a barnstar/trouting. I did mention it shouldn't be as long, but I'm not sure the user will take that on board. Conciseness does not seem to come naturally to them. Bishonen | talk23:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC).
An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
Hi, DarthBotto. But, but, that IP has edited Zilla (Godzilla)! Zilla (Bishzilla) doesn't want them blocked! But OK, I'll ignore her. I've blocked 94.245.11.29 for a month, to be going on with. If you literally meant "rangeblock", you'll have to give me some more IPs you believe they've used. Bishonen | talk13:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC).
Ah, good point - with everything! I myself admire Zilla, for entertaining me throughout my 2nd and 3rd grade years! Good point concerning the rangeblock; we'll see if this editor adjusts their tactics or if they'll simply wait until their IP block is freed up, before they cause more of a ruckus. I can say that if they were hoping to press their perspective or look sympathetic, dodging the ban by hopping around dummy accounts is not the way to go! DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C)21:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Please let me know if you see them coming in from another IP, DarthBotto. They're in Älvdalen, really? Shouldn't be too hard to find, then. Älvdalen is a tiny place with some 6 inhabitants. Apparently quite proud of themselves, though, since one of them (or so I presume) has claimed in our article Älvdalen that the village is "widely known" for some granite vase. I really don't think so. It's true, OTOH, that it is widely known (well, in Sweden) for its language, which has evolved in isolation from standard Swedish and is now nothing like it. More like Klingon, IMO. Bishonen | talk22:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC).
You should take a peek at Alien (franchise), with the fun I've had this morning, after I shared on their page - in case any admins in the future consider unblocking a sock puppeteer. They're really wanting to drive home who they are. Honestly, the first thing that comes to mind with this case is what you said during their last AN/I, which is that their behavior is preventing editors from being productive, as we're constantly left to deal with their nonsense. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C)10:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I like their edit summaries, trying to build up the impression that you are the vandal! That's a bit of a medium-sized range, 94.245.0.0/19, so I only blocked it for a week at first. But when I checked other contributions from the range, it was pretty much all vandalism, and of the same type, so I've gone for a month instead. Bishonen | talk10:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC).
Yeah, he was obviously just trying to get revenge by calling the kettle black. The ironic thing is that the edits I was - and am currently - making don't even negate AvP, which he seems to live to defend. I'm simply going through the article, adding sources and moving the information into a nice streamlined paragraph form. And, looking back at the change logs, it's apparent he's been holding the page hostage for the last six years, trying to keep it in its weird, list-like, conglomerated state. The page and its editors obviously shouldn't suffer for his personal issues. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C)10:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I did and I genuinely wish I could say that I'm surprised. I'm quite impressed with Berean Hunter nailing him down in such a smart, timely and proactive manner. With a quick Google search, you'll get scores of results from over the years, where editors on different wikis have experienced this very same nonsense, resulting in him getting banned from most of them. Though, our dispute here was entirely content-related, so I wasn't going to use that as ammunition.
*Treker, this right here is what I tried emailing you about; he's stepped up from being a problematic editor with a soapbox to a full-on vandal and sock puppeteer. The silver lining is that his edits are more obvious and since he's been outed, reverting them and protecting pages shouldn't be much of a problem. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C)19:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I've blocked, yes. Ages ago! But it's funny you should say that, because I just tried to remove their "report" against you at AIV, with an edit summary asking Maile66 if they were joking (in simply tidying it up), but somebody else got there before me. Note to self: if I bother with edit summaries, I will always be too late. Bishonen | talk15:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC).
Yup. And now that I've put the Restorer script in my... wherever it was, see [153], I will never have to speak to anybody ever again! Amazing! Bishonen | talk15:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC).
Congratulations (I can help you with any of this if you can't understand it) :
We have entered the "age to come" foretold by Jesus in Mark 10:30.
This is meant to begin a serious conversation about editing, but it is best (necessary) that you know what time it is first.
Suddenly I am reminded of the 1980s environmental action with the self-contradictory slogan "Klockan är mer än vad någon tidigare trott" (It's now later than anybody used to think it was). And also, sheesh, is that risen-from-the-dead crank still around – I thought Wikipedia was all demons and 3vil, so shouldn't righteous people like that stay away? --bonadeacontributionstalk16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh, look, somebody you know blocked that account.[155] [Admiringly:] Doesn't she sound full of herself! I wouldn't have thought I ever knew how to blacklist a site. I sure don't now. Probably I was just pretending. Bishonen | talk17:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC).
PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Also RexxS really, that is what you see here? 
- MrX 🖋 13:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
--RexxS (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Done. 28bytes (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
--Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
Miscellaneous
_(15073179565).jpg)
Confirmed to one another. I didn't dig too deep because its late here. I'll file an SPI for the record, and if any other accounts pop up, just report them there. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický
CheckUser changes
Ultimate Platinum. Poet Supreme. Biskopje. – SJ + 05:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
_MET_DP860143.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=NewEnglishcountryhouse.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[131]](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.creationliberty.com%2Fimages%2Fpsychology04.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.creationliberty.com%2Farticles%2Fpsychology.php&docid=8ga7w9W6p0o6NM&tbnid=iDpwrHQXWJLVEM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwi_nNb62-LkAhXjx6YKHYHfDOUQMwi4AShXMFc..i&w=2000&h=956&safe=strict&bih=954&biw=1851&q=vim%20advert%201920s&ved=0ahUKEwi_nNb62-LkAhXjx6YKHYHfDOUQMwi4AShXMFc&iact=mrc&uact=8){kind=link}
![[142]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nadia_Malacrida_at_marriage,_1922.jpg){kind=link}
Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
ROARR!!
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Salamandra85 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
You supported the rough violation of the most important not negotiable neutrality rule by CorbieVreccan and blocked me without a reason.
More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=924913943#Intractable_behavior_of_users_CorbieVreccan,_Bishonen,_Yunshui
EvergreenFir • ToBeFree