User talk:Bishonen - Wikipedia

Doug Weller talk 16:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

And from me! Bishzilla is a sensational Lucia. I hope the evening brings glögg and saffron buns. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both! I'm sending Bishzilla with some saffron buns etc to your pages. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

With due apologies for disrupting your festive season with this crap; a speedy indef is probably called for here. Ignoring policy, ignoring warnings, the works. They've edited articles I'm heavily involved with, so I can't. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Np. Oh, look, the capybaras roaring! They're so great. Bishonen | talk 13:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

Much appreciated. I'm getting...a stream roaring? Pretty picture though. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi - On 8 December you blocked this IP and asked that I let you know if they resumed ([1]). Unfortunately they've just made the exact same edit again ([2]). Sorry to trouble you; could you deal with it again? Many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Blocked for a week, thank you, Dorsetonian. It's a language issue, I presume, which is a pity, but since they're impervious to warnings and advice, there's nothing much we can do other than block. We can't "fix" bad English if we can't understand it. :-( Bishonen | talk 17:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

Many thanks - and yes, I also think it's a combination of poor language skills and refusal to engage (the latter possibly another symptom of the former). Dorsetonian (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you, MarnetteD, it looks delicious. I'm very fond of Damon Runyon, and I realize it's getting to be time I re-read Guys and Dolls. Well, will you look at that — our Guys and Dolls leads to the musical, while the book doesn't even have an article — merely a mention on a disambiguation page. Outrageous. And not even in italics (I fixed that). Bishonen | talk 17:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC).Reply
  • Truly an outrage B! Thanks for fixing the italics :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I believe this user is a sock of a user[3] you recently banned.

Fraud-Fenn (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

ApLundell (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree Fraud-Fenn is most likely the same person as Republicans-Liars, but they're actually not a sock for all that. I had softblocked Republicans-Liars, meaning I blocked them only because of the username, not the editing. As normal with a softblock, I disabled the autoblock, and also, in my block notice, invited the person behind Republicans-Liars to freely create a new account with an acceptable username. But thanks for your vigilance, ApLundell, and merry Christmas to you! Bishonen | talk 21:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

Oh. I hadn't noticed that.

... of course, his new user name is worse. Instead of calling a political party liars, his new name is an attack on a specific living person. (His first edit is to an article about a man named "Forrest Fenn".)

(And Merry Christmas to you too!) ApLundell (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh, right. Their only edit with the new account, yes. What a guy.. sigh. Could you please alert another admin? I'm really tired of this character, and I'm just going to bed. Where have all my little admin stalkers got to? Bishonen | talk 22:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

Sure. No problem. ApLundell (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker)   Done --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both. I guess we'd better all keep a lookout for when their third account pops up. If that's yet another inappropriate name, I reckon they will have outlived their right to softblocks. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

Ha, they're already there. Oh well. I've given them an edit warring warning. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

• Lovely revelry, thank you, Ealdgyth. Is that hunched-over person taking off their clothes, do you think..? Or merely about to be sick? Bishonen | talk 16:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC).Reply
  • Quite possibly both, given the usual Roman revelry behavior.....Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bishonen,

The article on Chandala seems to be a subject of persistent removal of sourced content for a week or so, mostly as some IP user, and at times as Aman Kumar Goel, the objective being the same. Sourced content is removed from the consensus version, and the user Aman Kumar Goel is probably editing again as an IP editor in order to avoid the three-revert rule. Would request you to please check the Revision history, and take necessary action. Best Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

(responding to ping) I am not the IP. Those edits are not about "removal of sourced content" but "removal of irrelevant content not supported by sources". You have been already told about your unsupported WP:OR on your talk page,[4] but you are completely ignoring it. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 13:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Chandala has been semiprotected by another admin. Aman Kumar Goel, since you say the IPs aren't you, of course you won't mind if I block them for a while. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

Ah, figs and grapes, lovely! Bishonen | talk 15:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

Merry Quviahugvik to you too, old friend, and clement weather! Bishonen | talk 15:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

Thank you, Treker, you too! Bishonen | talk 15:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

The Day before the Day before the Day before the Dipping Day! Wishing you a very merry yule and thanks for all you do. My best and most respectful regards to 'Zilla. --bonadea contributions talk 15:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

[Bishzilla thoughtfully stirs her famous dip, preparatory to soaking giant loaves of bread in it.] Mmmmm, soggy carbs! Thank you, young Bonadea! Have some red cabbage stew! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 20:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

No festive season is complete without some turmoil on Wikipedia, so please see WP:AE#Jweiss11 where it is being disputed whether your 11 September topic ban of Jweiss11 from 'all pages connected with Andy Ngo' restricts Jweiss11 from editing the Quillette article. It's a little-known fact that any admin who imposes a ban is usually free to modify it if it seems not to be achieving its intended purpose, so that's an option you may consider. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Ed. I've commented, and recommended a warning. Hmm. Do you think it's not achieving its intended purpose? It's keeping the editor from direct editing of Ngo pages, and bludgeoning their talkpages, after all. That's got to be a good thing. But I'll sleep on it. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

Hi Bish, at User talk:Fact-Checker3234 you made the observation that they were obviously the same user as a couple of earlier accounts that had been blocked on username grounds; Fact-Checker3234 has made no further edits, but a bunch of other accounts have popped up to make the same edits to the same article (Fenn treasure). To me it looks like somebody is creating throwaway accounts and abandoning them once they have restored the unsourced, mildly BLP violating text to the article. The accounts involved are I-Found-Gold-In-Santa-Fe, CherryTees, SmokinMirrows, Rectal, and almost certainly Wiksnsainlay. Could you send a dinosaur over, and perhaps also protect the article for a little bit? (I could start a SPI, but it feels like unnecessary buraeucracy when it's this obvious.) Best, --bonadea contributions talk 21:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

My, what a fine sock drawer, almost as good as my own.[5] Blocked and semi'd. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

Pish tush, it doesn't even get close to yours. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 22:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have not used wikipedia in a while, and am sorry that I am so messy in my edits. 2601:1C0:6600:9630:2826:4B17:E9E3:4E4D (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I could tell you didn't mean any harm. Thanks for coming to my page. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

... on how best to deal with this: User talk:Paul August#Warning. Paul August ☎ 18:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I dealt. Happy new year, Paul. Bishonen | talk 18:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

Quick Draw McGraw. Paul August ☎ 18:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sir, the character Harindran portrayed by actor Prithviraj in the concerned film is a superstar. The villain of the film Bhadran (played by actor Suresh Krishna) is his rival. In Kerala, legendary actor Mohanlal is used to be called by the tag name COMPLETE ACTOR, and his film rival Mammootty sir as MEGASTAR. After the release of the film, fans of both started campaigning accusing the character Bhadran to be Megastar/Complete Actor. So I request you to remove the unnecessary tags Megastar, and Complete Actor (which were never even mentioned in the film) from the page. Thank You. Akshay P V Kanhangad (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Akshay P V Kanhangad. (I'm no Sir — you may call me Ma'am.) I see what you mean — especially the "complete actor" thing certainly looked pretty silly without any explanation, in my opinion. But I won't edit the article; it's not a subject I know anything about, and also, I can't act as admin and as editor on the same article. Please make your arguments on the talkpage — start a new section with a new header at the bottom of the page for the discussion, and try to get consensus for your version. If people can agree on talk — not necessarily everybody, but most people — I'll happily unprotect the page. Bishonen | talk 10:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

• Thank you, DBigXray, same to you! Bishonen | talk 21:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

Happy old year as it is still Dec 31 for me (PST)… I’ll see you in 2020 in a few hours… PS thanks Bishonen for the break. My New Year’s resolution is to maybe spend time fixing templated issues with articles.:) Aw man, it’s January 1 UTC, how did that happen? Awesome Aasim 03:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Glad you had a good break, Aasim! Bishonen | talk 10:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

Bishonen, happy new year! I'm planning to appeal the sanction you imposed on me this past September. Per your comments here, you noted that you were "thinking of lifting the topic ban". Are you still feeling that way? Are you open to simply lifting the sanction as this point, or should I go ahead with the appeal? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Jweiss11. Just noting that I've seen this request, and I need to think about it. I won't be that long, so I suggest you don't post your (AE?) appeal just yet. I'll get back to you. Bishonen | talk 12:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

I've replied on your page. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

Hi Bishonen! Wishing you a happy new year! I think I need your attention and guidance on how to deal with a subject I haven't met before in en.WP. It is a case of probable WP:COI.

I noticed on my watchlist that a sourced piece of info has been removed from Cyprus Mail- a newspaper in Cyprus.[6] I reverted and asked the user to use the Talk Page.[7]. I checked the contributions of the user Ghadjic10 and noticed that he is been around since 2017, as a Single Purpose Account. All his edits are linked to Neocleous family business: Andreas Neocleous, Elias Neocleous & Co LLC, Andreas Neocleous & Co and lately, Neocleous owned newspaper Cyprus Mail. I added a {{Advertisment}} banner on the companies name and a {{merge}} template since they are the same company(which was renamed). I have asked this user if he has any conflict of interest, [8] but he did not reply yet. What he did, was to re-delete the info at Cyprus Mail. revert my last edit from the article of Cyprus Mail which was a minor edit (internal linking).

How to deal with such a situation? I do not want to escalate to an edit war and even though Ghadjic10 has been editing since 2017, he is still a new user, judging from the number of his edits. Your guidance pls! Cinadon36 14:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Cinadon36. Ghadjic10 has simplified the situation by removing your post here.[9] (Bbb23 kindly restored it.) I've blocked them indefinitely as a likely undisclosed paid editor, because that's what their actions look like. I've invited them to explain themselves; if they can, I would be willing to unblock. Bishonen | talk 15:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

Yeap, it escalated quickly. Cinadon36 10:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Update

Hi Bishonen. Seems to me they are back, removing the same content they apparently don't like. Have a look [10] @Co209120d:. Cinadon36 13:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good catch, Cinadon. It doesn't really matter if that's a sock of Ghadjic10 (the most likely scenario) or an independent disruption only/undisclosed paid editor account. Needs blocking in any case. Bishonen | talk 13:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

My thoughts also. Thanks Bishonen for your prompt reply. Cinadon36 13:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why cooperate with what's essentially a Discord server of politically alike editors all working together to get users who disagree with them, like me, topic banned? Shouldn't Wikipedia be better than this? This was obviously a coordinated effort by those reporting me to further entrench this website's political echo-chamber. Edit5001 (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why write to me both on your own page and here, and persistently edit conflict me by taking five edits to post two lines? I'll answer on your page. Bishonen | talk 23:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

Just a note to anyone watching to say that Edit5001 has now retracted these claims. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

You probably don't remember me, but around four years ago you (rightfully) permanently banned an account of mine from Wikipedia (specifically this one). I'd simply like to make a kind request regarding the account if you would hear me out: would you mind terribly blanking the user page? It's an embarrassment to me, and keeping it around is a total pain, especially now that I'm not a literal child with no comprehension of etiquette or what constitutes a constructive edit.

My best to you,

24.98.52.54 (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) There's a problem with responding to requests from an IP claiming to be a particular user, and I guess you can see what that is (apart from you technically being in breach of your block by posting here). Do you still have the login for the User:OmegaBuddy13 account? If so, you can still use its talk page to show that it's you making this request. Of course, it's almost four years since your block, and you have clearly matured since those days. So I would have thought that a straightforward unblock request, simply acknowledging that you understand your block and stating that you will not to repeat the behaviour that lead to it, would almost certainly lead Bishonen to agree to an unblock. Then you can do whatever tidying you want on your pages. --RexxS (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I've courtesy blanked the pages for you, assuming it's you, because if it isn't, well, no harm is done either way.

As a courtesy to us, please don't edit in any way that makes it look like you have returned. If you want to quietly create a new account and edit according to this site's rules and social norms, you can do so and nobody will know that you were previously blocked. If however you make it clear that you are a blocked user returning, either by admission or by behavior, you will get blocked again. Thank you, and good wishes. Jehochman ^Talk 02:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, OmegaBuddy. Yes, I'd be willing to unblock the account if you log into it and request unblock on the talkpage. But if you've lost the password, or if you're now embarrassed about OmegaBuddy's editing altogether, just discreetly create a new account, as Jehochman says. Perhaps you already have. That would be OK. Bishonen | talk 11:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

Discreet. That was the word I was looking for. Just so. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

As in, discretely make discreet accounts?  :) ——SN54129 20:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I have studied a lot of discrete math. It overwhelms me at times. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

[Bishonen breaks out her favorite smiley to roll its eyes at the silly boys.]   Bishonen | talk 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

Thank you all very much. I don't really want to edit on the account again, and blanking the pages was really all I needed here. I was unable to blank the page myself because the block applied to my own user page following the denial of my unblock requests. I've been meaning to do something about it for a while, and the help means a lot. 22:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen,

I'm moving this to your talkpage following my edit at ANI being reverted...hoping you can provide some information...

Observation Useful link. I have been wondering how to make shortened special diff page URLs as have just been using the second option listed. Thank you.

Question How come most editors transclude an edit conflict template when one occurs? Is there a script one is using? I have just been copying and pasting from the bottom text box back into the top text box. If there's an easier way that involves using a script or something, I'm open to that.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 19:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Dmehus Re your observation: I'm very proud of creating that help page. First and last time I've done anything like that. But as for the edit conflict... uh... what? Is that what "transclude" means..? I thought it was something else. Well, I'm no good around the technical stuff: that's exactly why I thought myself the right person to write a guide about diffs and links that newbies could understand. I mean, compare Help:Diff — can anybody understand that? Anyway. I copy and paste and so on also. In case I want to emphasize that I got an edit conflict, just to make it clear that I'm not responding to the previous post, I write this: {{ec}}. But you're right, a script that helps with edit conflicts would be a fine thing. I've never heard of one. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

Bishonen, Wow, you wrote that help page? Very cool. Sorry about the confusion in my question. What I meant is I've seen editors/admins transcluding the {{edit conflict}} template at the start of their comment and was wondering what its purpose was other than to identify that the editor had an editor conflict. I see from your help page that there are multiple ways to fix an edit conflict, but if we're just copying and pasting our post from the bottom text box, we've not changed anything in an earlier version, no? So, should I be transcluding that template? Or is there a script, gadget, or some other tool editors use to more efficiently post their contribution in an edit conflict siutation?

Anyway, seeing your response, I get the feeling that it's basically an optional thing, to identify that the editor encountered an edit conflict, but if we're always copying from the bottom text box, we should be fine in not including that "ec" template as we'll always be posting to the current version of the page. Doug Mehus T·C 20:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Exactly, it's optional and not especially useful. You're fine without it. As I said, I don't know of any script. Edit conflicts are sent to try us. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

The advice I'd give is to use an {{ec}} template when the edit conflict means that your post does not take into account what was written in the post you just edit-conflicted with. In fast-moving debates, if you stop to read the conflicting post (and perhaps attempt to alter your post to take account of what was said), you'll likely end up with another edit-conflict, and so on. The template at least gives other editors a hint that you are responding to other posts, not the most recent one. --RexxS (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have tried to respond to your comments on my Talk page in as calm and civil a manner as possible. I do not believe your characterizations of my work as an editor are accurate. I hope you will re-read all of my posts carefully to understand that, in fact, I was working to improve WP:NPOV by adhering to WP:FRINGE guidelines. I have also made huge contributions to these pages by fixing errors, adding important sources, and helping to copyedit content. It is not a "wikicrime" to substantially improve Wikipedia. As someone with a controversial POV, I am subject to relentless personal attacks. Please review all of the Talk pages to see how I have attempted to remain civil in response to that.Kfein (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I replied at your talk (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I am done discussing this issue. Kfein (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. I must have clicked the sig button without knowing where my cursor was at the time. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, probably. It stood out a bit. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

Another IP from the same geographic area has restored the antisemitic edit. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Tom. It looks like Berean Hunter has already reverted, blocked, and semi'd the page. Bishonen | talk 13:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

That is confirmed IP socking by an already-indeffed account. He was indeffed in 2006 and recently failed to convince us to unblock him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Shocked, shocked I say. And a good roarrrr to you too -- Deepfriedokra 18:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

94.245.11.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - All the 'ole familiar articles... except Alien (franchise) - saving that for last. ;) DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

And the familiar range, 94.245.0.0/19. I have to admit I'm not very au courant with the subjects they're editing now, DarthBotto. Is that vandalism? (How)? Bishonen | talk 21:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

Likewise, I honestly can't tell. Just, the banned dude is back on his sock, making his familiar edits on the different pages. I honestly am only looking for awareness, so that there can be intervention for when he steps in on the more sensitive subjects, such as Alien, Predator, AvP, Lake Placid, etc., etc. It's up to you what you want to do for now - I just wanted to inform you that there's confirmed activity, albeit not necessarily disruptive. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. Yeah, theoretically maybe I ought to hunt him down like a dog (it's not formally, or at all, a "clean start" if he edits subjects he has edited before), but I don't wanna. I'd appreciate being told if you should notice undoubted disruption, though. Bishonen | talk 22:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

That's a wonderful attitude. Yeah; he's not really causing harm thus far this month, unlike how I expected, so I'm fine with letting the subject be. His last stint a month ago was ugly, with him doing what he was banned for, but I'm not compelled to put on a skeleton costume and play Karate Kid with him. So, we're in agreement. ;) DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 22:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Judging by TurokSwe's talk page, it sounds like people are getting all riled up about him being a smartass. Even though I was tagged, I honestly don't care either way, as he's only my problem if he disrupts the pages I edit. Otherwise, it's just polemic pouting. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I was pinged too, but I don't really care either. I just posted to say so. Bishonen | talk 21:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

Hi, Bishonen! You applied pending-changes protection at British International School Hanoi (thank you!) but it's not working too well – there's constant background noise from throwaway accounts, a waste of everybody's time. Would you consider changing it to extended-confirmed? I think it's amply justified, and might even have done it myself if I hadn't been WP:involved. Thanks either way, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Justlettersandnumbers. Ordinary semi hasn't been tried, so I'd better start with that, per WP:ECP ("Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective", etc). Done, for 6 months. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

Excellent, many thanks! Let's see how that goes ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bishonen, hope all is well! You might want to keep an eye out on Finest People Are Us (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are vandalizing their talk page after your block. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks, LuK3. I just this second blocked the IPv6 you reported — the /64 range, because there was some more there. Bishonen | talk 13:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

Done. LuK3, if you care, I can revdel their edit summaries. Dignifying them too much, maybe? Bishonen | talk 14:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

If you don't mind. I requested it over on the IRC channel as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I took care of it. Bishonen | talk 14:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

It was repeated in one of the actual content additions as well as the edit summary, so I've tidied that as well. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I only did a spot check for that. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

Brexit: I’m adding in a sourced article, with quotes from Bloomberg News — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominiqueque (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

That's good, Dominiqueque. Thank you. Please remember to sign your posts on talkpages with four tildes like this: ~~~~. That will be magically transformed to a signature + timestamp when you publish. Bishonen | talk 10:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

That's a grudge resulting from or expressed in terms of an adage, e.g., "time wounds all heels".-- Deepfriedokra 05:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm glad to hear it. I thought it might be a gruesome kind of porridge. Bishonen | talk 10:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

I'm surprised this thread has not gained more traction or admin involvement. I feel I've done as much as I dare and I'm stepping back from it.-- Deepfriedokra 21:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't blame you. I was just looking at it, but unfortunately I have too much RL stuff to really research it. It seems highly unlikely to me that PC07 is not an UPE, but how to be sure? Bishonen | talk 21:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

Both this editor's favorite pages are now EC protected and their EC has been revoked. Maybe they'll just give up for now. I feel like they are a hireling, but if anyone has answered the call for a SPI, they have not shared the results. Any further disruption and I will block longer if no one else does. I just feel like I'm not aware of something I need to know.-- Deepfriedokra 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've got to go to bed now. Maybe we can collaborate about PC07 tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

I have nominated Sicilian Baroque for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I’ve been editing the article page of Anonymous For The Voiceless and it continues to get reverted back. I am providing evidence for my case. Let me make the change. I will find ways to have it edited because I want there to be an honest description. Thephantom24 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bish, given this edit, where the membership field has been populated with "your soul", I very much doubt this is an editor who will be able to abide by WP:NPOV on this matter. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I wrote "@Thephantom24: simply and civilly present your sources on the talk page. Pages are often protected as an alternative to blocking editors in a content dispute." but had an edit conflict with Ponyo. I'd like a good explanation for adding "Your soul" Doug Weller talk 16:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your fingers must be tired.-- Deepfriedokra 16:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Now my fingers, brain, and eyes are tired. LOOK! An Oxford comma!-- Deepfriedokra 17:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Never received an answer to this question elsewhere so am asking here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit5001 (talk • contribs)

@Edit5001:, drop the stick. Your community sanction was a result of the community deciding you were violating policies and guidelines. --Yamla (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The term is "topic bans", Edit5001; there's no block involved. Community topic bans are determined by consensus in a community discussion on AN or ANI. Please check out the link WP:consensus. The word, as used on Wikipedia, does not refer to a mere vote: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. (Though in this case, obviously, a "mere vote" would have given the same result.) Your implicit suggestion that topic bans ought to be given on the basis of "actual violations of policy" raises the question "violations according to who"? A lot of highly experienced editors and admins, well versed in policy, determined you should be topic banned. If you would like to relitigate your topic bans on the basis of your own reading of the policies involved, forget it. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

One would expect there to be one, or several, uninvolved administrators whose job it specifically is to review accused violations of policy and determine whether topic bans are appropriate off of that. Thanks for answering the question though, that bans are determined simply by consensus. I'll comment that is an absolutely miserable way of determining whether bans are appropriate, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it allows people who haven't or have hardly broken any rules to be banned simply by a targeted, politically charged vote. You brought up the "highly experienced editors" who voted against me, but almost all of them to a man were people who disagreed with my prior edits for political or cultural reasons. Hardly anything to do with Wikipedia policy. Edit5001 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

There are lots of uninvolved administrators who volunteer their time to examine accused violations of policy. I'm one of them, and another half-dozen or so contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027 #User:Edit5001. Miserable or otherwise, consensus is still better than any other mechanism we have found, so if you want to edit Wikipedia, you have to live with it. You call the discussion a "targeted, politically charged vote"; it was indeed targeted at your unacceptable behaviour, but it was not a "politically charged vote", as consensus is determined not by a vote, but by strength of argument, and not a single contributor commented on your politics, only on your behaviour.

I don't believe that you have any evidence whatsoever that those who supported the ban were editors who disagreed with your edits for political or cultural reasons. Particularly as each of them gave behavioural reasons rooted in Wikipedia policy as the basis of their support. In fact, Yamla clearly demonstrated that they had no prior interaction with you or the articles you have been editing. That makes a nonsense of your description of "almost all of them to a man".

One of our rules is "don't edit war". If you maintain you're not guilty of serially breaking that rule, then let me know and I'll apply an indefinite block to your account, because it would then be clear that you have no conception of the behavioural standards necessary to edit collaboratively here. --RexxS (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

There was hardly discussion. What I received was effectively a show trial. All of the editors who I had recently been in politically charged content disputes with showed up to voice support for a ban, while all of the many editors who agreed with my changes were not around for comment, most likely because they don't even follow that page and were unaware of the situation. Due to rules against canvassing, it's not as if I can let people who agree with me know there's a group actively performing a hitjob on my account. Never was I asked by an administrator to elaborate on my behavior. Never was I asked to explain anything. In fact I held back on arguing with others on the page because I was confident that a level headed administrator would come in, review the accusations in full, and dispel the weak arguments of the group trying to ban me. Was unaware until today that a simple consensus on a single page is all it takes to ban someone.

There were some circumstances where I edit warred, but this was often in response to someone warring even more egregiously, or not even attempting to reach consensus on the Talk page, and my actions were in response to that (example - someone deleted an enormous section of a page with hardly any explanation, I reverted, and that turned into an edit war even though what they were doing was borderline vandalism.). Further, some of the examples the original report called edit warring were by definition not edit warring - for example, reverting a single change someone made is not an edit war, yet the original report called one such case that. Edit5001 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are so adorable. --JBL (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

You weren't banned, Edit5001. You were topic banned which is a very different thing. Consensus in that discussion was strong and that is precisely the process by which such decisions are made. I suggest that you go edit some articles about butterflies or motorcycles or carpentry or Ancient Greece or something else that has nothing to do with those particular topic areas. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

It was "strong" because a bunch of the people I had previously been in content disputes with happened to know a report against me was made, while none of the people who agreed with my changes and would defend me were even aware the report existed. Hence me expressing my opinion above that this system of determining who should be topic banned is miserably poor. Edit5001 (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Edit5001, 7,856 editors of every political persuasion have WP:ANI on their watch lists. It is not some kind of hidden backwater. The one thing that is certain is that no policy changes will be instituted here on Bishonen's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

FWIW (2 cents), I don't think parties to a dispute should be allowed to decide how to remedy that dispute. But that is not a change we can effect here. If anyone has an answer, please let me know.-- Deepfriedokra 03:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

From your talkpage: "you're being given a chance to show us that you're going to edit within the community's expectations for user conduct. Don't waste it." You're wasting your opportunity by filibustering your sanction instead of improving the encyclopedia within the boundaries set by the community. And don't accuse editors of vandalism when they just disagree with you. Acroterion (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good grief. If this user does not change their approach, I foresee progressive blocks culminating in a CBAN. Anyone who tries to justify edit warring is just too combative. And this does not look like the sort of one-sided ANI thread that's really a lynch mob made up of one's enemies. Experienced and knowledgeable users discussed the issues calmly and in a policy based manner. IMO, user has been granted a boon.-- Deepfriedokra 06:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Dear me, "You have 17 new messages" today, and I slept through it all. Those time zones! Thanks to all who have tried to explain further to Edit5001 here. I did my best, above, and have nothing to add to that except that you are entitled to appeal the sanction, Edit5001. But, as I've said before, on your own page, unless you first show a record of good editing in other areas, I'm pretty sure an appeal will be rejected. Don't despair. It looks like you've made a start. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC).Reply
• Wikipedia never sleeps.-- Deepfriedokra 18:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • And it appears that some dinosaurs never do, either. -- T-RexxS (rawr) 03:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Bishonen! Will do. --Yamla (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am in receipt of your kind favor of the latest instant and shall proceed accordingly.-- Deepfriedokra 22:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why does the email notice say the receiver will not see the sender's email address? The receiver does see the sender's email address.-- Deepfriedokra 23:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) @Deepfriedokra: I think you have it back-to-front. When I receive an email sent via the "email this user" function, I get a message that nominally is from "Wikipedia" <wiki@wikimedia.org>. It contains a disclaimer at the bottom

The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any information about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address.

Of course, as the recipient, I can see the sender's email address in the Reply-To field. That has to be the case, otherwise I wouldn't be able to reply to them directly. So the recipient will always see the sender's email address.

However, when they send the original email, the sender does not know the recipient's email address because the MediaWiki software actually sends the message. Of course, if I reply to the original sender, then I expose my email address. Hope that clarifies things for you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

If A writes to B using the WP email service. B immediately becomes aware of A's actual email address. But A does not learn B's actual address. So think before emailing. And if you have been emailed, think before responding. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes it is best to keep a bit of mystery in a relationship.-- Deepfriedokra 02:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Hi, I think you deleted the previous Priya Prakash Varrier article, following the deletion discussion. I've created a new draft as it looks to me like notability is now less controversial. The movie she appeared in has now been released, and there has been a lot of coverage from independent sources, including the BBC. (There are 942 items found on NewsBank - at a guess, about half of them are decent sources.) I'd appreciate your feedback on whether the subject is suitable for an article, and, if so, any improvements needed. Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, User:BennyOnTheLoose. Two years ago I did delete the article and then turned it into a protected redirect to Oru Adaar Love. I did those things purely because of the well-reasoned consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Prakash Varrier — not because of any expertise of my own in Bollywood subjects. You may be right that what has happened since (notably the release of Oru Adaar Love, and the BBC source) has made the creation of a separate article reasonable, but I'd rather not make that call in an area I'm ignorant of. Little admin talkpage stalkers, please? For instance @Nyttend, Vanamonde93, and RegentsPark:? Bishonen | talk 14:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

As I see it, there's a lot of coverage, but this is still fundamentally a case of WP:BLP1E, and for an event we already have an article about. As such I think we're serving our function a little better by covering the trailer and its popularity at the article about the movie, and leaving the actress be until we have a clearer case for lasting notability. If someone else were to move it to mainspace, though, I would not be inclined to do anything about it, but I wouldn't do so myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Vanamonde. You've convinced me. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Thanks for the responses. I'll leave this alone for now and maybe check in future to see if there's a stronger case for a separate article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The new image is beautiful. Just sayin. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

[Disappointed.] The eyes aren't scary? Man... what does it take to scare people nowadays? Bishonen | talk 13:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Hah. Competition is pretty heavy. -- Deepfriedokra 16:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but with the unnerving caption? No? Bishonen | talk 16:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

But who gives a hoot about captions in the first place?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, who, who, whoooo? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

All right, what about the hooded admin vulture? It's just caught sight of you. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Respected, Bishonen Brother can i use the Reference book which was published in the year 1918 and also explain me can i use old approved Government Gazeeters book as reference please,please Brother Teach me. Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

No, sources from the British Raj era are considered unreliable. The best thing is to use modern academic sources. May I ask why you come to my page in particular to ask this question? Is this account related to that of User:Sriramadas.mahalingam? Bishonen | talk 10:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

The two accounts are unrelated as far as I know. Sathayanarayana naidu has been extremely active on the Golla (caste) page for almost a year, and seems to have added a lot of dubious material. Nittawinoda alerted me today, and I found the article to be in a really poor shape. I removed the most egregious content (such as claims to the effect that Krishnadevaraya belonged to this caste) and put an OR template on it. Naidu has now received ARBIPA and caste article alerts, and can be deemed to have been "inducted". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks, Kautilya3. Maybe the user came here because you pinged me at Talk:Golla (caste). Bishonen | talk 11:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

With regard to your comment at my User_talk:Sriramadas.mahalingam on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, on the article Uniform Civil Code, like Jawaharlal_Nehru and B._R._Ambedkar stand on the the issue, the stand of M._S._Golwalkar is also important. He was the leader of Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh and the sources that I have cited are his own published by his own Organization. User:Kautilya3 certainly seems to in favour of the what the article intend to bring about and hence isn't letting the other sides of the opinion to come out to the external world. He removed sections bluntly saying they arent from reliable sources. They are indeed reliable sources.I have provided pages from the book published itself.

(talk page stalker) @Sriramadas.mahalingam: you will have already seen the replies on your talk page, which is the correct place for this discussion. Nevertheless to avoid any furtherance of doubt, you need to understand two things:

1. Self-published sources are generally regarded as unsuitable to support content in Wikipedia, except for some very clear exceptions. Here's one to look at: http://www.metropolis2.co.uk/demo/rex.htm - can you figure out why it wouldn't be a good idea to use that in a Wikipedia article?
2. If the position of M._S._Golwalkar really is important, then other people will have discussed it (as they have with Nehru, etc.), and you should have no difficulty in finding those sources. Those kind of sources are the ones that we are looking for to provide content for an encyclopedia article. Can you work out why you haven't provided them?

--RexxS (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

RexxS Who are the other people? I am also one among them. Wikipedia is ever evolving one. There are three sections that were removed by User:Kautilya3. One related to an active Organization that is creating awareness on the negative aspects of Uniform Civil Code. Another by head of ancient religious Organiation that is considered like Vatican for Christianity - Puri Sankaracharya. Remember Golwalkar is the second Leader of RSS, the biggest volunteer Organization of India. When Nehru brought the law, who opposed it on streets do matter. I have not removed the sections that were in favour. I am only for presenting the views in a neutral way. Kautilya3 has not gone into the details of the sources given. The user has simply denied that the sources don't qualify according to him. Pathetic.

User:Sriramadas.mahalingam, "other people" are "people who have written things about this topic that were published in reliable sources". This is not social media; no, you are not one of them, as far as I know, and neither are RexxS or Kautilya3. Any information must first pass this test: WP:RS. Then, is it a secondary source. After that, editors can talk. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Drmies It is certainly opinion of two persons related to the topic historically and in contemporary sense and sources reliable from their own Organization's publications. Did you go through the references provided and has any observation on the same? You can rope in any admin from Hindi Wikipedia Team if needed to ascertain one of the sources. The other source has English transcript also. Kautilya3 didn't get into the details of the sources at all. User intend to present one side opinion in favour of the topic only. Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Sriramadas.mahalingam: Your opinion on the topic is worth precisely nothing to Wikipedia unless you have published your opinion in a good quality, reliable, peer-reviewed publication. Have you? If so, name your article. The sources you quote so far are self-published, so who says they are reliable? Do you have an independent, third-party source that tells us that those sources are important and reliable? Let me make this clear: your opinion, my opinion, and the opinion of any roped-in Hindi admin are not capable of vouching for the usability of a self-published source. Nor do we accept that any editor is capable of analysing in detail the content of sources, only of ascertaining the type and quality. Did you even bother to read Wikipedia:Verifiability #Self-published sources? --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

RexxS Did you go through the details of the sections that I added? Are they my opinions? Is this your level of understanding? Pathetic you are. The article says opinions of stand of Ambedkar, Nehru etc., Who are those who opposed it? Golwalkar, Puri Sankaracharya and Sarvadharma. What will a peer reviewed publication quote from? Sources such as this only. You dont have even such an understanding? Did you go through the details? Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you don't have the competence or understanding to grasp simple propositions like WP:Reliable sources, then you have no business editing Wikipedia. And if you call another editor "pathetic" again, ever, I'll personally place an indefinite block on your account, if somebody doesn't beat me to it. You are not here to build an encyclopedia, and your time here is fast running out. מנא מנא --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

RexxS Did you get into details of all links that I had given? And will Kautilya3 explain specific issues with each references provided?

RexxS Certainly not all sections that was removed are Wikipedia:Verifiability #Self-published sources. I am indeed sure. From a neutral point go through the Article and check for yourself, what are the other side opinions on the topic that you could find on the page now. Only those sections that were removed by Kautilya3 would substantially qualify for the same.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk • contribs)

In this edit you used the blog sarvadharma.net three times, so don't give me that garbage about "not all sections". You are a single-purpose account whose only purpose here on Wikipedia is to promote the "Sarvadharma Indian Indigenous Peoples Organization", a completely non-notable group which has no results on Google other than a couple of Wikipedia mirrors that haven't caught up yet. You may not use Wikipedia to promote your causes, so forget it: it's not going to happen. --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sriramadas.mahalingam, the possibility of partial blocks on Wikipedia, for instance being blocked from just one page, is quite new, so you were lucky to get such a block. I was glad to be able to give you a partial block from Uniform Civil Code and leave you free to edit the rest of Wikipedia. I didn't realise that you would use this ability to quarrel and insult people on userpages — that was not my intention at all. Any more of that and you will simply be blocked from all of Wikipedia. Incidentally, RexxS, I think there's a bit of a problem with the review of Sriramadas's unblock request, see [11]. What do you think? Unfortunately it looks like 133 stopped editing some three minutes before I posted on his page. Well, these things happen — I suppose there isn't any real hurry. Good night. Bishonen | talk 22:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Indeed. Sriramadas.mahalingam, had I been the blocker, it might have been total and indefinite conditioned on you showing understanding of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:RS. In short, we do not call one another "pathetic". We discuss content based on the quality of the sourcing. I'm afraid the source you used is inadequate. As has already been explained, it does not meet WP:RS. Please reread the linked material. Please compose yourself in a more collegial manner.-- Deepfriedokra 10:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Great Ghu! Four admins have tried to explain matters. Bish, if the traffic through here gets any heavier, you gonna need a light.-- Deepfriedokra 10:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

You people think those are problems? Look at this caste article I just came across! Sitush wrote on the talkpage in 2018 that he was "struggling to find anything other than matrimonial websites etc that verifies even the existence of this community". Whereas according to the Hindi text + Google translate, it has always been a prestige and pride from the King Maharajas. Well, what else. Oh Sitush, please come back! Bishonen | talk 10:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Redirect to Brahman?-- Deepfriedokra 11:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the concerns. Just do this fact check on the page Uniform Civil Code and from the history go through the sections removed and their references given. You will find for yourself that the articles now projects only a favourable opinion on the topic. It is after repeated removal and restore that the motives of the user removing the content were suspected. Thank you. Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I checked when this first started. I resent your implication that I would comment on the reliability of sources without checking them first. The article "projects" what the existing reliable sources say, nothing more, nothing less. If that doesn't line up with your POV, too bad. You won't get away with using blogs like sarvadharma.net and other unreliable sources to try to insert an unsupported POV into the article, sorry. --RexxS (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I had to be cutting-edge and use a partial block, didn't I? I've made it "sitewide" now. Bishonen | talk 17:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

At least you tried.-- Deepfriedokra 18:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@RexxS: but, but, but . . .-- Deepfriedokra 16:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

See the difference

--RexxS (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, yeah. @RexxS, Drmies, and Kautilya3:, I have just placed my first partial block, from Uniform civil code and its talkpage. Rather unhelpful interface.. but I hope it worked all right. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

A kitten for Bishzilla

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

• [Bishzilla feeling a little peckish as always. Sniffs the kitten.] Delicious smell! But also cute! Eternal question: snack or pet? bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

• Oh, Bishzilla! You know the answer: you're not supposed to eat anything smaller than chihuahuas. Not worth the trouble! Put the little cat gently in your pocket. Capisce? Bishonen | talk 17:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

• Far pètement. Bonne digestion. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

(This is not ANI, so this should be allowed.) Goodnight! --bonadea contributions talk 21:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, bonadea, I feel somewhat consoled. It reminds me of Steve Martin... hang on... yes, of this! Bishonen | talk 21:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

I was going to post the interpretive dance by the Dude's landlord, but that would probably get me into copyright troubles. Just wanted to say, on my screen, the tab measures the length of an average American baby (maybe three months old). My, what big settings you have!. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well, I was using Bishzilla's desktop computer, what can I say. Size of Texas. I do remember the Dude's landlord's dance, but only dimly. Can't you link to it, Sluzzelin? See how I link to SNL on Youtube without a care in the world! Bishonen | talk 22:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Гном ❤️ ---Sluzzelin talk 22:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

What fun. Thanks for posting this Bonadea. Yours is good too Sluzzelin but I had never seen W&K before. These remind me that many years ago Bish had a short version of this L&H classic above the editing field. BTW if you haven't seen it Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly perform a loving recreation of the dance in Stan & Ollie. Cheers to all. MarnetteD|Talk 23:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Awww, that's lovely, both the old and the recreated dance. Fancy you remembering my little animated L&H gif, MarnetteD, I'm touched. It was faster and more frantic than any actual living creature could be, and it was very very cute. The only reason I haven't still got it is that it was deleted, I think over copyright concerns. :-( Is the landlord wearing a... a... bodystocking, Sluzzelin? I think he is. Yikes. Goodnight all! Bishonen | talk 23:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Since you have been partially following the FRINGE saga I have mentioned you in several pages where a discussion relating to the edit war on Bob Lazar is happening. Given you experience could you help us out or tell us how to handle this better? I am getting accused personally of trying to push an illogical FRINGE POV which is definitely NOT my intention and my edits as well as those of others are being reverted blindly. Very frustrating and a big time waste. The article is suffering because of this IMHO. I'm about to say f*** it and leave it be but it doesn't seem right since me and others spent time discussing and researching sources. Thanks! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry, Gtoffoletto, I'm not going to get involved in the discussion, and absolutely not tell people how to handle things — that's not what admins do. I can either get involved as a regular editor and edit the article + offer content opinions on talk, or remain uninvolved in the content questions and thereby remain able to act as an admin, i. e. warn/sanction people, protect pages, and so on. Those are the alternatives for me, see WP:INVOLVED. And I want to remain able to administrate Bob Lazar. For instance, it looks like a new user is edit warring at the article. That's a bit worrying. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC).Reply
• I always think of you as more of a Valkyrie.-- Deepfriedokra 17:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I was gonna put "Dea ex Machina" in the edit summary, but it came up a redlink. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Unfortunately Goddesses still have to be piped by Gods... #DeaToo :) ——SN54129 18:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Gotcha. General suggestions on how to get out of it or relevant essays/policies? As an admin is it warranted to give warnings to some of the participants that are edit warring? Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Extra note: I see you have warned User:Keldoo‎ about the 3 revert limit. I had done the same a couple of days ago (see his talk history). He is a new user and learning how to use the site and his reverts were in good faith. We have collaborated constructively since then and reached a consensus. He is frustrated that other users have blindly reverted all of our edits without critically examining. This is why blind reverts should be avoided. They frustrate and disincentivize new editors. Other more exprienced editors in the page are barely avoiding the 3 revert rule and contributing to the problems with the page. I'm just a casual wikipedia editor (although I've been at it for a while) but please consider this as you perform your work as admin. Thanks a lot for your time and effort! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Be careful. Vicarious admins block vicariously, without any sound logic. I was blocked two days ago, for behaviour that nornally gets no comment. Tis a lottery, improving the project, but there is nothing technically wrong with not making an edsum when you make an edit. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

New page. New edit war. USS Nimitz UFO incident Those pages are really a lot to handle sadly. A lot more admin supervision is needed IMHO not just to correctly address the tin-foil hatters but also to put the rains on those serial reverters that don't engage in conversation but just attack. I have never had problems like this so I don't know how an Admin intervention can be requested. Sorry for my ignorance of those things but nothing of the sort has happened to me in 10 years of participation in the project. I'm asking for help once more. Thanks--Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Try editing in an area of the project that isn't controversial. If you edit in Fringe or other lively areas (think Creationism) you are going to find a lot of experienced editors who know their way very well. Remember that this is a reality based project. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've been editing wikipedia (causally - around 1000 edits) for more than 10 years. I am an engineer and am absolutely NOT trying to push ANY "non reality based" idea. The bias of how those users are approaching my edits is untenable and few bad apples are sufficient to ruin all the work and discussion. I have written in the admin noticeboard which I think is appropriate. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are a newbie with about 200 edits. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I imagine the user is talking about his edits on the Italian Wikipedia. However, this is not the Italian Wikipedia, so it is true that the user is new to the peculiar rules that are set up at this project. jps (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

That conflict is not something for an admin to intervene in, Gtoffoletto. You have already tried the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and have got quite a bit of input there. (BTW, don't forget to keep your temper on Wikipedia![12]) Give it more time, perhaps? Then, if you are dissatisfied with the discussion on the article talkpage — and you may well be, as it would certainly be a good thing if more editors than jps and you took part there — I have two further suggestions: use WP:Third opinion, and/or the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Third opinion is the more manageable of the two, IMO, and the conflict fits its requirements well. If I were you, I'd start with that, and if it doesn't help, go to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, though not before any Third opinion discussion has more or less run its course. Here's an overview of the various possibilities for dispute resolution. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Please also see my new comment at jps's talkpage. Bishonen | talk 18:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Thanks for the level headed advice. I have posted my final thoughts on the noticeboard and will withdraw from that conversation. I am a casual editor of the encyclopaedia for sure. But I have been here long enough to know that this is not how the experience of editing wikipedia should be. And for this I am sorry. I don't care about my work lost. I'm just at home sick for a couple of days and found a couple of fun articles that really sucked. I just worry for future editors (one real newb that was editing with me lived through this ordeal as his first Wikipedia experience and was accused of being FRINGE and edit warring while he was just trying to learn and do what he thought was right). That's not good and worries me^[1]. I think WP:ROWN would have prevented all this. Maybe give that "essay" a second chance ;-). Thanks again and keep up the good work! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Here.[13] Now has opened WP:ANI#Incivility and Hounding by User:ජපස without even notifying him. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oops, didn't notice the above. He did notify but only in an edit at the bottom of a long thread, I've fixed that. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's very difficult to get the user to listen to advice and information. I don't really want to block him, but I have, for 31 hours, in the hope that it'll show him I mean business. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

were also quite informing. I think we need to see WP:BITE as not being a carte blanche for unacceptable behavior.-- Deepfriedokra 12:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bishonen, User:AustrianFreedom, whom you blocked back in July, appears to be editing Wikipedia as an IP now [14]. His edits are at pages that AustrianFreedom once frequented such as Serbian writers and locations inhabited by Serbian Germans, and they are wp:duck for the sorts of things AustrianFreedom added and his style (many edits in a row, strange edit summaries, and a personal attack [15]).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Ermenrich, I see I indeffed them as NOTHERE on July 1 2019. But Bbb23 changed it to a checkuserblock a week later and, guess what, also CU-blocked the very same IP for three months. See the account's userpage, the SPI archive, and this block log. So I've blocked the IP for another six months. Beebs, dear, if you think that's too long, or if you think it ought to be a CU-block, feel free to take it over. Bishonen | talk 14:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

When you call me "Beebs,dear", you can do no wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hehehe. [Bishonen makes a note of this simple trick.] Bishonen | talk 17:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Apologies if my comments about that user seemed excessive. I wasn't making an attack on them, just an observation based on about a year of seeing their edits to articles on left-wing politics and antisemitism, many of which have been reverted by other users. Rodericksilly (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

You're not supposed to canvass people to discussions, Rodericksilly, least of all Jimbo. That was the main reason I reverted you. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

I wouldn't normally, except that "Jimbo" reverted the same edit by this user in December, so I figured he clearly has some interest in that particular article and the information the user was attempting to remove. Rodericksilly (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

That's a poor excuse, I'm afraid. If Jimbo has an interest in an article, he can watchlist it like other people do. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

You might think it's a poor excuse, but I've attempted to watchlist pages (pressing the star at the top of the article I presume) and it hasn't worked to update me on changes to pages. Rodericksilly (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Star? What star? There's a "watch"/"unwatch" button at the top of every page. It uses those words. User:RexxS and other watchers, that's how pages look for me, in monobook. Is it the same in all skins? Bishonen | talk 22:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Small light blue star on Windows. O3000 (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Same as big O here. On vector skin in Chrome on Windows. PackMecEng (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you. OK, Roderick, in the Vector skin it's a star. PackMecEng, your image is of Wikidata; I presume it's the same on Wikipedia? Bishonen | talk 22:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Yup, same deal. Just only image on commons that fit the bill. PackMecEng (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I like the looks so much I wrote a script to turn it on for every page in Wikipedia. Haven't slept in 12 years. O3000 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

With this edit, an anon/IP made an edit to an article (which I subsequently reverted), however they left an email address in the edit summary. I'm not familiar with this being a thing (and I believe page histories aren't indexed by search engines so don't see the value necessarily), but wasn't sure who to ask about this. And AN seemed like overkill. :P Is that something that should be revdel'd? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

No, I've never heard it's a thing either, but instinctively I don't like it. Revdel'd. Thank you, Locke Cole. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

• Caroline era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I decided today to devote my energies to this poor little page and it’s looking a lot healthier now. However, as you know, my literary interests extend no further than detective novels and the dirty bits of a Lady Chat and that other literary great, I forget the name, on Netflix. Therefore, I thought you might like to contribute a little to the theatre and literary sections. I know you like all the a Restoration stuff better, but I expect it’s all the same really and I know one other here with your superior intellect and huge knowledge of such a fascinating subject. Would you mind? A thousand small words will suffice. Much love Giano (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm... I wanna say Beaumont and Fletcher. Let me think. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Good choice: I think they did the interior decoration for one of Aunt Catherine’s smaller drawing rooms; she’s a huge fan, not so keen on chintz myself. But I’m sure they’re great, whatever you think best. Giano (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Beaumont and Fletcher. No, it looks like they were more Jacobean. Darn. [Disconsolately.] The Caroline period was too short, with chopping off his head and stuff. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Oh that Beaumont and Fletcher, I was thinking of that firm at the wrong end of South Audley Street. Yes, it’s a problem I found too, even the Banqueting House was begun under his father, but I take the view if it’s not obviously Jacobean then it must be Caroline. I think one is allowed a little blurring around the edges of reign-named styles, nothing changed overnight. Somebody must have written something readable in that period though, they can’t have just spent twenty years enjoying their own company before going to sleep every night. Giano (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

'Tis Pity She's a Whore. (Can one just turn up on somebody's talk page and say such things without being reprimanded?) Yomangani^talk 22:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Probably best to look at the works of James Shirley as the touchstone of the period. Ben Jonson's late work extended into the start of the Caroline and criticisms of his work might give some insight into how Caroline theatre evolved from Jacobean. At the other end of the period there are few authors who bridged the interregnum, but you might possible find some useful sources discussing William Davenant, to help place Caroline in context with Restoration. You'll need somebody far more expert than I to pick the best sources, of course, but there might be some usable leads amongst those articles. --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've half a mind to leave the page to rot. In the few brief house since I last edited it, it has been crawled over and plastered with citation tags already. That it was full of errors for the last nine years is immaterial, the second one tries to improve anything out come those who only like to template. Any fool can see its a work in progress.Giano (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've removed them (and probably caused an annoying edit conflict for you next time you save, but you can't have everything). Yomangani^talk 12:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Nope, we escaped a conflict. Some people here are extremely annoying. I had been tempted to revert them myself with the edit summary of "Bugger Off", but no doubt that woudl lead to drama at ANI, me being clocked and the page languishing for another nine years. Do feel free to chip in though there if you can think of anything to bolster it out. It's not really my subject at all. learning as I go along there. Giano (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of annoying, I have a fascinating (well I think it's fascinating) piece of trivia about Charles I - he was the only British monarch to have been succeeded by two of his sons and three of his grandchildren, but none of his sons' sons. Really ought to be in the infobox. --RexxS (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Maybe after we've added King Charles' head. I hope there's a "literary references" parameter in the infobox. Bishonen | talk 11:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

If there isn't, you can add one. You know that infoboxes can only be improved by adding more parameters. Yomangani^talk

Number of times touched a lizard= 7! I always thought infobox parameters were created by magical elves rather than by mere mortals. El_C 11:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

You know that elves are imaginary, so it can't be them. The infobox parameters are actually created by magical dinosaurs. -- T-RexxS (rawr) 16:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oh, RexxS, there you are. I was just confusing myself on my Bishonen/Sigs page.[16] It seems I have been using the sig with a coded pipe in it for years. I wonder why? It seems overwhelmingly likely that it was something you advised. Did you? Why? (I have just now restored the simple pipe, along with Swedifying my tålk link. Will that have bad consequences?) And what do the little stålkers think, would the spelling "Bischånen" be an improvement? Bönadea, you got an opinion? Bishonen | tålk 17:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

I don't think it was my advice, but it is a safe technique to use | instead of the pipe symbol directly. Issues may arise when you use your sig inside a template. I can't reproduce this possible problem without messing about with my sig, but you can try previewing

• {{subst:The Original Barnstar|1=message ~~~~}}

in any page. This is what happens when I try directly using the two different sig texts that you are comparing:

• {{subst:The Original Barnstar|1=message [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]]}} →

• {{subst:The Original Barnstar|1=message [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]]}} →

The pipe in the first example is taken to be marking an extra parameter by the template, so it tries to use it, losing the rest of the message and sig. I'd stick with the | just in case. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oh, pipes too? I thought it was only equals signs that make templates spit up — you know, like if you put diffs in a template. I'm always coding those. Right, it makes sense about the pipe marking an extra parameter. I'll use the coded sig. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 18:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Tålk is sheep! Ya! Børk! (I've been on a train for almost 9 hours. This is all very amusing to me.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

This user User:อัลเบิร์ is trying to make an edit war and I explain about the Wikipedia policy to him but I argue to block anyone who blames to edit in content that this user only thinks he is true. No one can edit on the page that the user was overseer. I need you to tell him to understand the rule and don't make another misunderstanding in Wikipedia rule, especially I need you to BLOCK him to resolve the problem that this user make.

Thank You Ministerboy (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me but are you, Ministerboy, the IP that are constantly making reverts on those pages? If you are, I believe that you are the one that are violating the rules and try to put your faults into the other's hand. The other user is asking for a discuss with you but you don't do it. Your version of edits cannot be accepted because it came later and the other user is not consenting with you. So you have to discuss first but you choose not to do it and instead, committed warring edit violation. อัลเบิร์ (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear User:อัลเบิร์ That another IP is my friend that sits behind me, I work for Wikipedia Thai football for 4 Year and I was work for Thai FA for 2 years until now. Why you delete the honor content of every Thai team and why you delete the history of every Thai team. All the information I find with my ability with my Wikipedia user friend for 4 year and you came here to delete and tell me to talk with you first. That was absurd and can't accept. STOP doing this action for the better way of finding the information from Wikipedia. Ministerboy (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

• I know nothing about football, but I know an edit war when I see it. I warn both of you: another revert and you're blocked. Discuss on talk. By which I don't mean your individual talkpages, but Talk:Thailand national football team. I don't like the sound of "That another IP is my friend that sits behind me" at all, Ministerboy. Your friend? That's as good as a sock; it's a meatpuppet. Therefore I've semiprotected the page for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 12:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Bish, already pinged you but as info I blocked all 3 for 24 hours for EW. Ministerboy left this same message to 6-7 people but I didn't realize till later. -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, well done. I saw they'd gone over 3RR, but I kind of didn't have the strength to do anything about it right then. Bishonen | talk 16:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Hello. Sorry. Can you check the IP 113.53.145.7, which is a suspected sockpuppet of Ministerboy, the guy who keep reverting people's edits (I'm one of the users) and make changes on Thailand national football team page and related pages(Thailand under-23, under-20,...) despite being objected to, he shows no attempt to have a discuss to reach a consensus despited having been asked for one. He just returned to make the same kind of edits again on that Thailand team page.14.231.90.28 (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey I just sign in and edit in the name of Ministerboy and I don't know the other IP why you denoted on me. You can check I edit only my mistake other revert such as User:Heemensussus I revert him because it want to revert IP: 14.231.90.28 edit that make before. It is true that IP: 14.231.90.28 is the same with อัลเบิร์ and User:Albertpda. Why Wikipedia let this one do it again. Please lock the page you can see he delete all of the information that other user edit. Please give the justice to the user who try to make Wikipedia become the better place. Ministerboy (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

No, I'm not. I just noticed you reverted bunch of edits made by other editors that edited on the page aka Puan555, Swainkinky,... so on and not just อัลเบิร์ or Heemensussus. By the way, stop assuming anyone to be sock of anyone without proper evidence. I also suspected that you are a sock of User:ThailandFootball. You also have to discuss if an user asked you to do it, before making changes that are contested. Your revisions have to be undone because they have not gained a consensus.

14.231.90.28 (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear User:Bishonen I'm not absolutely User:ThailandFootball, you can check me and check everyone. I suggest that this IP 14.231.90.28 come from Vietnam that has a conflict with Thai Football. You can see other user agree with me after อัลเบิร์ was block other change and revert back to my edition. I don't know why Wikipedia let this user harm on Wikipedia society and on me, I'm a member of this website for 4 year why you let some IP make a vilolate and edit war on the website. You can see that this IP and the block user อัลเบิร์ has a same writing and use the same format to harm me. You block him but not block his behaviour. Please set up a protection to all Thailand national team page to avoids the IP user make Wikipedia come a war zone. Ministerboy (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I hasn't add anything and I only reverted your edits because I saw that you are in a conflict of editing with other users but instead of doing any talk, you keep on tending the page as it is your own. You are in the offensive side and took up the same warring edits again. About "same format" and "same writing", you and this user ThailandFootball had it both. 14.231.90.28 (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

You can check that i'm not ThailandFootball I can sware that i'm not. Yo can check with my friend Paul_012 or you can check with your system. I USE ONLY Ministerboy user and I user this user for more than 3000 edit for 4 years. Ministerboy (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm pinging Ferret, who dealt with the edit war before, and have also written to User:Bbb23, the CheckUser who blocked อัลเบิร์ as a sock. He's the best person for sorting this out, I think. Bishonen | tålk 10:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

This user went on making the same edits that have led to previous edit war despite the warning (that you gave). Given that he did not use sock, he still engage in edit warring (again after his block expires). He should be blocked for two days again at least and have all of his recent edits on related articles undone, as a warning or this will make him free to go on.14.231.90.28 (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bish, unfortunately my only involvement here is that Ministerboy left me a talk page (I've no idea why or how we may have interacted in the past) so I looked into the obvious edit war. I've no expertise for the topic area. With the obvious socking involved and logged out edit accusation, semiprotection across all four articles wouldn't be amiss to me. @CambridgeBayWeather: has protected one of them, Thailand national under-23 football team. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I like your customized signature. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Specially made so Swedes will understand it. :-) You have quite the collection of å's yourself, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Å's galåre, one might cåll it. [Bishonen considers changing Bishzilla's talk sig to "RÅARRR". Hmm. Maybe later.] Bishonen | tålk 14:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

You could have gone for "tolk" or "talg" or "tack" (the last one would have been really confusing when people wanted to thank you for your edits) Yomangani^{Ta älg} 17:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lå-å-å-ång. --bonadea contributions talk 14:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ah, dear Fråding! [Falls into a poetic reverie.] Bishonen | tålk 16:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

You're funnier than Rowan Atkinson! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also funny: Sigrid's husband Tor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bish, can you please take care of this U1 for me. thanks in advance. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done. Bishonen | tålk 17:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Thanks. That was quick. Some strawberries for you. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Cause there's a lot to read, I just want to make sure that you know when JzG said I've been adding racist SYN to the article, that is not true. I haven't been editing the article other than reverts to removals.. If you want to ban me for other stuff, then that's fine. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK, I've got it. Bishonen | tålk 21:12, 29 February 2020 (

What's funny is that I took a 10 year hiatus, but I have (this is probably not good) strong emotions that still come up when I see various user names, and I can't remember why. Your name gives me fond emotions, but I don't remember why. I think I used to see you at FA. Maybe. Who knows. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Encouraged by the collaboration at Sic Bar, I have been thinking how great it would be if a few of us got together and knocked out a new FA as big collaboration. Might you be interested? Giano (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

  Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

  Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

I want to report you that User:Twainkinky is suspected as sockpuppet of this user:

• Albertpda (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Trung tá Moore (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• อัลเบิร์ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 123.16.91.242 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

and I get this report from the other member too as User:Judge41 and User:Johand199 that this user try to harassing Wikipedia pages in Thai football from the investigation I has a evidence that these accounts are created from the same person. Despite being banned, it is still trying to create a new account. The first account from the investigation and investigation is Albertpda. Disruptive Waged a war on the Wikipedia Vietnam national football team page since 2017. Important that this user live aboard (I suspect from Vietnam as I check from old IP address).

You can see this user still do the same thing that you was warn him and increse the asra of edit war to other page such as Thailand women's national football team, Thailand national beach soccer team, Thailand women's national under-20 football team, Thailand women's national under-17 football team , King's Cup.

So I need you to block him and please warn him not to do this, this is not a good thing fro Wikipedia society. Thank You Ministerboy (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please take it to WP:SPI, Ministerboy. I really don't know one end of a football from the other, so this is difficult for me. To report a sock and ask for CheckUser, either use Twinkle from Twainkinky's own page if you have Twinkle enabled in your preferences (this is the simplest way), or go to WP:SPI and follow the link to "How to open an investigation" and you will be shown how to proceed. But in either case, you'll need to provide evidence for socking in the form of diffs. Do you know how to create a diff? See WP:Simple diff and link guide. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. Bishonen | tålk 01:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

The left end is opposite the right end, and never the "twain" shall meet; "kinky", huh? Nice owl.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but which end is up? The owl just became an arctic fox supplied by CambridgeBayWeather. Bishonen | tålk 02:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Is you guy Bbb23, Bishonen , CambridgeBayWeather, User:ferret have any solutions to stop this guy? some thai user tell me to warn him many time I so tire to stop this user. I want to help and protect this page but I confuse how to manage with him. Ministerboy (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bbb23, it sounds like Ministerboy finds my advice about SPI a bit overwhelming. Since you came here and made a helpful comment, perhaps you would be so kind...? Bishonen | tålk 03:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

The two kinky socks are blocked. Ministerboy, you really need to learn how to file a report at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit concerned by the close of an appeal at AE as "vexatious".[17] While I would have declined the appeal, an appeal to AE and/or AN is a part of the process we tell the sanctioned editor they may follow. I'm not comfortable with saying that filing an appeal by the process we tell them they should is "vexatious". It could, of course, be meritless and declined as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I, too, find that appeal vexatious. Appealing a sanction that was just applied, while explicitly not making any new arguments as to why the sanction should be lifted, is bludgeoning the process. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

It was in practice vexatious, Seraphimblade — vexing for admins, as asking for yet more of their time for no useful purpose — but perhaps it expressed more Peregrine F's unfamiliarity with the process. So perhaps I needn't have used that word — unnecessarily accusatory. Bishonen | tålk 22:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

It was indeed vexatious, by any definition of the word. The complaint at AE was that Peregrine Fisher was guilty of a pattern of disruptive editing; diffs were provided and a request was made for standard discretionary sanctions to be applied to the editor. A considerable number of involved commentators wanted to examine other editors' conduct and suggested other measures, but did not attempt to refute the initial complaint, nor justify why sanctions would be inappropriate. Five uninvolved administrators agreed that a topic ban would be an appropriate discretionary sanction, and a sixth agreed when closing the request and applying the sanction. An immediate appeal – based on nothing more than a request to read some of the statements in the request – is extremely discourteous to the admins who took part in the decision, presuming that they didn't read those statements. It also fails to grasp how AE works, and simply wastes everybody's time. You only have to look at Peregrine Fisher's talk page to see how they were egged on to appeal, with no understanding of the process. 'Shonen, of course, is too soft, and looks for excuses for the culprits as usual. --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I melt into a puddle at the sight of a poor little culprit. But even I am hard pressed to find excuses for the ignorant and foolish, or perhaps actually malicious, advice from the IPv6 on PF's talkpage. Unfortunately the IP seems to have access to a much bigger range than the usual /64, or I might try a block. It's pretty annoying when IP's flutter about so much that there's not even a user talkpage to post Darwinbish's non-soft anonymous coward template on. Bishonen | tålk 12:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Bish, there was a decent amount of support for semi-protecting the Race and intelligence talk page here which would have a similar effect. –dlthewave ☎ 13:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Right, dlthewave. I guess the discussion needs to be closed first, and maybe, before that, to run for a month. BTW, at that discussion, I see Peregrine Fisher describes the IPv6 in question as "the only always reasonable person on this page". That is the reason PF gives for opposing the suggested semi. (Not sure if Guy is suggesting a semi or something else.) OK, that changes my mind about PF as an unfortunately misled "poor little culprit", RexxS; he clearly has only himself to blame for getting, and taking, advice from that IP. (So, this time I've pinged PF — it's not to ask you to come here, PF, but simply because I'm uncomfortable talking about you like that without letting you know.) Bishonen | tålk 14:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Hi Bishonen, I just pinged you at Talk:Julian Assange because, I suppose watching that page, you just blocked [18] user Jtbobwaysf for violating the article's discretionary sanctions. As I noted in my ping [19], Calton has also violated those sanctions, and despite several appeals to revert has not done so and continues to edit elsewhere. Would you please ask Calton to revert as they have so far ignored requests to do so, but I believe would honor the page sanctions if asked by an admin. -Darouet (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I would note I also went to sleep after my edit and only saw the request to self revert when I woke up. By that time my edit had already been reverted. In your comment on the Assange talk page you stated I ignored a request to self revert, and I wanted to state for the record that was not the case. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

(On your own talkpage, I think you mean?) I'm sorry, Jtbobwaysf, I didn't notice it had already been reverted. Thanks for telling me politely. Bishonen | tålk 17:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Hey, Darouet, sorry for the delay. I blocked Jtbobwaysf for violating 1RR. Note, I was mistaken about that, and have apologized to the user. But I've never AFAIK sanctioned or even warned anybody for violating the "consensus required" restriction, and I'm not about to start now. I dislike that restriction. It's quite counterproductive IMO. However... I just noticed Guerillero has blocked Calton for it after a report at WP:AE. That's his right, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. Bishonen | tålk 14:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Hi Bishonen, thanks for your note. My primary complaint was that Calton didn't self-revert or even reply after multiple requests and full knowledge of the sanctions, but I entirely understand your reticence regarding "consensus required." Often I find the specific application confusing and I've seen admins interpret enforcement in entirely opposite directions, even on the same page. All best, -Darouet (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

The problem with the "consensus needed" sanction is that it allows a small bunch of POV-pushers to establish a "walled-garden" around articles they own. Any changes they don't like are simply reverted and can't be restored without a lengthy discussion at the talk page where they all pitch in and then claim "no consensus". It stinks, and to be honest, I'm coming round to the idea that reversion without a sufficiently good reason deserves an AE sanction as well to prevent gaming the system. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well, if that many editors don’t want something added, then it would be removed with no consensus after a lengthy discussion anyhow. And many of the additions are by POV-pushers. The problem with articles that have ended up with consensus required is that there are editors who add what they just heard on the news two minutes ago. I don’t know the solution. But, at least this tamps down RECENTISM. O3000 (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Completely agree with RexxS. WP:DRNC may only be an essay, but it makes good points. Reverting purely on the basis of (an assumed) consensus is hugely disruptive to the consensus-forming process, and effectively allows a group of editors to keep an article how they like without even having to produce/justify their reasoning. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm also with RexxS. It stinks because it works in favor of pov-pushers and drive-by editors/IPs. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't stand in the way of depreciating such a page restriction. But, it is a restriction that is currently in use --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

meganinja202 (talk) - I think that you was precipitated in your decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming, your use in concensus was wrong, or at least misinstood since even the scientific consensus on climate change isnt 100%, but instead around 98%, is there any way to revert the results or at least get into a consensus (no pun-intended) into a better alternative for a listing of promininent dissident voices?

if the page cant be recreated, at least i wonder if a new alternative can be created as subistitute, considering that would be vital for for the neutral image and status of wikipedia

Hi, meganinja202, thanks for coming to my page. (Please sign your post at the end, not the head.) You can ask for a deletion review at the board WP:DRV. (I can't find that there has already been such a review, but it's possible; the search function for the board is terrible. But you can still start a review.) But I don't think you will get my close reversed there, as you seem to misunderstand my brief discussion of consensus. I didn't close based on consensus among scientists, but on consensus among wikipedians who took part in the discussion. This is what a closer is supposed to do on Wikipedia. Also, "consensus" on Wikipedia doesn't mean everybody agrees 100% — if it did, nothing would ever be decided here — please see our page WP:CONSENSUS, which explains wikipedian consensus for decision-making.

As for "a better alternative for a listing of promininent dissident voices", I'm not sure. In such an article, you'd first have to show that those voices are prominent — that their views on climate change are what Wikipedia calls notable. Please check the page Wikipedia:Notability. I know it's long and complex, but it enshrines the most important principles for article creation. Bishonen | tålk 06:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Hello, Bishonen. I am appealing the topic ban you put in place over a year ago. There is also a section in the template that allows you to make a statement. Please see the full request at WP:ARB/R.Sotuman (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the notification, Sotuman. Your appeal is supposed to go at the bottom of the WP:AE page; I've moved it. Also, please note that the outcome of the appeal will be determined by uninvolved admins. It sounds from the way you write as if you think you're appealing to the Arbitration Committee. If you actually do want to appeal to the committee, you should do it on the page WP:ARCA. I don't recommend that, though; it takes forever, for one thing. WP:AE, where you have appealed, is fine, but you may want to change your reference to the committee ("It is my wish that the committee take as much time as required", etc) to something else. And you'd better follow the discussion there yourself, rather than wait to be advised of news, in case people write things you want to reply to. You appeal is quite concise, so questions may come up. Bishonen | tålk 08:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Hello again, Bishonen, thanks for your advice. I had tried emailing the arbcom a few months ago and simply copied that email to the location that I was directed to in a reply. However it is quite possible that I missed something. Anyway, my appeal was declined. As Tgeorgescu aptly put, I "...was wrong according to the norms and values of our community." This seems to be the story of my life. Maybe in 3 to 6 months you will be notified of another appeal. Until then, all the best. Sotuman (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just noting that I have no objection to you blocking the name, as we all have different views on what is 'egregious'. It just seemed to me like someone seeing what they could get away with in picking a username to me. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, dot, nice of you to come here. Bishonen | tålk 09:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

In case you find these things interesting. Orwell was mentioned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Finally I too get named and quoted on the internet! That is so cool. Thanks very much, Gråberg. Is there a userbox for media attention, do you know? Not very major media, I guess, but still. (HINT HINT would a little tps like to create a userbox for me?) Bishonen | tålk 14:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Something vaguely connected to this user got mentioned once by somebody somewhere sometime.