This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bishonen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Of course you can laugh; he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected - there's more chance of Jimbo proposing marriage to Lady C than there is of him ever being elected to the Arbcom. Giano 13:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I expect Mr Ched means is Mrs Bishonen likely to make an appearance in the near future? I think she's tired of Wikipedia at the moment - can't say that I blame her; it's a pretty poor state of affairs when one has to deal with idiots constantly, which she does. Her only joy is the likes of me, and I suppose you and a few others coming here to her salon. As a matter of fact, she's currently staying with me for some recuperation at my beautiful, cliff top villa at Cap Ferat where I am giving her the full benefit of my wisdom and experience of Wikipedia - especially my considerable knowledge of Mr Gerard which will take some considerable time to impart in full! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
PS: I forgot to mention I am preparing a a small guide on the candidates for this year's election. I think you will find it very perceptive and informative. I shall be expanding it over the next few weeks as I gain more insight and opinion. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have included a well sourced incident concerning Gabriela Isler in her article. Now another user who is a evident pageant fan and huge fan of Isler removes the sourced material. And he also left me a quite nasty message at my talk page. I might be wrong but I think Wikipedia should not censor material even if it does not favour the person. Perhaps a change of the "controversy"name or similar would do. We have other Miss Universe winners articles which includes similar material of incidents such a Leila Lopes. Isler is a public figure now and tweets about a president is notable in this context I think. Regards, --BabbaQ (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I know where you are, this is just an ordinary Thursday. But it still seemed a suitable day to say that I'm thankful for Bishonen being on Wikipedia! And even more thankful that Bishzilla still hasn't burnt me to a crisp. Happy Thanksgiving/ordinary Thursday! Heimstern Läufer(talk)03:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
So far the 'zilla hasn't eaten her pony, so I think she has adequate discernment, though I'm sure a juicy turkey (or twenty) would also be appreciated! Montanabw(talk)02:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Hiya Bishpack! Sorry I missed your mention a while back asking for help. I don't come around here much anymore. Miss you! Tex (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
My dearest Mrs Bishonen, I note that you've been rather tardy in your edits of late! I was wondering about the Arbcom results I have been in South Africa burying poor Mr Mandela and trying to avoid that grinning Mr Obama, who kept trying to take photographs of himself together with me on his mobile phone - naturally I was heavily veiled and refused; one has to show some decorum. I have to confess, I was surprised not to see the World's only remaining living saint, Mr Wales, in the VIP enclosure with me, but I suppose there can only be space for major global celebrities - at least he was spared the Prince of Wales lecturing us all on tribal dancing and vegetable growing - two subjects very close to his heart besides the poor, dear Duchess. My concern is that I have not been asked to appoint the new Arbs; as Wikipedia's First Lady that is my ceremonial role - I expect they are still checking them for corruption and debauchery; that will take years no doubt. Now, my main purpose, and on to poor, dear, little Mrs Risker; one feels for her, her life must seem very empty now - I have offered her the position of my general factotum and No 1 Lady-in-Waiting, I trust you will advise her to accept. Now, I can't stop here chatting to you all day, I am flying to Sicily this evening, for Christmas, my nephew (the good looking intelligent one) is performing some antiquated ceremony involving goats and wants the whole family in attendance. So from your humble, unworthy page, I take this opportunity to wish all my loyal subjects a very Happy Christmas and Joyful New Year. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
As the appointment ceremony for new Arbs involves kissing Jimbo's ring, I wonder if the Lady Catherine would be entirely comfortable with performing that function if required? --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC) P.S. Nyårsklockan, T-RexxS is back. P.P.S. I heard that Jimmy is due to get an honorary knighthood in the News Years Honours List. Anybody heard the same?
That man is less and less coherent as time progresses...I can't for the life of me understand anything about his latest rambling...--MONGO16:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Periferigenilerimini
Hello Bishonen. Do you remember Periferigenilerimini (talk·contribs), the now-blocked editor who (1) was concerned exclusively with Romanian reality TV, (2) always used the minor edit flag, even after being asked not to, (3) engaged in disruption such as blanking and copyright violations, and (4) was utterly uncommunicative? I am pretty certain they're back with a couple sockpuppets, both of which fit the pattern exactly. See Ingsiiang (talk·contribs) and Croniciledinnarnia (talk·contribs). I've already tried to communicate with both accounts several times and warned them about the disruptive behaviour, but as with the Periferigenilerimini account there's been no communication whatsoever. Perhaps you'd like to confirm all this and block them as sockpuppets, as the evidence is pretty overwhelming to me, though if you prefer I can raise a SPI instead. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen! Thanks for your messages. I hope you are enjoying your holidays. When you get back, you might want to consider blocking Jeremiahmimi (talk·contribs), which is an obvious sock of User:Paulika1995 (the oldest account in the family which includes User:Periferigenilerimini, User:Croniciledinnarnia, and User:Ingsiiang). I agree that a near-total lack of English comprehension is probably the reason they have not responded to any messages. Unfortunately this means they're unable to understand why they are acting disruptively and how they can bring their behaviour into line with the project's policies and guidelines. :( It also means that they're probably unsure why their old accounts aren't working any more, and that they will continue to create new ones to evade the block. Semi-protection of the affected pages is one option of dealing with this, and one I'd normally try in the first instance except that there are a lot of pages involved here. An IP block (including a block on account creation) is another option, though the latter will require checkuser to discover this person's IP or IP range. Any thoughts? —Psychonaut (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, George. Look at this, lol. And here she's messing about inside your comment, see it? A child? Do feel free to remove tp access. Or to continue wasting your time with her if you prefer, of course. Bishonen | talk00:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC).
Hi, could you take a look at user Bethana24 edits on Dana Ewell. The new user has an obvious pro-Ewell stance and the article makes it sound like he didnt have any part in the murders but was framed. And the user is also doing unsourced claims of another person involved in the case being the killer. I would like to remove the information all together and go back to the version before Bethana24s first edit. But I rather ask your opinion first. I wouldnt be surprised if the user is somehow connected to Dana Ewell in some capacity. Take a look. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2013
(UTC)
Thanks, Thomas. The account was only registered today. Rather than threaten them with blocks, I've semiprotected the article to give them time to read policy, enter into discussion, and tell us whether they have any COI. Bishonen | talk22:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC).
Jehochman, I am very proud of my comment, and proud of everything I've done for Wikipedia, but I lost my name, my real name to "an angry mob" you described, except, Jehochman, you have not a slightest idea how it feels when one is being attacked by an angry mob, I mean really attacked... Okay... Peace, Jehochman, and Happy New Year to everybody!24.6.41.1 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I have several thousand in my mining pool at the moment, I mine coins as a way of keeping my dorm room warm, and i've made about $100 in a couple months so far. that video is hilarious too. -- Aunva6talk - contribs01:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
And look what I made to cheer on the new year! Bwhahahahaaa
Happy new year bish! I'm sorry, but, I removed File:Shibe Inu Doge meme.jpg from the message above under criteria 9 of the WP:NFCC, restrictions on location. If you have any questions, please let me know. I figured this would be better than a bot appearing on your userpage, removing the image, and templating you. --Guerillero | My Talk22:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks, Guerillero. Actually I thought someone might remove it. Removing the Doge does make Cassandra's comment about Dogecoin look extremely inconsequential, but then she's known to be insane. Happy new year, pity you didn't get in! I voted for you. Bishonen | talk15:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC).
Thank you Bish, that means a ton to me, though, I think I have a thesis adviser and a ladyfriend that are happy I am not an arb. --Guerillero | My Talk22:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
MilesMoney block
For whatever reason, MM decided this post was a personal attack and removed it. I won't belabor the point, but thought that consideration of the consequences should be weighed before action being taken. Not removing the block might actually be in his best interest, as the flood that is likely to occur on ANI surely won't help his cause.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
74.192.84.101
Hello, remember the IP that drowned Talk:Rupert Sheldrake in a tsunami of text? Among the flood of comments were "battle factions" charts giving his WP:BATTLEGROUND assessment of the talk page.[2] After I reverted the obviously-inappropriate battleground material, he inserted it again[3].
Well the battle faction charts are back again, this time on his user page and with greater detail, and he's even advertised them at ANI.[4] (The charts also misrepresent me and others, but that's another matter.) The Sheldrake article continues hold the attention of pro-paranormal websites that promote a full-bore battleground mentality, and these charts reinforce that view.
Earlier you employed your considerable diplomatic skill in getting this person to quit flooding the Sheldrake page. Could you explain to him why this battleground stuff is inappropriate? vzaak17:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I suspect the reason Vzaak thinks it "inappropriate" for anybody but themselves to display charts of selected WMFLABS data, is that their own username pops right to the top of the all-time-mainspace-contributors chart, whereas I only managed ninth-place-talkpage-rank (and am within five edits of falling to eleventh-place ... vzaak is third-place-talkpage). Charts of such data inherently cannot *create* a battleground; they can only describe such. And boy, does the battleground exist! That said, I would be more than happy to correct any mischaracterizations that Vzaak sees in chart#3, and offered as much right in the posting on my talkpage; it is a hand-compiled chart, so errors are certainly possible.
explanation of chart#0 by Vzaak, my attempted Oct'13 response they deleted, talkpage semi-prot AN/I caused by Vzaak, & my attempted Dec'13 response they've again deleted
The first chart, when you were called into the June-through-present-basket-case last time, was in response to Vzaak's chart (the zeroth chart I suppose). My second chart was just a copy of my first, pasted into a separate section a few minutes later; Vzaak complained there was too much on redundancy with their chart#0, but when I directly added a column (clearly labelled as added by me), Vzaak then turned around and cited wiki-etiquette. So I pasted the second chart in a new section, which Vzaak deleted; my full chart#2 was battling, their partial chart#0 was not. That was in October; Vzaak ignored all my questions and comments, that month and the next.
Deleting the third chart was the first time they've addressed me, since then, in fact... despite copious opportunity during the first half of November. My third chart was created for the AN/I difficulties of mid-December; Vzaak had requested that the NPOV-dispute article-talkpage be semi-protected from all IPs, at a point when there were 21 posts in the month so far by IPs, two percent of the total 997 talkpage-posts (50/day) at that point circa December ~19th. One of those talkpage-posts was from me! :-) It was not even long. Eleven were from a sockpuppet, which Vzaak invesigated and eliminated within 48 hours, on linguistic & geoIP grounds. The other nine IP postings were from three different countries, and totally not disruptive, that I saw. The AN/I thread was closed as being a valid application of WP:IAR, to try and pre-emptively quiet down the 50-posts-per-day basket-case. I was mostly okay with that, it was only for two weeks; and I love pillar five best of all.
Since that point back in October, a good handful of other editors have been banned (about half of them socks), including most recently, one between Christmas Eve and Boxing Day... and it doesn't look like that will be the end of things, either. The previous ArbCom rejected the case that was brought, suggesting AE... see also, WP:9STEPS.
Anyhoo, since you're still on partial-wikibreak, feel free to send Bishzilla over instead. If they are also busy, please pick another admin, preferably one that asks questions first. :-) Thanks for improving wikipedia, and happy proleptic gregorian increment. — 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys, very sorry I've taken so long to get to this. I had to recover from the shock of vzaak's reference to my "considerable diplomatic skill"; that's a new one. Might you be referring to the time I told 74 that I'd rather not read the whole of his post because I wasn't feeling very well and didn't want to feel any worse? :-) There's tact and diplomacy. 74, I do in fact find the size and number and variety of your posts overwhelming. That's not meant to imply any slur on their content nor to suggest I don't like you, or don't appreciate your analytic skills, because I do. But, well, there's the overwhelmingness.
I agree with vzak that the charts shouldn't be on Talk:Rupert Sheldrake. But, vzaak, I don't really see why you're bothered that they're on 74's own talkpage. (Nor even why the "advertisement" on ANI matters a lot.) They may be tendentious, I haven't studied them really closely, on account of the overwhelmingness, but "traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit". I read that as including wide latitude to be tendentious or polemical on them, though of course excluding the kind of stuff mentioned in WP:UP#NOT. Why are you so concerned about it? Have you considered whether paying attention to material on a personal talkpage, which is always a rather out-of-the-way place if it isn't Jimbo's, might create a bit of a Streisand effect? I'd let it go if I were you. Bishonen | talk14:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC).
Hi, given the high-powered warfare mentality promoted by off-site paranormal forums, it doesn't seem appropriate that users should be explicitly promoting that view here. 74.192.84.101's "battle factions" charts aren't even accurate -- I had not even heard of WP:SPOV, let alone endorsed it. Labeling a whole set of users in any way -- let alone labeling them as endorsing a failed policy proposal -- is not civil. 74.192.84.101 had promised to stop posting "further demographics data, concerning edit-counts and revert-counts and dates-of-entry and such".[5]
P.S. When I first posted on your page a while ago, I had no idea about your astronomical popularity here. Through this page I also found out about The Lady Catherine de Burgh, which has to be the greatest Wikipedian ever. vzaak15:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, vzaak, I have the honour of her ladyship's acquaintance and presence on this page; indeed, though I hesitate to speak so boastfully, of her friendship. Why don't you go introduce yourself and express your awe and respect veneration? If you scruple to approach her directly (I've noticed you're a mannerly young man), you might try her secretary User:Vera Corpus (Miss). She may not be the most competent, but a little pourboire can often work wonders. Bishonen | talk23:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC).
I forgot about the Streisand reference, I suppose because it didn't make sense. I don't read 74.192.84.101's comments because I don't have the inclination or patience for them. The ones I have read invariably misrepresent me and paint me in a negative light. Looking at 74.192.84.101's above comment: no, I am not in any way ashamed of my edits; I am not attempting to suppress information in Streisand-like manner. I want 74.192.84.101 to stop the battleground bullshit. It's obviously not raw data which is battleground, but his own presumptuous categorizing of users into opposing factions. vzaak17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Normal services, such as they are, have been resumed. :-) Good to hear. But I'm not sure you are up to my verbosity in prose, and the incredible volume of vzaak's edits to mainspace. Are you wanting to help vzaak and myself resolve this? Or would you rather pass the wikiBuck to some other mutually-agreeable admin? I don't think either of us will mind, if you do, although of course I can only speak for myself. Given the tude on display above from vzaak (and the accusation that *they* have no tude it is *74* who has the tude here), there is effectively zero possibility that the disagreement about who is causing the WP:BATTLEGROUND can be resolved, without the would-be-mediator delving into the last six months of the Sheldrake talkpage... which has been a pretty steady kilo-edit-per-month. Not to mention the off-wiki canvassing to which vzaak alludes; that *does* absolutely exist. Please leave me a talkback, whichever way you decide we ought deal with this. Thanks as always for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
[Alarmed, /me hurls the buck away as if it was on fire.] Sorry. It's not the tudes, it's the thought of six months of the Sheldrake talkpage plus the thought of dipping even a toe in the offsite paranormal forums. I won't refer you to Requests for mediation; when did that last help anybody? I'm sure the listed RfM mediators do their best and are highly competent, but the bureaucratic way it's set up, together with plenty of input from the incompetent/the agenda-pushers seems to have mired it completely. So you need to find an experienced editor (I don't see why it would need to be an admin) that you can agree on, who is prepared to spend a lot of time… Hmm. How unpromising it sounds. Look, I think the most hopeful thing, since you're both good-faith editors, might be if you tried to discuss this one-on-one, with painstaking politeness and readiness to trust each other and without the distracting shouts from the less… hmmm… I won't finish that sentence. What a very un-Wiki suggestion, yes. You could, either of you, create a dedicated page in your userpage to talk on, or of course use a chat client or e-mail. I could suggest users… but the ones that immediately come to mind are so busy IRL that I hesitate to name anybody. The dedicated userpage thing has only been used once that I'm aware of, and man, was that ever a disaster.[6] Your chances are probably better. Anyway, I'll just throw one person to the lions here, a highly experienced and fair non-admin, User:RexxS. He has no interest in the subject that I'm aware of, but I'm starting to think that might be an advantage. Bishonen | talk20:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC).
Heh heh. :-) Yeah. Worth noting, the relevant offsite places are not "paranormal forums", they are the Randi forums, and trolls thereof, who as of December have their own badsite particularly attacking wikipedians with usernames that start with the letter between W and U (aka the Streisand effect is moot). And I can easily summarize the six months of stuff. But that said, you didn't even make it through my summary of the edit-counts of the six months, let alone a hypothetical summary of the content-disputes. No problemo of course, WP:REQUIRED applies as always, but I kinda thought your buck-on-fire response might be forthcoming. <grin> Your suggestion that we work it out one-on-one is of course a good one, but you'll have to phrase it as an order, if you want it to happen. An order to vzaak, that is...
Vzaak claims to never read my messages, but of course, simultaneously deletes my messages, from my talkpage, found via my AN/I message, which they diff'd. In any case, vzaak *has* been doing their level best to nevah.evah to reply to me. Which is fair enough; I rub them the wrong way, and when that became clear, I stopped posting to their talkpage. Voluntary is better, if it serves pillar four, and doesn't mess with the other pillars. What we need here, is a person willing to be the conduit, methinks. *I* already know what has happened in the last six months, and I've already read the main off-site badpage. Ditto for vzaak. But since vzaak won't listen to me, but vzaak *will* listen to authoritah, we need to find somebody that *I* trust, that *vzaak* trusts, and that is willing to listen to both sides (which will include my verbosity) and help us find a mutually-agreeable reasonable way forward.
Vzaak is spreading out from Rupert Sheldrake,[7] which is good, but following the same take-no-prisoners whilst staying just-short-of-war editing approach. Currently, to BDPs who were co-authors of Sheldrake, and to filing SPIs against former editors (from before vzaak even got here) that weren't anti-sheldrake-enough, plus bringing jps aka QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV fka ScienceApologist along with them to help. Furthermore, rewriting WP:EW and WP:NPOV and the eponymous Wikipedia. Vzaak is absolutely a big asset to wikipedia, and so is jps; much like Dougweller and Sitush, vzaak and jps both are willing to do the hard work that not many people are willing to do (me included). But I want vzaak to do that good work without royally redacted redacted pillar two, and ideally without standing by while anybody redacted redacted pillar four. Vzaak is personally always verrry civil... but vzaak's methods attract others. Thus, good-faith editors are getting driven away. WP:ITBOTHERSME applies.
Anyways, the brass tacks are like this: whoever is the mediator needs to be an admin-or-equivalent. They need to have personally-involved familiarity with FTN and/or AE. I would suggest somebody like Paul Barlow, Guy Macon, or Georgewilliamherbert. I also was recently impressed with the mediation-skills of HiDrNick. But before we ping any of those folks, we can let RexxS see if they feel like helping. As the old saying goes, the first christians always get the best lions, you know. :-) But looking at Rexx's last 500 edits, there is no mention of "fringe" in there at all (and noticeboard only once), so my guess would be vzaak prolly won't accept. Still, 15k edits and a templateeditor is pretty impressive, and I like that Rexx likes PumpkinSky, and especially like that Rexx wants to retain editors. My main question is how Rexx feels about WP:SPOV===WP:NPOV, and along the same lines, whether BBC and NYT are invariably WP:RS. 666 words.. uhhhh, is that bad? Nevermind, I know the answer to that one. Non-rhetorically, are you comfy with doing "interviews" of likely christian-to-the-lions-types here on your talkpage, or do you want me to head elsewhere for that phase? Up to you, and your alter egos, plus maybe your talkstalks. Thanks for the help, apologies for the length. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Relations are that bad? Doesn't sound like a third party could do much good, in that case. I withdraw my suggestion of asking RexxS, I wouldn't want him to waste his time. Quite frankly, I don't much like the sound of "vzaak won't listen to me, but vzaak *will* listen to authoritah". You're mistaken in thinking the third party would have, or be, "authoritah" in mediating between you. They wouldn't, whether they're admin or not. (BTW, I dunno about equivalences, but neither Paul nor Guy are admins, not that it matters.) So, is it really a conduit you're asking for, or for somebody to upbraid Vzaak and make him listen to you? If it's, even subconsciously, the latter, it's not going to happen, not with me nor any other mediator. My best advice for you is to take to heart the fact that there's only one person involved here whose approach you can change. Sorry if I sound like I think I'm your mom. And indeed resentment and mutual suspicion may have gone too far for the fences to be mended. (P.S., George is of a more optimistic disposition than me and possibly crazy enough to take this on. Please don't wear him to shreds if he does.)Bishonen | talk18:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC).
It is not that relations are that bad; it is that there *are* no direct relations, because there are no direct comm-channels. On the names-question, Paul Barlow and Guy Macon are "admins" at FTN even if not at wikipedia; they are well-respected there. Georgewilliamherbert is both, and I may try to sound him out, without wearing him out. :-) As for you sounding like my mom, if you had the stomach for TLDR, then you would be a fine choice for that task. As Obama says, let me be clear: I don't care if vzaak listens to *me* as long as they listen to somebody who understands pillar two. I neither wish for nor care for vzaak being "upbraided" at all, that is pointless, but I do very seriously want behavior of all editors to follow the five pillars, and I don't think vzaak understands pillar two (or *I* don't understand pillar two). Preventative, not punitive. Since I've been here longer, my running assumption is that my understanding of pillar two is actually correct, more on this in my response to Rexx, and vzaak's understanding (such as they'll reveal) of pillar two is flawed.
As for my guess that an admin being the mediator is needed, that is just a guess, based on what little I can grok, but I don't think a random IP off the street can mediate here, as you imply should be possible. Vzaak does explicitly think that anons have no contributions to make at article-talkpages, if mainspace is semi-prot. Vzaak did explicitly seek to get the article-talkpage under semi-prot. And of course, vzaak says explicitly they won't read my comments (as too verbose). So yes, I'm asking for a conduit, to help me get an understanding of what vzaak thinks NPOV actually is, and to help me communicate what I think NPOV is to vzaak. Along the way, we both would learn what the moderator thought of NPOV. At that point, once we have an understanding (aka a basis for relations), then I expect that either myself, or vzaak, or perhaps both of us, can follow your advice, and "be the one person" who changes their own approach. Does this make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, alluring as the prospect of reading 6,000 Sheldrake talkpage contributions is, I suspect I wouldn't be the impartial arbiter you're looking for. I avoid fringe topics because I realised some time ago the folly of arguing with true believers™. You'll see that I've been derailed from content contribution during the last half-year through spending time on data-related pursuits. Nevertheless, I'm often found working on medicine-related topics, so my ideal of "proper sourcing" is to be found in WP:MEDRS and I generally don't find BBC or NYT to be particularly useful when trying to determine the veracity of scientific claims. SPOV is an interesting essay but isn't the whole picture by a long chalk, as NPOV is a slippery concept and really requires an open mind and a lot of study of the best sources to ensure that editors don't bring their prejudices to the table in any given article. So there you have it. I don't know whose side I'd be on, but no doubt I'd be accused on being on one side or the other. I remain of the opinion that the only people who can actually sort out these sort of disputes are the parties themselves; and that requires a desire on both sides to find a compromise. How one might encourage that desire is a problem that has taxed greater minds than mine (and the solution has escaped Wikipedia entirely). Here's one suggestion for you though: read through WP:CGTW and make a brief post to tell us how many of those 22 propositions you agree with. It will give us a better idea of the chances of finding an outcome you could live with. --RexxS (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Rexx, thanks for the reply, it's appreciated. I'll give my MastCell response, then wait to see if you respond.
I like the CGTW enough that I stole it. meta:User_talk:74.192.84.101 In haiku form even! That said, I don't actually agree with much of it, in the sense that, I think wikipedia *ought* to work thataway. So although you ask me to say which of the 22 propositions I agree with, I'm actually first gonna say which I think are true of wikipedia in the now. In that sense, I agree with all of them, although 22 is wrong when taken literally (there are new things). The ones that I would keep long-term are #11, #13, #14, #16, #21 (or at least... keep the bulk of them). I think we're stuck with #2 and #10 whether we like it or not; mitigation is the key.
The ones I think need overturning are #3 and #4; I have no problem with productive SPAs... we just need an edit-environment that channels their dedication into productive streams... and we *need* to stop driving away experts. #8 also severely annoys me; uneven enforcement of #15 is the devil in the details. I'm neutral on Jimbo-talk; I use it, and find it a worthwhile place, kind of like Mos Eisley. I'm also neutral on #12, since I've never seen it. #18/#20 are partly true and partly false. #17 in my experience is only true about a third of the time: beginning editors complain of bias because in a page with 500 unsourced sentences, only *their* just-added factoid is snark-tagged by the officious patroller. Similarly, new articles which fail to exceed written policy are declined... when mainspace is *full* of much worse articles... inherently unfair. Finally, there *is* some systemic bias in WP:RS, and our reliance on WP:RS inherently makes wikiNotability biased. But the other third is exactly as MastCell says. Hope this is brief enough, but not too brief to be understandable. TFIW. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Ungreenboxen'd from 1275 words to 350. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Brief.. ? It's wordy, loquacious, prolix, tedious, pleonastic and verbose, have you been taking Bishzilla's advice? Please don't overwhelm my page with essays or 18th-century novels, and please notice the way posts like that kill conversation. (Have you noticed?) I, for instance, won't attempt to respond, and I don't see anybody else looking eager to, either. I wish I could remember who said "I could have made that a lot shorter if I'd had more time." Is that your problem? Inserting collapse boxes doesn't help. I hereby ban collapse boxes from this page. Collapse boxes inside a person's own posts are not allowed. If it looks too long without them, well, then it fucking is too long. Condense, don't collapse. Bishonen | talk23:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC).
Pascal quoth the quote you seek. And no, it's not time-pressure halting condensing; writing in advance, the answers to not-yet-asked-questions, is an occupational hazard. Condensing: noticed, but this isn't a conversation with RexxS (unfortunately since they seem nice). It *is* a goal-oriented seeking of a mediator, willing and able to pick up the flaming buck. That means, any such person positively has to be able to handle verbosity, given my own Clarissa-capacity and the count of vzaak's mainspace contribs. I've met folks around the 'pedia that can handle verbosity, in brief doses at least, but the ones I know are either 1) not the mediator types, or 2) not FTN types. Hope this makes sense, despite the watery-condensation. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not interact with 74.192.84.101, and I have no plans of doing so. Applications for mediators will be politely refused. In addition to the disruptive/uncivil behavior I described at the outset of this thread, this user continues to wrongly cast aspersions toward me. One example (among others) from this thread alone is the suggestion that I am filing SPIs against editors that "weren't anti-sheldrake-enough".
In fact I've filed SPIs against one sockpuppeteer who is a menace to WP. All these users are him: [8][9][10][11][12], and goodness knows what else will be found. He is responsible for the permanent semi-protection of Rupert Sheldrake and Terence McKenna. He wars to get literally crazy material into WP, e.g., "The redshiftedness of the Mongoloids and the blueshiftedness of the Jews imply that they are the broad Epimethean and narrow Promethean parts of the same funnel-shaped gravity well"[13]. Anti-Semitism is a theme. Some of the vandalism has remained for years.
74.192.84.101's massive walls of text follow me around from page to page, which is a disconcerting experience. I would like all of the aforementioned behaviors to stop, otherwise I will ask for an interaction ban. vzaak09:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Vzaak, if you want to claim you don't interact with me, then you'll have to stop reverting me on my own talkpage, then complaining about me to Bishzilla. (I'm happy for you to complain to Bish, and if they agree with your complaint, then *they* can talk to me.) Furthermore, your edits to Rupert Sheldrake, Terrence McKenna, WP:EW, WP:FTN, and the arbcom page relating to the new discretionary sanctions are all 100% derived from your initial editing experience: the Rupert Sheldrake page. You met me on the first page you made edits to in July, and you've stuck with the subject. I've gotten involved with the subject-matter more recently, in late October, but am unhappy with the editing behavior related thereto, which means I've also stuck to the subject. You cannot say I'm following you, when you don't go anywhere new. WP:FTN is a public noticeboard; do you also worry that jps is following you? Editors can review what other editors do; that is wikipedia.
Specifically, you are free (encouraged!) to keep working on 8i347g8gl and socks from Russia, and thanks much for doing that tedious business. Similarly, your work on the other major sock from Los Angeles is appreciated; those LAX socks *are* different from the one in SaintPete though, except for a shared interest in editing Sheldrake during 2013 (mainspace-only and talkpage-only respectively methinks). In any case, you are neither WP:REQUIRED to be my BFF, nor even to listen to a mediator. Calling me names and attempting to semi-prot-ban (and now i-ban) me from working where you work, though, is not going to achieve anything for either of us. The page already went to arbcom once, and was declined without solving the problem. More importantly, the definition of pillar two is more fundamentally crucial than any one page, since disagreements about the meaning of the pillars will invariably spread to other areas of wikipedia, if not worked out. NPOV && RS is the core of the content-dispute here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
subpage example
p.s. Have heard of your block, back when kittehs on treadmills kept the one wikipedia webserver powered up, which made you the InfamousWikiCriminal you are today. :-) But had not seen the subpage you linked to. For what it is worth, Jimbo's block was WP:POINTy and arguably punitive. But your calling the other guy a bad name was not helpful either. Even if they were bad, how does pointing it out explicitly help anything. <shrug> The subpage itself, methinks the key difference is, you were talking wikiCulture ("policy is what we do") and he was talking written policy ("do you think we should change policy"). I agree with Jimbo about the editing-environment driving away good-faith contributors in which I fully include you... I think the same thing still exists, or at least, if not the same thing as in 2009, at least an editing-environment which drives people away. I'd like to fix that.
Unfortunately, since 2009 — five years! — times have not changed much. I saw a kindergarten time-out block, which went to arbcom, and was upheld instantly (as a perfectly fine block). I also saw a desysop, again at arbcom, and somewhat deja vu, primarily for an admin saying "go fuck yourself" to another username. Slight, but methinks very likely crucial difference: the *former* admin said that to *another* admin.
Anyways, I got involved with the Sheldrake talkpage, because I think our wikiCulture (what we do in practice) needs fixing, it is not WP:NICE enough, it is a caste-system and now-officially-a-bureaucracy (the former is de facto but the latter just recently passed arbcom by one voter... WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY seems to have slipped their minds!). We have been bleeding editors since 2007, partly because of byzantine bureaucracy-laden policy-growth, but methinks mostly because people enjoy deleting and snark (fully supported by wiki-tools), more than they enjoy inserting and nice (not enough wiki-tools). Vzaak and I disagree about the meaning of WP:NPOV, as far as I can tell, given their silence since late October... and maybe about the value of driving people away. But with any luck, we only need to get the first key policy-slash-wikiCulture interpretation ironed out, and the rest of the content-dispute may just fall into place. Hope springs eternal! Anyhoo, although I cannot speak for what type of radioactive substance transformed the Bishzilla into her terrifying form, *I* think you're a perfectly WP:NICE *and* just plain old nice editor, and I thank you for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yohio
Did not notice it until now but user Kiruning has been at it again changing most of the Yohio article. Again mentioning the Big in Japan claim etc. Should we just revert most of the edits or? Kiruning also voices his opinion about you on Yohios talk page from the same day he did the edits, apparently "You seem obviously unfit to be an administrator". I dont agree ;).--BabbaQ (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I made the decision to revert the users edits back to the neutral version. I also gave the user a notice of this. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, Babba, you already knew I'm slow (only one of the many ways I'm unfit to be an administrator), but I've finally posted on Talk:Yohio, and for good measure scrambled the article itself like an egg. Please check it out. Bishonen | talk22:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC).
Tis true. (Your unfitness.) There's also that whole "putting people in front of wiki-rules" and "maintaing a sense of perspective (and humor)." How did you pass an Rfa? NE Ent02:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's get the facts straight, Bishzilla passed the RfA in 2007 as it was felt that killing with radioactive breath and a penchant for destroying entire cities would be help at Arbcom Enforcement. Since then, Sandstein has replaced 'Zilla in performing those duties, so 'Shonen took over 'Zilla's unused tools. --RexxS (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
:-D RexxS, you're a very wicked man. Huntster, what you say is true in a sense — Zilla taught me my place (=in her pocket) — but it's a mere canard (which she puts about already in her 2007 RFA, I see!) that I'm afraid of her. Not at all. My natural authority brings her effortlessly to heel. When I look sternly at her, she cowers. No, if I've become less of a horrible person of late years it's because some of my evil nature has been taken over by you-know-who. Bishonen | talk18:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) I read the Bishzilla RfA and it seems like I missed out on all the fun. I had an account back then, but no time to spend here, and now that I have time to spend here most, if not all, of the good-spirited fun seems to have gone... Thomas.Wtalk to me18:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Bish, I'm not sure if this is something you'd know or not (I have trouble remembering who's what when it comes to things like this), but would you have any insight into this issue? I don't know the first thing about it, so if you do, a quick look to say that it's reasonable would be nice. Thanks! Writ Keeper⚇♔19:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I just needed to make sure they weren't both the same… my Norwegian geography isn't up to much. All those mountains! But one Fløyfjellet near Bergen and one on an island in Lofoten does sound quite reliably not the same, or even close. It's perfect with the titles and the redirects, as far as I can tell. Bishonen | talk19:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC).
Well, given that my knowledge of Norwegian geography is limited to "it's a country in Europe that's further north than some", that's still better than I can do. I took it on faith and went ahead with the request, as you saw. Thanks (again). Writ Keeper⚇♔20:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, the joys of being a rouge admin. Do you remember them? Actually, I looked at the RFAR page and clicked on a few links and I couldn't stand it. I kept imagining all the vulnerable newbie arbs resigning in horror. Bishonen | talk19:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC).
Really? I don't even like to think what the top five reasons might be, then — unspeakable things taking place on the sekrit mailing list, presumably. I'm sure at least Bishzilla, a sensitive soul, would have run a mile from such a terrifying first experience of arbitration. (Remember she was a candidate for arbcom some years ago?) Bishonen | talk21:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC).
The only one of the reasons I should discuss here is that the list is overly full of bad puns. I would complain more loudly, but most of them are mine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
None. Isn't there some fairly well-known essay about how there's specifically no justice on Wikipedia and you shouldn't expect it because it would interfere with building an encyclopedia? [/me tries the obvious shortcut. No good, it just leads to "Righting Great Wrongs", that's not it.] Something like that? I'm sorry you didn't get in, George. Don't blame me, all my socks supported you. Perhaps Brad has some file with all his puns that he can share with you? So that you can still enjoy that part of arbitration. Bishonen | talk22:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC).
(ec) sorry, I couldn't vote for you, George, after you answered my question with "The edit is Andy Mabbett putting an infobox in a musician's biographical article." - That may have been what most arbs on the infoboxes case saw (if they looked), but it's just not so, and 16 other candidates saw it without help, - I voted for nine of those, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I strongly recommend rephrasing as a pun; I have a little experience trying to write poetry here and it's harder than it looks. Brad is pretty good at both puns and poetry, but as I recall he does haiku or limericks or something; not hard stuff like iambic pentameter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I am still too sad, tired, not good enough in English ... to do a pun or Haiku or even attack. I supported Darwinbish for admin, will that do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I didn't think that you might be concerned about writing puns or poetry in English due to language issues. Your use of english in editing is fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) Don't sell yourself short, Gerda; anyone can do a haiku:
(outdent) I've perpetrated a haiku, a limerick, a double-dactyl, a parody, a sonnet, and a couple of overlong monstrosities otherwise unclassified. But it's been awhile, and I may be out of practice. These days, I might come up with nothing better than There once was a sock from Nantucket...Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
(I really wish I'd thought of this earlier) Thanks for the defense, Brad. Criticizing the syllables in my haiku is just not on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, AGK. I suppose that'll have to console me for the lack of real drama following on what I flattered myself was a controversial block. Disappointing! But I welcome this opportunity to thank everybody for the very beautiful celebratory verses and spirited raillery above. (P.S. I though the standard term was "the Arbitrary Committee"?) Bishonen | talk18:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC).
(I made a pun haiku poem, again late at my night but it's too serious for this thread, I moved it up to its title, Clay.) ::--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. They're most often used on an empty page, and so end up on top. Insofar as it's a principle, it's in tension with the principle that you shouldn't top-post and thereby sideline the message that was there. Obviously the IP was an established user logging out in order to disrupt (there was a reason I didn't welcome them), but if you want to welcome them as emphatically as possible, feel free to move your welcome template back to the top. I admit I don't understand why you'd post the templated "Signature" message above my post. Bishonen | talk12:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, To be honest with you, I have not followed nor did I further investigate accounts misuse by Andajara. I suspect they will be back, but their pattern of behavior and POV-pushing should be fairly obvious to anyone.
Cheers, Λuα(Operibus anteire)14:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Aha, right, thanks. Those do look like likely precursors to Tollsnanak900 and Andajara120000. And the "forgot my password" theme again… It worries me, quite frankly, that Andaraja hasn't appealed the block. I won't be watching the articles — they're so foreign to my interests and competence, and also I want to remain uninvolved — but if anybody should see a suspicious "new" user editing them, I'll be happy to investigate. Bishonen | talk19:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC).
You blocked User:Jayadevp13 at his request on 4.January 2013. Another account User:Wikiuser13 has started making edits identical on Aadhaar identical to Jayadevp13's in collaboration with previously blocked user User:Ravishyam Bangalore who has recently come out of an indefinite block. The article itself is a "highly POV topic" per Toddst1 and Ravishyam_Bangalore is a self admitted SPA and crank for this topic.
Jayadevp13 and Wikiuser13 seem to have similar editing patterns [15]
Jayadevp13 tag-teamed for Ravishyam_Bangalore here after the latter was indeffed [16] and [17]. Now Wikiuser13 is doing the exact same thing here here as an extension of Ravishyam_Bangalore [18] and [19].
The 2 editors have extensively coordinated, almost definitely off-wiki too, see this discussion [20] and this IP's email notification (same ISP and Indian state as Jayadevp's) and also this [21].
As far as the IP addresses are concerned, Jayadevp13 edited from 117.199.176.190 which resolves to either Uttar Pradesh [22] or Bangalore [23] from where Ravishyam_Bangalore also edits [24] see [25]. Unfitlouie (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, gee, evading a self-requested block? I hope not; I hope he's focusing on school, per his request to be blocked. This conversation is admittedly somewhat suggestive of off-wiki coordination. On the other hand, Wikiuser13 started editing back in April 2013, long before I blocked Jayadevp13. Do you really think he's been socking since April? I find that hard to believe. It's possible, of course, and there may still be disruptive editing involved on the part of Wikuser. Anyway, if you'd like to pursue this, could you please approach another admin, or file an SPI report? I appreciate your efforts and your report, but I'd rather not deal with this.
I'm giving it one final try on the article talk page to get a fix on the sockmaster before taking it to a notice board. Now another IP from Uttar Pradesh has started editing the article once I put Wikiuser13 on the mat. But thanks for your insight. Won't bother you with this. Unfitlouie (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Haha. You should hear my mother (try to) tell the story. The hot weather is important. Have you got a pic of melted butter? Bishonen | talk19:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC).
Aha, well I wasn't thinking of a collapsible pram, especially not such a handsome vehicle, Thomas, but of a pram actually in the course of collapsing. On account of being old and decrepit. Then it would suit the girlscouts-with-pram-full-of-butter story (destined never to be told). Even better if it was full of melting butter. Google Images's got nothing. Strange. Bishonen | talk16:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC).
Ent, I think most Scandinavians should be able to tell you that I was not joking. Of course, if all you need is a Pripps Bla every know and then you have no need for an alcohol bath on a ferry, and if you like margarine...well, if you like margarine I don't want to talk to you. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that the article's author intends it as an attack page. Most likely, they're a fan who doesn't see anything wrong with, for lack of a better phrase, celebrity gossip. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I can think of better phrases quite easily. But I have no notion that he meant or means any harm to the subject. (I've read his userpage with interest, and so I say "he".) I'm not concerned with his intentions, but only with their result; with the page, not with what was in the creator's mind. Incidentally, of course you've noticed that this is the page I referred to as an attack page, not this. Bishonen | talk22:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC).
See, this is why wikipedia sucks. Someone is more concerned that you might have assumed the bad faith of some random user whose real name no one has to know - than that that user wrote a disparaging article about a real person, that could harm a real reputation. Stuff the real world, you didn't play the game rules you evil bitch.--Scott Mac22:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
OK... hum... I figgered I had to revdel BMK's blanking of the offensive material too, or the blanking diff would still display it. But maybe not, because my action also made his next edit invisible. Not intended. How do you undo this stuff...? NE Ent, don't you know better than to ask somebody stupid, what's the matter with you? Bishonen | talk12:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC).
What's the matter with you, editing Jimbo's talk page?? You were the first admin I saw currently online... someone had just referenced the page on ANI so I was in a very un Ent like hasty frame of mind. NE Ent12:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Very well, you're forgiven. Unexpectedly, it turns out I'm a brilliant revdeleter. I'd never "edit" Jimbo's talkpage, please don't talk like that. It's just that my finger itched when I saw Scott M had accidentally crashed the section header. Bishonen | talk13:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC).
Block requested
All right, I had an opportunity to respond on AE. Right now, I have absolutely no intention to continue editing here. Let's start from a two-month block. So, could you please block my account for two months right now? Please annotate this block as a block made by my own request. I read your conditions. Thanks a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
All right, I'll block you, but not "right now". I always insist on a certain quarantine time, and considering the events of yesterday, I can't in conscience make it less that 24 hours. So, in 24 hours from your post above I'll place the block, and please let me know if you change your mind before then. Afterwards, it'll be too late, per the conditions you've read. Bishonen | talk13:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC).
OK, noted. Yes, I am frustrated.
First, such AE decision goes against our rules: a couple of admins can not unilaterally decide (and use this as a reason for sanctions!) that a Russian book was "fringe", even though this is merely a book (a secondary source) that describes an approach to teaching SRT, which is not new. The book was published by a major publishing organization in the Soviet Union after review by Vitaly Ginzburg and other physicists from Lebedev Physical Institute... It would be fine to discuss a source on WP:RS (as I suggested to Urgent01) and decide if this is a reliable source. But use my editing as a reason for immediate sanctions?!
Second, I am also offended by the fact that such sanction would label me as a COI editor, although whole my editing record (on a huge number of different subjects!) shows me as a dedicated volunteer, and it was me who recently argued on AN against paid editing. I think this is also unjust, because that was my first lapse of judgement which could be interpreted as a COI problem.
Finally, this is all on the top of my personal/privacy issues I am not going to debate.
If such sanction is enacted, and if I will be back after this block, I will file a clarification request about the "Pseudoscience" case to Arbcom. Sure thing, they did not mean people be sanctioned based on the obviously incorrect interpretation of a single source as "fringe". But this is big if. I hope two months will be sufficient to leave this place forever. Please do not take this an offense. I still believe that WP is an important information resource, but I just do not want to contribute any longer, given the circumstances. So, yes, please block me for two months in 24 hours. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I will. I'm sorry you've come to such a conclusion. It's much too common that people leave the project in bitterness. :-( Good luck in all your endeavors. Bishonen | talk18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC).
I don't really know MVBW, but as another admin who does self-requested blocks, I saw this and wanted to chime in. WP is pretty good at grinding people down so that all that's left is the bitter residue. Speaking partially from experience, I think you'll find a 2 month complete break a good duration. One of 2 things is likely to happen. Either you'll come back with a better perspective, and enjoy editing again, or it won't appeal to you anymore, and it's enough time to break the "addiction", and you'll find it relatively easy to stay away when the block expires. In either case, a better solution than continuing to do something you hate but can't quite break away from. One bit of advice, FWIW: if possible, avoid the temptation to check in from time to time to see how things are going, whether you're blocked or not. Good luck with everything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! One more request. If a notice of AE sanctions (and especially those which are currently debated) will be posted on my talk page, could you please remove this notice to keep my talk page clean? I will see it anyway. Ideally, I would like my userpage and talk page be protected during this block. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I can fullprotect your userpage and semi your talk, if you like. The talkpage needs to be accessible for people to put important (or whatever) messages on. But I'll keep an eye on it, and remove stuff I think you won't want displayed in public. It might be a good idea for you to put a note right here, or else commented-out (=visible only in edit mode) on your own talk, stating that Bishonen has your permission to manage your talkpage during your block. Bishonen | talk20:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC).
Yeah. I sympathise, but at the same time this block is being more trouble than I bargained for. Maybe I should remove myself from the category, at least for a while. Sigh. Bishonen | talk14:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC).
Unblock on hold
Hello, Bishonen. I have been looking into the unblock request at User talk:50.0.121.102, regarding the Russian book and User:My very best wishes. What I see at the IP address is a consistent editing style, from a static IP address, suggesting one person editing. From User:My very best wishes I see another consistent editing style, and with occasional oddities in English (not surprisingly, since everything suggests that he/she is not a native English speaker), which do not occur in the IP editing. Indeed, in the IP edits I see a relaxed, sometimes colloquial use of English quite different from the account's writing. The IP editor also got the account's name wrong (miscapitalized) which could, of course, be a bluff, but the most obvious explanation is that he/she was not well acquainted with the name. There are also various other details such as this edit, contrasting with the clear impression that My very best wishes has a high opinion of the book. Apart from posting about this book, I don't see any significant overlap in the editing between the account and the IP address. Everything looks to me much less like block evasion than like an editor who saw the controversy over the book, got interested, searched further, found that there was evidence suggesting that the book might be a more reliable source than had been realised, and decided to raise the issue.
I am pretty close to unblocking, but I have put the unblock on hold, to allow you a chance to comment before I make a definite decision. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, James, I don't object. Thanks for looking into it. I suspect off-site collusion, but these things are hard to prove. I agree with unblocking the IP. Bishonen | talk13:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC).
Yes, off-site collusion is certainly a possibility, but I don't see any hard evidence for it, so I don't think we can really assume that there is any. Anyway, thanks for answering my query. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. No I haven't had any off-site contact with MVBW and hadn't had any contact with him at all until this incident. It's a pretty odd theory. If MVBW wanted to keep editing he wouldn't have had to use such subterfuges. He could have just refrained from asking to be blocked in the first place. The level of ABF that I see toward him is appalling. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand. It never occurred to me at any time that My very best wishes would have requested a block as some kind of "subterfuge". Of course he didn't. He wanted/needed to be blocked. But he might change his mind afterwards. Considering all his changes of mind in the days before I placed the block (most of them removed, but see the history of this page), it seemed far from unlikely. He's a wikiholic. He's not in bad faith. Bishonen | talk21:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC).
Block me
Bishonen, I have read your requirements for self-requested blocks, and I think I meet them. Can you block me for 24 hours, starting as soon as possible? Jinkinsontalk to me01:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Just 24 hours? All right, I can do that without asking you why or insisting on any waiting period. Done. Have a good whatever you'll be doing! Bishonen | talk09:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC).
Hi there Ms. Shonen - and yes ma'am, I completely agree. It served a purpose in the past; but that day, like the essay, has passed into history. Hope all is well with you and yours. Hugs, — ChedZILLA03:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello there ChedZilla, I hope you and your sockmaster are in the pink. This is very strange. I don't feel obliged to reply any more, having said my say, and I hope nobody else does either. Wikipedia is supposed to be a hobby for chrissake, not medieval torture. (Not that I have any objection if people want to reply. Tastes differ.) Bishonen | talk20:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC).
Master not happy. He give up good food because new doctor say bad. Not happy about health insurance .. he say so much talk is bullshit. But he have new doctor who help him, and he doing much better. He say he never ever get upset over wikipedia again - he say real life mean more. He think too many people on internet have emotional, social, and intellectual shortcomings. Not "bad" people - but not able to sort out things on Internet ... so he kind of not care anymore. He like you and family bunches though ... Master say to say hi to NE Ent too. Master think Ent a good one. Master miss you. Me miss the great real zilla too. wish all best things. Little Gerda user always be nice too ... me like her. Good little user. — ChedZILLA02:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Bish. Would you mind taking a look at Kvenland since there, for the umpteenth time, is a new editor there (BoArnezzz) who is edit-warring to get thousands of bytes worth of fringe theories into the article (an article that is fringe enough already as it is...). I have reverted twice today, and have left messages on their talk page, but he/she seems hell-bent on getting it into the article. Thomas.Wtalk to me16:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow, Brad, never disparage your memory, that was great. The problem is obviously chronic. It looks like semiprotection hadn't yet been invented at the time of the RFAR? I think a long, long semi + quick blocks of disruptive users as they appear would be appropriate. General sanctions obviously hadn't been invented either. Should somebody apply to have sanctions instituted for related articles (groan, not me) or should I just begin a reign of terror? Mind you, I don't know anything about the topic area either. What about Yngvadottir? Let her suffer.
Checking out BoArnezzz's edits in February 2013, btw, I got to reading the history and noticed what a lot of tendentious editing there was altogether round about then. Is it any use to try to get these articles into shape, or keep them so? What do you think, Brad, considering the obscurity of the subject, the existence of zealotry about it, and the anybody-can-edit principle at the heart of the project, perhaps we should formally declare Kvenland another Indian village, and just let it fester? It's only one of many rubbish dumps on Wikipedia, after all. Sorry, but I'm having grave doubts about the usefulness of wikis these days.
Compare MastCell's Cynic's Guide, point 19: "Wikipedia's processes favor pathological obsessiveness over rationality. A reasonable person will, at some point, decide that they have better things to do than argue with a pathological obsessive. [See also the "re: it's useless now" thread above.] Wikipedia's content reflects this reality, most acutely in its coverage of topics favored by pathological obsessives." Bishonen | talk20:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC).
This lies just outside the area of my competency in history, so I haven't watchlisted it. And I was unaware of the ancient wiki-history, but it doesn't surprise me too much. I got a quick reminder of the national-ethnic tensions concerning Finnish-Sami topics in the mess over King of Kvenland; note that the edits I made to Kvenland were basically making the same fix to the material on Charles IX of Sweden. However I did rewrite Sitones, where the edit history shows conflict with an IP editor who was pushing a contentious theory derived from Kalevi Wiik (I've debated adding refs to that article; I found some condemnations in JSTOR), and this culminated in an attack on my talk page that you may recall, and my successful petition to have Amanbir Singh Grewal officially banned. All of which is to say, the article doesn't look too bad to me so I think a reign of terror would be best :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Arrogant-believes, his arguments and references are best, Illogical- he cant digest logical evidence- still trying to get the biology definition in Math book: Eg; has written about khatris origin from Dashrath Sharma on Rajputs book, idiot- cant understand references and read them, revert other persons changes without any reason (arrogant) and think he is always right.
Supposing editor A appears to have violated the interaction ban with editor B. If editor B is not allowed to bring such behavior to anyone's attention on-wiki, what's the solution? E-mail? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, email an admin you trust, but such email complaints better be well-grounded. Anything speculative, frivolous or vexatious will be frowned on. Plus, I should think many other people will be keeping an eye out, at least in the immediate future while Jarndyce v Jarndyce is fresh in memory. I'd be surprised if there turns out to be much need for the three of you to complain of each other. And, not least, I'm sure none of you are going to violate the interaction ban. Bishonen | talk00:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC).
Oh, I see. Good comparison. I was never much for Dickens. In school I only read the Dickens stories they made us read, and Bleak House wasn't on the list. I typically refer to any interminable story as a megillah. [They told us that Dickens typically serialized his stories in the newspapers. Basically he was paid by the word, which explains a lot.] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You said something about posting the topic bans permanently (or "indefinitely"?) on my talk page. Would I be in violation of any interaction ban if I post the contents of those bans myself? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
What topic bans? The only ban that had consensus is the interaction ban that I posted in green letters on your page. Not sure what you mean by 'posting the contents of those bans'. The "contents" of the interaction ban are that green text. Do you mean, will you be in violation of the interaction ban if you follow my suggestion and move the green text to the top of your page..? No, of course not. If anybody objects to such a move, they'll be rankly wikilawyering, and had in any case much better RFAR me for admin abuse in "enabling" you. But don't do anything else with the green text, change it or discuss it or anything. Or post it on some other page. (Perhaps that was what you meant. Absolutely don't.) Bishonen | talk01:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC).
Don't know nothing about that, NE, I'm only the facilitor for the interaction ban. I'm not sure what instructions came with the Manning ban, but common sense suggests there's nothing to stop Bugs posting them at the top of his own page. After all, the reason for posting it would be that you're anxious to be able to remember its exact wording, right? As well as to be transparent to visitors on your page about your bans. But as I say, that's only reasonable provided you weren't told different by the body that placed the ban. And if what I say here is gamed in any way, you'll be in trouble, Bugs. The Manning ban is absolutely not for breaching experiments. Bishonen | talk03:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC).
[Too late for that. /me has already started to stick straws in her hair and stare vacantly. Burned out! Mutters: blocks… bans… violations… three little wards of court… must save 'em! Help me, mr Jarndyce!] For he on honey-dew hath fed, and drunk the milk of paradise! Bishonen | talk03:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC).
If that's a quote from Bleak House, it looks like maybe I missed out on something. Yes, I'm referring to those other topic bans also; and yes, it's to remind myself to watch out, because 2 or 3 times recently I've gone too close to the edge of a violation. Subconsciously, I've had a problem with part of one of them because it's based on a false premise. So, better safe than sorry. Also, the next time (if any) that a troll tries to make a big deal out of a topic ban, I can remind the troll that they are already displayed for all the world to see, so what point is the troll trying to make? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
[Reading Rush!] The concept of "summer capital" blows my mind. I wish we had one of those here, way up north with the 24 hour sunlight, indeed why not in Sarek (ping MastCell from below). And we could have the winter capital in southern Italy and sit in the plazas and drink latte all day. [Loses self in daydreams and twee anecdotes.] Bishonen | talk21:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC).
I take it that "Xanadu" song has nothing to do with the roller disco movie of the same name? And anyone can have a summer capital. Anyone who can afford to own more than one house, that is. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Admit it...
Look, Sarek!
... you went weak in the knees at Sarek's "cultivated macho glamour". Although considering that he's a hardcore Wikipedian whose username bespeaks a deeper-than-usual immersement in the Star Trek universe, these are obviously meanings of "cultivated", "macho", and "glamour" with which I was previously unfamiliar. MastCellTalk18:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
[Blushes. Twirls.] Aha, but did you look at the talkpage?[28] Even more analysis of my dreams and fantasies there, and of the other user's ("Many of us are "rugged and beautiful" as Bishonen has it, but we don't all hog the limelight to prove it."). The edit summaries, laid end to end, are a pocket roman épistolaire. [Shyly displays her tailfeathers. Bishzilla , not to be outdone, displays hers.] Bishonen | talk19:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC).
Per favore
Would you please be an absolute sweatheart and use you magical powers to undelete this image [29] which some fuckwit has deleted. Then secondly see if you or any of your friends know how to use the original image here File:Firenza Palazzo Pitti.jpg which helpful soul who has clearly never been there has decide to change from it's natural pink stone glowing in the sunset, to something resembling a grey mental health institution - clearly reminding them of home. Any advice greatly appreciated. Oh yes, and I had a great Christmas and skiing period, and I am now fully returned so fuckwits beware as I am tidying up some old pages! Giano 21:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The admin who deleted it WP:CSD#I8 from English Wikipedia in April 2008, Pascal.Tesson hasn't edited since May 2010, so there shouldn't be an objection there. Obviously I'd strongly recommend slapping a {{keeplocal}} tag on it at the earliest opportunity if 'Shonen can do the undeletion.
The Commons image is a tougher one to sort out. The source file is still available at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsc.06452/ and I've downloaded a high-resolution copy, so I can upload of version of that over the "colour-corrected" version, but we'll have to defend that from the zealots who have never seen the palazzo. Wish me luck. --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your faith in me, Giano sweetheart, but I've never yet managed to help you with an image, have I? Rex, the un-colour-corrected one, the way the Commons image looked before 2009, is incredibly pink — that's not the one we're going for, is it? I don't know if I can indeed do the undeletion — does that possibility go back as far as 2008? Anyway, I must run, I'll look later, most likely it'll have to be tomorrow, in fact. Bishonen | talk23:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC).
Chère, my inclination is always to defer to Giano on matters of architectural aesthetics - did you read File talk:Firenza Palazzo Pitti.jpg? The image is a color photo lithograph, and is possibly deliberately tinted - as the caption in the Palazzo Pitti suggests, or it may be an artefact of the process. Either way if that's what Giano wants, then he has it. If somebody else wants a grey version, they can always re-upload the "colour corrected" version under a different filename and folks can take their pick. --RexxS (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all, now isn't that nice pink image so much more attractive showing the pink sunkissed stone. The Medici owned many prisons, but they tended not to live in them. Thank you Risker too, I just wanted to know what the deleted image was, one can't trust these people not to delete something important - it's always best to know. Giano 10:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, RexxS could you please have a look here too [30]! Quite why Wikipedia has to dumb everything down to the level of a dust hovel in Boisse is beyond me. Giano 10:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was talking about this one, Rex, the 2006 thumbnail. Anyway, I must be getting stupider and stupider… is there still some button I need to push..? I thought it would probably all get done if I dallied, and [pleading voice] it has, hasn't it? Bishonen | talk15:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC).
Oh that is clever of you; I do wish I had a brain like yours, but then one can't have brains and beauty. No doubt you've been missing me. I have just returned from a fortnight in a health spa, in a attempt to recover from my very traumatic Christmas. Never again will I accept an invitation to Christmas in Sicily. I don't know how Giano puts up with that dreadful woman he's married to - everytime I approached with some much needed advice on child rearing or staff management she became a manic schizophrenic; by New year it was obvious to me that she was developing a drink problem; then when I informed her that I was extending my visit - she began popping pills, so obviously she's a drug addict too. When I told her she'd feel better if I redecorated the house in more relaxing colours - she just reached for the phone and ordered a taxi - I said to her running away won't help you, but avoiding any reason, she then became abusive and had her gardeners manhandle me into the taxi. Well, I call that very rude - no wonder those children are all running riot, not to mention the goats everywhere. It was such a relief to be back in my beautiful tranquil room at Champneys. Now I am now thoroughly refreshed, invigorated and raring to go. You should try Champneys Mrs Bishonen; I'm told their weight loss program is very good for those that need it. So nice to be back. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you would be sitting pretty if you had a brain like mine! Bishounen are never fat, I thought everybody knew that. [Swedish accent growing more thickly Swedish Chef-like with every word:] I tell you a Swedish joke. A woman much like your daughter-in-law said to her departing houseguests: "It was so lovely having you, welcome back soon! The new trees in our garden don't look much yet, but I hope they'll have grown to forest giants the next time you come!" Bishonen | talk20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC).
Marvellous! I now know two Swedish jokes. The other being where a man goes into a Swedish chemist's shop and asks to buy deodorant. The chemist replies "Certainly, sir. Ball or aerosol?" -- "Neither" comes the reply, "I want it for my armpits." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS2N1mBsEdM --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Bish, I was somewhat surprised at your vehemence against Alan. I've been glancing at the BLPN thread for days between grump and bus stop, and I wasn't sure if bus stop was being antisemitic or pro-jew, nor if grump was the polar opposite. I didn't like the language being used, mostly on the part of grumps "Jew tagging" so I didn't follow it too closely. In any case, I suspected someone was misbehaving, but they were off in their own private Idaho so I didn't want to interfere. My point is, it was confusing, so perhaps you should cut Alan a wee bit of slack? Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I read the ANI debate, and Alan hasn't made any proper attempt to read what Andy wrote at any point in the thread. It's clear that a dislike of AndyTheGrump is what is motivating Alansohn, and they should step back. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)08:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for coming here. TKOP, I didn't think the BLPN confusing, but I see now that it can be, perhaps especially if you don't take account of the hyphen in Jew-tagging (I notice you yourself leave out the hyphen), and I'll admit the hyphen may be a subtlety, especially for younger speakers. Jew-tagging, to me, is formed on the pattern of NPOV-tagging or civility-tagging, classic concepts in Wikipedia talkpage discourse. (For the grammar and the hyphen, see further User:Drmies in the ANI thread.) But altogether, I'm afraid I agree with Luke's impression that Alansohn isn't trying to read but merely casting his post as negatively as possible. That impression is certainly reinforced by Alansohn's characterization of this post by Andy as a 'rather lengthy rampage'. Andy's post is 123 words long… a good deal shorter than Bus stop's post that it's in response to, and about half the length of Alansohn's own post on ANI. It's not a big point, but to my mind it illustrates the way Alansohn is lobbing attacks at random. Bishonen | talk13:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC).
My name is Dries and I approve of Bishonen's invocation of Drmies's comment on the hyphen. Indeed, it may be subtle, but it's important, and I'm happy to see someone thinking carefully about grammatical aspects before insulting someone--because it was, of course, intended as an insult. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Tablet devices aren't very kind to the hypen-inclined. I rather suspected that Andy was on the "good" side of things, but he was also being intentionally inflammatory. Ok, I had my say and am done here. Thank you for your feedback. Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Self-requested blocks
Hello, Bishonen. For some time I have been considering possibly adding myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Before doing so, I thought it might help to see what a few of those already in the category think about a few matters. I should be grateful if you would give me an idea, via either talk page or email, of your ideas on the following questions.
Why do you impose a list of requirements, rather than just saying "I will block you if you ask me to"? (I am not disagreeing with you, just wanting to know your thoughts on the matter.)
In your experience, how often, if at all, do you get such requests?
Hi! I wanted to make sure that I didn't misunderstood you in the Grump proposal.
when you wrote
"If anybody feels they can summarize it better, do please feel free, because I'm not particularly confident about this four-barelled proposal"
I took that as permission to add my option 5 as allowed in WP:TALKO. Was that your intent? If not, I apologize for editing your comment without permission. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Guy. Since your addition came rather late in the proceedings, I suppose the perfect scenario would have been if you'd shown option 5 was added later, not just by a note further down, but by signing and dating your addition right in place. But that's a small point, you understood me perfectly fine. The user who removed your addition apparently didn't and doesn't, and seems surprisingly pleased with himself for screwing up the !voting in the name of principle.[31] Apparently he doesn't see any virtue in my invitation to add a signed note in the place where he'd removed the material, either. Well, these things happen, not much I can do, and he's in general a good guy. Perhaps you should re-add the option yourself, with a note? Though it's getting even later, of course. Another boatload of people have commented while option 5 wasn't there, so the issue is probably fucked up beyond repair. :-( (P.S. I wish I'd thought to propose option 5 myself, it's a good one.) Bishonen | talk01:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC).
To be fair, Bish, haven't we already learned over the last few days how bad an idea numbered options for topic bans can be? Writ Keeper⚇♔03:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
WK, do I smell a faint whiff of Bish-tagging criticism here? Be careful, whippersnapper. Moosezilla doesn't take kindly to them kinds of words. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
What would be the best way to institute a ban on the 54-subnet, Amazon-based IP-hoppers? It's clear that their sole purpose for being here is to criticize other editors. Individual blocks aren't accepted by the AIV page, and they don't do any good anyway. I'm thinking an interaction ban could be the solution. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
[Blinks.] An interaction ban on a disruptive IP-hopper? The idea that they would abide by a ban sems mad, are you quite well?optimistic, and does credit to your faith in human nature. If we could usefully block them, we would have done it already, so there are no sanctions we could give them for violating an interaction ban. You reckon this is the kind of character that would abide by an unenforcable ban out of pure good will?
No, I think the only way would be to appeal to a rangeblocker with superskills. I already tried that, on AN, and got absolutely no response.:-( (On January 20; there's no diff, as it got caught up in a revdel spree, but anyway, nobody answered.) I'll have another shot at it, e-mail a few people. Meanwhile, have you seen any more of them, besides the original 54.242.221.254, 54.224.35.46, 54.224.206.154, 54.224.53.210, 54.204.117.139, 54.196.70.85 ? Bishonen | talk23:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC).
AndyTheGrump has latched onto the term "Jew-tagger" and used it as part of derogatory personal attacks on multiple occasions for well over a year, including this edit from last January where he calls Bus stop " an obsessive Jew-tagger". The term was intended as part of a personal attack and is used as a slur. There's this June 2012 edit referring to how "the Jew-tagger in chief turns up". Of course, there's my favorite at this edit, where AndyTheGrump opines that "Bus stop is a Jew-tagging bigot. There are two types of Jew-tagging bigots in the world. The 'pro-Jewish' ones, and the 'anti-Jewish' ones. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell them apart. Wikipedia would be a lot better off if it told all of them them to fuck off elsewhere."
I am more than familiar with the use of "-tagging" as a suffix. The problem is using "Jew-" as a prefix. This article in The Forward offer's a professor's perspective on the use of "Jew" as a pejorative adjective, noting that "To 'Jew someone down,' as in bargaining, has made its derogatory way as a verb, and a 'Jew store' turns the proper noun into an offensive adjective." The article Jew (word)#Antisemitism makes it clear that "The word Jew has been used often enough in a disparaging manner by antisemites that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was frequently avoided altogether, and the term Hebrew was substituted instead (e.g. Young Men's Hebrew Association). Even today some people are wary of its use, and prefer to use "Jewish". Indeed, when used as an adjective (e.g. "Jew lawyer") or verb (e.g. "to jew someone"), the term Jew is purely pejorative." I fail to see "Jew-tagging" as a neutral term and I fail to see how you can condone AndyTheGrump's repeated use "Jew-tagging" as part of a lengthy series of provocations and personal attacks on User:Bus stop and other editors.
"Jew-tagging" is far from his only problem. AndyTheGrump's edit history shows a lengthy pattern of abusive personal attacks and a block log almost as long. There's this edit from late October where AndyTheGrump says "I will treat you as I find you - as a clueless and obnoxious little shit, with all the psychological attributes of a two-year-old. Now go run to mummy and complain about what the big man called you... ", with the helpful edit summary of "fuck this, I've had enough of this imbecile". Or go all the way back to July for an edit summary of "fuck off" on top of other personal attacks. My identifying what appears to me and several other editors to be borderline hate speech is blockable in your world, but AndyTheGrump can do nothing that is sufficiently over the line to merit yet another block for even this latest set of egregious offenses.
As seen from his block log and based on your close interactions with AndyTheGrump (see here, for one of many examples), it appears that you may well be too deeply involved with him and that it is likely that you have been blinded to his consistent pattern of vicious personal attacks in general and his use of what I and many other editors perceive to be his continued use of racist code words here. I can't go into his mind and figure out why he is using these slurs, but the weight of evidence is that the usage of "Jew-tagging" constitutes a thinly veiled religion-based attack, regardless of his unknowable internal motivation for repeating these "Jew-tagging" attacks ad nauseum.
It has been made clear to AndyTheGrump that the term "Jew-tagging" is offensive, yet he has persisted in using the term as part of a slur in his personal attacks. In the edit that brought Bus stop to ANI, with the summary of "I've had enough of this Jew-tagging troll", AndyTheGrump drops the Jew bomb not once, or twice, or only three times, but on four separate occasions, five if you count the edit summary, calling Bus stop "a complete imbecile or a clueless Jew-tagging troll", "I've called you a clueless Jew-tagging troll", "Wikipedia isn't a platform for Jew-tagging trolls" and "your Jew-tagging agenda is contrary to the objectives of Wikipedia." In your mind that's OK. In addition to the sources listed above, Sol Steinmetz in Dictionary of Jewish Usage: A Guide to the Use of Jewish Terms defines the usage as "derogatory" and in American Usage and Style, the Consensus, Roy H. Copperud makes clear that using "Jew as an adjective is now derogatory". No one who has any understanding of the use of the word "Jew" as a slur can approve of this usage of "Jew-tagging", but you support AndyTheGrump here.
As he himself indicates in this edit and this one too, AndyTheGrump believes that other people should be blocked for bigotry. It's well past the time that the community push away those editors who have been enabling him and impose the lengthy ban needed for AndyTheGrump and his repeated use of what are widely recognized as religious-based slurs as part of his personal attacks. I look forward to your thoughts on the ample published sources showing that the use of "Jew" as an adjective in his manufactured term "Jew-tagging" is derogatory and your explanation for defending AndyTheGrump and his repeated use of "Jew-tagging" as part of his lengthy series of personal attacks. Alansohn (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
User:AndyTheGrump, seriously? I've offered two published books, a newspaper article written by a professor and Wikipedia's own definition as evidence of your usage as pejorative / offensive, and you offer some blogger's self-published post. You've had no problem stating without qualification that "Bus stop is a Jew-tagging bigot", a member of one of the "two types of Jew-tagging bigots in the world" as you define it, but why is it so hard to see that the reliable and verifiable sources demonstrate that your usage is patently offensive, putting yourself in one of your two well-defined classes. I fail to see how your calling someone various versions of being a "Jew-tagging troll" on about a dozen different occasions is not using the term as a pejorative, and I'd love to hear your very strong defense of your persistent attacks above an offhand mention in a blog, one that postdates your usages. Alansohn (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Your quotes from Forward and Copperud etc are irrelevant, Alansohn, they simply don't apply. It makes no difference how reliable and "verifiable" your professors and published books are, since your application of their grammatical analysis is… well, it's faulty. To put it simply, "Jew" in "Jew-tagging" is neither an adjective nor a verb, it's a noun. To refer to the use of "Jew-tagging" as "dropping the Jew-bomb", as you do, is either bad faith wikilawyering, or WP:CIR incompetence on your part. I don't know you well enough to be sure which. I had a feeling you might try to play the "involved" card, and I'll address that point when I'm more at leisure. Andy, please butt out here. I don't want the two of you arguing here, or, preferably, anywhere. Alansohn, I presume Andy was addressing me in his brief post, with this being my page and all, so please don't start another Argument Clinic with him. Bishonen | talk21:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC).
Alansohn, you have offered no evidence whatsoever that my use of the term 'Jew-tagging' in the context I did is in any way antisemitic, racist, or antireligious. Certainly the word 'troll' is insulting. It was intended to be. The phrase you object to was descriptive - Bus Stop is obsessed with applying the term 'Jewish' to anyone he can, often on the flimsiest of evidence. He is also obsessed with describing people as Jewish by religion on even flimsier evidence - even, in Ed Miliband's case, when the person in question has expressly stated that he is an atheist. That is insulting, both to Miliband, and to the readers of Wikipedia, who expect us to report the facts as verified from reliable sources, rather than presenting falsehoods based on the obsessions of a tendentious and biased contributor. It is also totally at odds with the policies of Wikipedia, as Bus Stop is fully aware - and if 'trolling' isn't the best word to describe his endless advocacy of offensive and misleading policy violations, it is certainly a good approximation. Should I have used the phrase 'Jew-tagging'? Probably not - with hindsight, it was clearly capable of being misunderstood - though I have to suggest that this 'misunderstanding' seems to be based largely on wanting to see the phrase in the worst possible light. Having said that, I find your apparent suggestion (if that is what it is) that I should have used the term 'Hebrew-tagging' instead somewhat baffling - not only would it be archaic, but to mind more capable of being seen as offensive - I am unaware of any context where the term 'Hebrews' is currently used for Jewish people, other than on fringe websites where antisemitism is explicit. Would 'tagging-people-as-Jewish' have been acceptable as a description for Bus Stop's obsession? Or would you object to that too? Or are you actually objecting to me pointing out exactly what Bus Stop has been engaging in for years - the marking/tagging of individuals as 'Jewish' in a manner which implies that this is almost their sole defining characteristic - something that they are born with (Bus Stop of course cites Halachic law whenever it suits his argument in this regard - though he'll ignore it if it doesn't) - and something entirely beyond the control of the individual concerned. If one wishes to look into the dark and dismal roots of antisemitism, such pseudobiological determinism is of course deeply embedded - such determinism assert that 'the Jew' is always 'a Jew' and nothing 'the Jew' says or does will make him anything beyond the one-dimensional stereotype. Such thinking has no place in Wikipedia, or one would hope anywhere in a world that had seen the horrors of the 20th century. That is why I object to Bus Stop's endless insistence on 'tagging' - because regardless of the motivation, it is promoting the same dehumanising pseudobiological determinism that has blighted so much of humanity in recent times. As a committed anti-racist, and as someone who has in the past been fully prepared to physically confront the resurgent antisemitism of British neo-Nazism, I can do nothing else. Evidently my words could have been better chosen, but my intent - and my actions - were driven by motivations that were the polar opposite of those you persist in accusing me of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
@Bishonen: I was composing the above while you posted - and as I've made clear on my talk page, I see no reason - short of a two-way interaction ban - why I should not defend myself from Alansohn's recurring accusations of antisemitism and racism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, on second thoughts, I agree. I was asking you on your page to give Alansohn a wide berth on the assumption that he would respect my warning, and he isn't. Alansohn, you have repeated your offensive language ("thinly veiled religion-based attack") above, after my warning. I'm not going to block anybody today, though, considering that you've ratcheted down your rhetoric somewhat and made an attempt to explain your case, even if in somewhat offensive terms and with a lot of references to sources that don't support you. I have to go to bed now... no time to block anybody today. Meanwhile, to both of you, would you freely accept an interaction ban? Because I can't unilaterally impose one, it would have to go via ANI (GROAN). But if you're both agreeable, we can formalize it between the three of us, once I've slept. Bishonen | talk22:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC).
You reached out to me on my talk page with a threat and I reached out to you on yours with details chronicling a persistent multi-year pattern of vicious personal attacks by AndyTheGrump, variously with and without the use of malicious foul language and / or code words based on religion. I'm not sure why AndyTheGrump thought that it was his place to jump into my conversation with you, so I'm not sure who your proposed ban would effect. The repeated use of "Jew-tagging" remains utterly unacceptable, despite AndyTheGrump's rationalizations. If Bus stop had been tagging people as LGBT or African American, substituting the corresponding slurs and appending "-tagging" to describe his actions would not have been treated quite as charitably. I'm not the expert in bigotry that AndyTheGrump is, but when you say that "Bus stop is a Jew-tagging bigot" after calling him variants of a "Jew-tagging troll" on about a dozen different occasions, you have crossed a line into using religion for the worst possible kind of personal attacks. There is nothing that Bus stop could ever have done to justify these attacks and there were plenty of ways without these vicious provocations to address the issues with him. WP:CIR notwithstanding, no one is competent -- or authorized -- to use "Jew-tagging troll" or "Jew-tagging bigot" as a slur; It's banned by WP:NPA, but that doesn't seem to apply to AndyTheGrump, only other people. Alansohn (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Alansohn, it's not necessary to repeat ad nauseam everything you've said on ANI, I've read it, it wasn't impressive the first time. As for "I'm not sure who your proposed ban would effect", please don't give me that. Did you think I meant an interaction ban between you and Jimbo Wales? Between Andy and Barack Obama? What's the doubt here? See you tomorrow, and then I'll lay out exactly what you need to do to avoid a block. Bishonen | talk23:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC).
Bishonen, you're deeply involved and nothing is happening here. If you had a shred of justification for a block it would've happened quite a while back in this conversation. As much as I would enjoy the show there's nothing here other than ignoring AndyTheGrump's vicious personal attacks, and I'm just the one who's calling out the pattern of abuse you so blithely ignore. As AndyTheGrump has said so eloquently and so often, what you need to do is "fuck off elsewhere". If that classic from User:AndyTheGrump didn't merit a lengthy block, it seems hard to imagine that anything anyone has ever said or done could justify it. Alansohn (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Alan, if you're merely concerned about INVOLVED, I am not in the least involved and I will happily own any block Bishonen gives you for continuing to falsely claim another user is anti-Semitic (or is behaving in an anti-Semitic way, if the distinction is so important to you). I really hate to block a prolific editor such as yourself and would far rather you just stopped making this offensive and wrong-headed allegation. There are real issues here with the two users and I hate to see them obscured with a non-issue like this. It's your call now, and I won't give further warning beyond this and what I've already said on your talk page. --John (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Like John (talk·contribs), I'm happy to own any block that Alansohn is given at this point, and I will block him myself if this behavior continues. This isn't a matter of an "involved" admin abusing her authority. This is a matter of many people telling Alansohn to knock it off. It's gone on long enough, and needs to stop. Ideally, it will stop without blocks (perhaps it already has). MastCellTalk19:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
For reasons I cannot comprehend, User:AndyTheGrump is apparently unblockable, no matter how despicably offensive his personal attacks continue to be. I've called a spade a spade, and I've provided multiple encyclopedic sources showing that his repeated use of the adjective "Jew" in "Jew-tagging troll" is patently offensive and derogatory. I can rest assured that if AndyTheGrump is unblockable for his calling another editor "a Jew-tagging bigot", that I have absolutely nothing to be concerned about. I've more than made my point, so I'm finished, but I'll offer all of you three AndyTheGrump options to choose from: "Put up, or shut up" or "fuck off elsewhere". Alansohn (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I can't believe it. Don't you read or reply to anything anybody tells you, ever? "Jew" is not used as an adjective in "Jew-tagging troll". The grammar of the thing matters. Talk about IDHT. Time to take your bad faith off my page. Go embarrass yourself somewhere else. Shoo. Bishonen | talk21:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC).
A spade???? As Alansohn is clearly referring to Andy using an offensive term for a black person, they should be blocked for personal attacks. NE Ent23:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Applying even a tiny bit of thought to Alansohn's assertions reveals the elephant in the room: Andy's comment was reported at ANI and within a short period the discussion turned to topic banning the person bringing the complaint, and an insignificant number of commentators supported a sanction against Andy. There are two explanations for the discrepancy between the facts at ANI and the assertions by Alansohn—either the large readership of ANI are antisemitic or stupid, or Alansohn is completely wrong. It's fine to be wrong occasionally, but it is irritating to see it accompanied with such arrogance. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
@John: Hi, thank you. When I saw your post above, I was just typing up a double-barrelled ANI proposal for blocking Alansohn or alternatively placing a community interaction ban between him and AndyTheGrump, reluctantly, because I'd rather not blow up the ANI thread further and waste people's time with another round. I'll thankfully take you up on your offer instead. You're welcome to take over the actual blocking, too, if the attacks should continue. The examples Alansohn has offered of me and Andy being cosy are pathetic IMO, and morally I wouldn't hesitate to block him, but it would no doubt lead to another Argument Clinic chapter on ANI. @Alansohn: You seem very entrenched too, but I can't believe you'll continue past this point, after all the explanations you've been given. Please stop with the baseless attacks, and we can all go back to more useful work. In any case, I won't argue with you further, because your put-on incomprehension of my good-faith suggestion of a voluntary interaction ban has finally disabused me of the notion that there's any point in it. Thank you too, Johnuniq and Lukeno94, I appreciate it. Bishonen | talk16:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC).
My view Alan's long post about "Jew" being used as a pejorative, be it noun, verb, adjective resonates with me. Watching this spat unfold on BLPN, and not knowing the history between these two, I wasn't sure if bus stop was pro/anti Jewish. And Andy's use of "Jew-tagging troll" was and is unpleasant to read. I will assume he wasn't being antisemtic, as Alan should have done, but I'm certain he was being confrontational. I found the overuse inappropriate, in the same manner if referring to the character from Huck Finn as "Nigger Jim" more than once in a literary discussion would be inappropriate. Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
In the same way as that, really? I don't see it as being within shouting distance of that. Andy wasn't using "Jew" as a pejorative, he was using "Jew-tagging" as a pejorative. You've posted twice now on this page about how you basically don't see the difference; I'm sorry. The way I look at it, Andy used the word "Jew-tagging" very repetitiously in that post as a meta-comment on the thing he was complaining about: Bus stop's massive and insistent overuse, for years of the various "Jewish" category tags. I thought it was rhetorically effective, but YMMV. Andy acknowledges in his long post above that "with hindsight, it [=the word "Jew-tagging"] was clearly capable of being misunderstood - though I have to suggest that this 'misunderstanding' seems to be based largely on wanting to see the phrase in the worst possible light." I too think it's largely based on that, and I think Alansohn is making it very obvious on this page that that's what his reading is based on. I don't believe that's the basis of your misunderstanding; I think you're going out of your way to be fair. But nevertheless, you do misunderstand. Bishonen | talk20:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC).
Cullen sums it up nicely on ANI. I have a thick skin for the most part, and I personally wasn't offended, I coud easily see how some people could be, sorry to be a nag. Have a nice weekend.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if Alansohn wants to call me involved--I like to think I'm involved with Bishonen, though thus far it's a purely platonic and long-distance affair. (Note the hyphen in the next-to-last word, a compound used adjectivally.) I also don't know if another editor is needed to support Bishonen's grammatical analysis (I only happen to teach advanced English grammar, as a byproduct of being a medievalist) but it is accurate. Alansohn, you can jump high or low but your version is simply incorrect. One might object to the word "Jew" being used in the first place, but that's neither here nor there. There is no evidence to support the claim that Andy is being a bigot, and calling him that is a personal attack: I trust that we won't see it again because if we do, the ownership of the block won't matter as much as there being a block in the first place. If anyone wants to go digging for diffs to support that Andy and I have a relationship, you'll find me saying on ANI, more than once, that I have on occasion disapproved strongly with their language; I may have threatened or supported a block once or twice. Now, I hope this is the end of it. I'll leave you with a picture of a realtroll. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I deeply apologize for all of this. I'm sorry that I got carried away. I'll try not to let it happen again! (I didn't know it was going to be this serious. I only thought I was asking a question.)
+1. Bish has threatened all my powderpuffs. I don't know what she has against powderpuffs, but she sure likes threatening them. Writ Keeper⚇♔21:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I could make a good anthropological case* for the powderpuff being a highly effective weapon to threaten the all-noise-and-bluster alpha males that cause so much of the trouble around here with.** A clear challenge to their masculine identity, far more effective than threats of blocks, or even threats of being beaten around the head with a volume from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition.***
*Anthropology is useful for this sort of discussion. You can use it to argue almost anything.
**That sentence needs sending to the Language Reference Desk I suspect. Up with such convolutions my readers' shouldn't have to put...
***The eleventh edition is recommended, in that it is now in the public domain.
Just look at this [33] don't you think that's completely disgraceful? Never again will I give Wikipedia a single image! Bugger them. Giano 08:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Why don't we go start a fork of the encyclopedia where content contributors are welcomed and crazy people are banned? Here it's the wrong way around. JehochmanTalk08:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Commons wants closing down. Comes here, thieves images and then insults those who uploaded them. It obviously couldn't give an 'F' about copyright only how many it can acquire. Giano 09:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Ha, drama at Commons! Popcorn! Dear Joseph K, you must realize that people who try to revoke their release tend to invent all kinds of reasons. Amazing. We have admin abuse and admin Blue Code of Silence on Wikipedia too (fresh example here), but Commons does seem to make it bit of a specialty, I'm sure you remember other cases, where the problem was the opposite (i.e. admins who shall remain nameless insisting on deleting your self-created architectural photos on equally puzzling grounds). Sorry I wasn't around, not that I could have done much—I'm pretty green at Commons, too, and don't have tools there. Great work by Nikkimaria, RexxS, and PumpkinSky! And did you see Fæ's comment about how straightforward the desysopping process is at Commons, unlike Wikipedia? Interesting. But straightforward or not, it's probably not worth the bother. Bishonen | talk14:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC).
Yes, Rex, PS, Nikkimaria and DrK did a good job. Well we shall see how easy a desysopping is there, and if any of that site's editors care enough about it to put it to the test. It seems that Admins there do not have to have basic English and that tools are dispensed on request like lollipops. In the meantime, until it puts its house in order, we must all stop uploading images until that thieving place is told it can't take them, delete them here and then insult the original uploaders. Just once in a while, a little bit gratitude to those creating this project would not go amiss. What really makes me angry is that one can edit a wikipedia page [34] only to find it's not a Wikipedia page, one's IP is exposed (because one's logged into Wikipedia not Commons) and then one's blocked by some adolescent on Commons for doing so who is talking to you on you inadvertantly shown IP page [35] How can they explain that? It's nothing more than a common con, suppose I had been editing from my office or home? as it was their geolocate gave a false bloody location - where the F is Chinnor? Other editors must be warned about it. Giano 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I've always found the ostensible Wikipedia image pages which state "this is a file from the Wikimedia Commons" and which often don't actually exist as Wipipedia pages to be rather unaccountable, and certainly unmanageable. Good job it wasn't an important IP that was outed. When I think about it, darling, you should have a unified login or whatever it's called. I don't understand these matters, but I'm sure some hint hint kind talkpage stalker does. Somebody asked me on IRC if I wanted one, I merely replied "yes, why not", and now I'm logged in wherever I go — Commons, Danish Wikipedia, WikiNews, anything. If I look up a word in Wiktionary, there I am again, logged in. Looking in my preferences, I'm told that "Your account is active on 52 project sites." Ha! :-D Not bad! You could be, too! Bishonen | talk15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC).
Thanks, Berean, but it looks kind of complicated. The beauty of the process in my case was I didn't have to lift a finger, or possibly merely tick a box or sign somewhere when the kind IRC person told me to. No reading m:Help:Unified login or Special:MergeAccount was involved, thankfully. Oh, hey, in case, somebody fixes this for Giano: Darwinbish would also like a unified login. She gets around. Bishonen | talk16:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC).
I never intend visiting the filthy place again, so it's not necessary, but I would like them to oversight this page [36] which I was tricked into editing by blatent dishonesty. Giano 16:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
In the Darwinbish account, choose Preferences and the link Manage your global account...it should be easy from there. I can't see the options that lie beyond that since mine is already done. @Giano, you may want the SUL because it prevents someone else from usurping your name on any of the wikiprojects and not just Commons. — Berean Hunter(talk)16:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Good God, just look at lies this Amdmin tells there [37], can you beleive it? That loathsome site will do anything to keep an image, even if it doesn't have the copyright. It really does need closing down, and is he desysopped yet? - I should bloody cocoa. Giano 18:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Interesting, Elcobbola. Wow, that undeletion request and the way it's phrased would have been wikicide for an admin if it was here, but I know little about the internal workings of Commons. Here is where we all mumble "different culture" and look away. Or, well, in a way Jcb's frank vitriol is refreshing when one is used to the ubiquitous mealy-mouthed Wikipedia passive aggression. (I believe that's something we do to encourage more female contributors. Yep.) Bishonen | talk19:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC).
P.S. I see Giano has taken this to Jimbo's page now. Good idea. Not that it's Jimbo's bailiwick, exactly, but he may be interested, and it may get more eyes that way. Bishonen | talk19:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC).
Well I just feel sorry for poor Eva Rosebery, while I would never have died my hair that shade of red (all though it might suit you Mrs Bishonen), it was bad eough for the poor woman having to have her lovely home sold up, without loads of rabble gawping and photographing the spectacle - probably one of those dradful brothers of Giano took the photograph. I'm surprised Giano posted it in the first place, but the dear boy always tries to please everyone, but I truly blame James Callaghan and his bolshevik principles. I said to him (Giano that is), tell dear Mr Wales about it; he will come with his shining sword upright and helmet aplombed and solve the problem. How lucky we are to have a true knight in shining armour amongst us. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 2:32 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Thank you elcobbola, so let me get this straight, this disreputable project has an an admin that it knows behaves in this fashion - desysops him and then five minutes later hands him backs his tools and is now sitting idly by doing nothing while he behaves in a similar fashion. The temptation is to sit on one's hands and let him take this foul, thieving project to its ultimate conclusion. Giano 20:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, approximately two years is rather longer than five minutes, but the point remains that this user has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of competence. As Fae mentioned, the deadmin process is clear and open to everyone; that might be a more productive course than hand sitting. I might recommend dispensing with the "disreputable" vitriol. A volunteer's actions are at issue here; comments about a greater project unnecessarily (and detrimentally, if you seek not to alienate) antagonize the wrong entity. Besides, en.wiki has been (and is) equally careless. Эlcobbolatalk21:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh no, not me; I'm staying away from the place and so will everyone else with a grain of sense. But it should be made clear when one is editing here and when one is editing there. There currently seems to be a very fine line between Heaven and Hell or should that be Sodom and Gomorrah. Giano 21:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Turn the spotlight on
I have just been over to Commons to see if they have dealt with their wayward Admin, and do you know, it's quite extraordinary; they think we have imagined his previous misconduct and desysopping - naturally, I have informed them otherwise [38]. However,I am suddenly reminded of Wikipedia six or seven years ago, ruled by a clique on IRC - do you remember you were a .... (I won't repeat the term) and I was even worse (although, at Commons, I'm allowed to be called a liar). Basically, anyone not in the clique was victimised, anyway, we solved that. But what seems now worse worse, at Commons, they fail to see that if it were not for people like us, they wouldn't even exist; I think this needs to be addressed - what do you think? Giano 08:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
[/me nostalgically recalls what she was called on IRC. Ah, the old days!] You mean as in doing work? :-( I dunno, honey. It was shocking, but perhaps not more so than this very recent Wikipedia case. Or perhaps a little more, in that the newbie-biting aspect was absent in the Wikipedia case. But you notice the similarities, such as the shoring-up involvement of a second admin. And, significantly, there was a lot more attention and indignation on Commons; very few people commented in the ANI thread. Knowing the ropes here, I know there won't be a desysop unless and until there's more. Not knowing the internal workings of Commons, I'd be inclined to defer to Fæ's advice here: "should problems with their use of sysop tools arise during 2014, a de-admin vote is quite likely to be created and this case will not be easily forgotten by us". You'll recall that Fæ was very helpful throughout. Bishonen | talk11:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC).
No one is denying that some have been helpful; what does seem a pity is that there seems to be no action taken against he who have not been helpful, or indeed any censure at all. I think you are forgetting that I was blocked there, and had I not complained here would have remained blocked there. This convinces me that Commons, if it's not to be closed down, Commons needs to be ruled from here not there. After all, if it were not for us, Commons editors (do they edit?) would have no images with which to amuse itself.
However, some good has come of this - I am now alert to the problems and in a frame of mind to tackle them, and that's good news! That we can be fooled into thinking we are editing pictures on Wikipedia (when we have uploaded those pictures to Wikipedia) when we are, in fact, editing Commons cannot be acceptable practice. Especially, bearing in mind the Amin standards there, and management fall very far below what is expected of acceptable.
We also need to have the 'Keeplocal' template made inviolate and a new template forbidding re-uploads to Commons at all - this will give the uploader, who is kindly donating (let's not forget kindly donating) his work a choice of to whom he wishes to donate it. This at present we don't have. I think this will do for a start. Giano 16:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
talkstalk sez... Giano, although I'm not as familiar with the image-upload-procedures as with the prose of articles, my understanding is that the copyright-license-selection cannot be tweaked in the way you suggest. There are plenty of people who (a common case over the years) have wanted to upload imagefiles and/or textdata which is "for non-commercial use only" ... but this restriction is incompatible with GFDL and later friends. Imagefiles have a wider choice of licenses, e.g. WP:NFCC which only applies to enWiki and not commons, but not that much wider. I don't think a special "license to only enWiki not commons" license-option will fly. In any case, sorry to hear about your bad experience, it doesn't sound like a picnic. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think 74 is right here. The license that one requires to donate things to Wikipedia prevents license-based limitations on reuse, such as "Don't put this on Commons". As an uploader, you can ask for nobody to upload your donated image to Commons, but given the license you released it under (which enables free modification and reuse as long as it's attributed and placed under the same requirements as the original), you would still be "allowing" them to do so. Anything else would have to be uploaded as a non-free fair use file, which has its own issues. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense! It's quite possible to give something/anything to a body without signing over all rights. President Obama dishes out photographs of himself to the good, great and faithful for display in their living rooms, but the copyright does not go with the photograph. This debate is all becoming a little fractured - I have posted my thoughts here [39]. Giano 18:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's possible for you to release it, but Wikipedia wouldn't accept that release as an image uploaded freely, and would have to apply WP:NFCC to it (meaning, among other things, it has to meet all the non-free criteria, minimal use, a separate rationale for each page it's used on, no use outside the main article space allowed, etc. etc.) Writ Keeper⚇♔18:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
These 'laws' are not engraved in stone on Mount Sinai. Without us, there is no Foundation - never forget that. Giano 18:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
True, the WMF depends on content-contributors (which includes image-uploaders), and volunteer editors/admins/artists/etc. But wikipedia is for the ages. Wansui. Digitized prose does not rot. Digitized imagefiles do not decay. Freedom to use, modify, share, and so on: those freedoms matter. Permitting proprietary-imagefiles on enWiki only-when-absolutely-needed is a judgement call; NFCC is meant for corporate logos. If we were to allow the places that want to retain commercial copyright-control over imagefiles to start uploading whatever they wanted tomorrow, would we have a lot more imagefiles? Sure! Same situation: if we were to allow spammers that want to upload whatever they wanted tomorrow, would we have a lot more articles about products, BLPs, and organizations? Sure!
In the second scenario, would all the spam hurt the encyclopedia? Yup. Along the same lines, in the first scenario, would the loss of freedoms hurt the encyclopedia? Well, that's a bit of a tricky question. So cut to the chase: would accepting proprietary-imagefiles en masse, and thus losing the freedom to share/mod/remix/use/etc those imagefiles without explicit permission from the WP:OWNer, hurt the readership in the next few years, and in the next few hundred years? Absolutely yes; more images, in exchange for less freedoms, is a bad trade. Especially when the images are gonna be *elsewhere* on the internet, so in fact the trade is more-conveniently-centralized-images for less freedoms. HTH.
p.s. That does not mean we should give up on fixing Commons; we *should* fix Commons, and I have some ideas. All I'm saying, is that we need to fix Commons without compromising the freedoms of future generations of our readership. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You are really decent!
I'm convinced that calling out admin abuse can only make the relations between admins and non-admin content contributors ("peons") less fraught, not more. Is it OK you're one of my personal heroines?! I'd like to think you'll be around WP for a long, long time. (Please wash your hands frequently, I hear there's 'a false dichotomy' goin' around, and I think that requires stomach surgery.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks for the edit to my talk page (Kumioko). Its no big deal, if someone wants the satisfaction of being the one to add the banned editor template to my talk page they can have it, its not that big of a deal at this point since its a sure thing. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen, I am still waiting for an explanation from you for your accusation that I am "POV pushing", and that you will act against me on this basis. Can you explain what you mean by saying I am "POV pushing"? I don't think I am doing any such thing. Also, please stop accusing me of sockpuppetery when you have no evidence for this. I am asking you to stop your harassment and threats. Livingengine1 (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Can't you tell the difference between an accusation and a civil question, Livingengine? Yes, I did accuse you of POV-pushing here and here, see below. No, I did not accuse you of sock-puppetry, I merely asked whether an IP who posted on your page fuming about Roscelese and my block (favorite themes of yours) were in fact you. It seemed worth a question, especially since you had already posted from different IPs here and here, without any acknowledgement then or later. You don't seem particularly careful about logging in.
As for the POV-pushing, I'll give you a couple of examples of misuse of sources. But note that I'm not going back to your page and entering into further argument with you, at least not until you actually read in good faith a few of the policies you keep referring to, and make some attempt to benefit from the advice of more experienced Wikipedia editors.
1. Here, you introduce for the first time a statement that you subsequently edit war to keep in the article: "Breivik has since confessed that he is a neo-Nazi, and that his atrocity was designed to discredit the counter jihad movement." The source you give, respected Swedish anti-racist magazine Expo, describes a letter that Breivik sent from prison to several international media. Google translation hereSwedish original article here The Google translation is naturally pretty confusing — wasn't there anything about Breivik's letter and his supposed "confession" in international media? (As a Swedish speaker, I could supply a clearer translation of the sentences from Expo you apparently rely on, but that of course would be my original research.) Anyway, the distancing scare quotes round "counterjihadistisk" and "ethno-nationalist" are in Expo's original text, and are only one of the ways in which the magazine distances itself from Breivik's prison letter statements. The source by no means says that Breivik has confessed anything — that's your own addition. Expo does not adopt Breivik's claims and relay them in the magazine's voice. But you want Wikipedia to do that? To speak uncritically in Breivik's voice and pass on his supposed confession, unmediated? You're referring to a reliable source, the magazine Expo, but you're abusing it.
2. You have also several times removed the second part of the sentence "He [Breivik] cited Spencer's writings 64 times and at length in his anti-Muslim manifesto, and he wrote that he was inspired by Geller" (the bit after the comma), as well as the citation to Heidi Beirich's essay "Hate across the waters",[40] (thus incidentally leaving the statement about Spencer's writings, which is also in Beirich, unreferenced). In edit summaries and later on your page, you offer the justification that the source, "contained erroneous material, Breivik inspired by Geller. This is not supported by citation offered, and is in violation of WP;NPOV, and WP;BLP". In other words, you argue with Heidi Beirich's essay and its statement that "Along with Spencer, Breivik also drew inspiration from anti-Muslim blogger and close Spencer ally Pam Geller" and offer in its place your own reading of Breivik's manifesto — if I understand your arguments on your own page rightly. I don't see you actually quoting Breivik's manifesto anywhere, maybe you're going by what you've seen somebody else say about it, I have no way of knowing — shrug. Please just try to grasp my main point: you yourself are not a reliable source, and your readings of primary sources such as Breivik's manifesto do not trump Heidi Beirich's.
The harassment: My harassment? You're scattering attacks and assumptions of bad faith around you like a lawn sprinkler. Better adopt a less confrontational tone before somebody blocks you for personal attacks, another policy I recommend you to read. Bishonen | talk19:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC).
Adding a P.S."Nevertheless, Roscelese enlisted the aid of WP admin Bishonen to have me blocked for edit warring." Nice attack there from the lawn sprinkler, Livingengine. How did Roscelese "enlist" me, pray? Roscelese, the next time you enlist me, I'd like a crate of whisky, please, or it's no deal. Livingengine, incidentally, if you're going to attack people (in this case, me and User:Drmies) on a stranger's talkpage, it's considered the decent thing to alert those people, either by linking their usernames to invoke an Echo notification (you can see how I link Roscelese above, to make sure she doesn't miss my request for whisky), or by a little FYI note on their pages. Please consider it. Bishonen | talk22:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC).
Don't hate me cause I'm prettyDon't hate me cause I've been mistreated
Yes, frequently maligned and abused. Or, maligned because of the abuse, since what's being done to the lowly but honorable batata in order to concoct sweet potato pie should be punishable by law. But allow me to break a lance for this tuber, with two suggestions.
a. roast it. Roasting makes Brussels sprouts almost edible, and cubed and roasted sweet potatoes are just real good eats.
b. steam it and mash it with butter. Make two batches: one for the kids, with brown sugar and cinnamon (see "abuse", above), and one for the adults, with (chipotle) hot sauce, the hotter the better.
Hi Bish, today was kind of interesting. I shall sleep very well, thank you, but I was surprised to learn about an interesting world of heretofore unknown discretionary sanctions. No hard feelings toward you, just letting you know that. However, a side issue that popped into my mind during the drama on my talk page was that we may have a situation where someone might very well be valiant in dedication to confronting and challening truly fringe topics (creationism comes to mind), for which they might rightly be commended. Yet, at the same time, in their zealotry and extreme dedication to a pure form of belief (such as calling psychoanalysis a pseudoscience) they might also go over the top enough in their advocacy and promotion of their viewpoint (however accurate) that maybe they should quietly be advised by their friends and supporters on ways to dial it back a bit and not be quite so quick to go on the personal attack. Perhaps they do not see their own behavior as bullying?? As my own involvement today (and your view of my involvement) indicates, such actions tends to draw the same type of energy back at them. Are they truly that surprised and hurt that their actions were seen as such, or is their shock and outrage an expression of mere crocodile tears? (theoretical question, you don't need to answer) For me, that user's attacks on Ched/Chedzilla were really over the top, the comments they drew from Olive were simply accurate statements of what was going on at the time, and it concerns me that this doesn't seem to be acknowledged or understood. Now, perhaps there is more to this individual than I know, and there may be circumstances that are no one's business on-wiki that may nonetheless provide some grounds for the compassion and vigorous defense of him that I witnessed today, (I do not think it appropriate for me to seek any answer to that question as the individual wants me to leave him alone and I am attempting to do so by chatting here) but nonetheless, there is a toxicity afoot that I quite sincerely believe emanates from said individual, and tends to be directed with unneeded vitriol, exaggeration, and distortion towards me or those I support. It troubles me that such battle lines were drawn. I sincerely view this individual as I do due to my own observations and experiences. I am likewise surprised that one of the nicest and most sincere people I have ever met on wikipedia is viewed with such a jaundiced eye as some sort of antichrist. I feel, personally, that recent wikipedia decisions, notably from the old Arbcom, learn toward the bullies, who win too often, and that innocent scapegoats are being created out of what truly are very minor "sins" of caring about a topic. Something just feels very, very amiss here. I'm curious to better understand your thoughts on the matter, though if you don't care to discuss further, we can also just shake hands and part friendly. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk)04:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot more ways to be wrong than right, and Wikipedia is a sitting duck for every crackpot on the planet to push their favored view, from bigfoot (not much lately, but in the past, editors have even pushed that) to cold fusion (any day now, free energy will gush from a breakthrough that rewrites the fundamental laws of physics). There are a never-ending stream of "good faith" editors who can easily cherry pick factoids to promote a fringe view—try resisting that for a couple of years and consider how you might react. By the way, the problem with infoboxes is that those who favor them honestly cannot see the other side's point of view—that is a genuine dilemma where some good editors like them, and some good editors do not like them on certain articles. Arbcom cannot resolve that because there is no solution other than to arbitrarily choose one side and thoroughly piss-off the other. Fringe stuff is a different kind of problem because the alternatives are to firmly reject non-evidence based editing, or to give in and let junk peddlers take over the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure that the superficial problem with infoboxes is that those who abhor them honestly cannot see the other side's point of view - and the underlying problem is they can only see the issues as "like them" or "do not like them". In addition, I'm absolutely certain that I can see both points of view - but then again, we all believe that, don't we? The solution is actually to debate the issues in good faith with the intention of finding a consensus, but that's not an option for anyone so invested in their position that they are afraid of "losing the debate". Now ask yourself who's trying to encourage debate and who's trying to stifle it? --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh trust me, Johnuniq, I've been here since 2006 and even in my normal corner of horse land, there are plenty of whacky things I'm sick of (just the Exmoor pony thing today, one more person claiming their breed is the "pure since the Ice Age" one -- probably ridden by Bigfoot too!); plus a regular drumbeat of creationists at the horse evolution article and a herd of animal rights activists often popping by assorted rodeo and horse racing articles. I DO get that part. You are right about crackpots. But this wasn't an infobox drama, it was a different drama - it's all collapsed on my talk page with links, if anyone is interested enough to look at it. My point here is not to support fringe editing (the situation giving rise to the drama was clearly a fringe editor), the problem was when it started getting personal - I got myself sucked into that vortex, but I am over here chatting about it because I still am shaking my head about the inconsistency that was applied, one individual was allowed to attack others, but I and another person were not permitted to respond, plus I was warned and threatened in a manner I considered vastly out of proportion, which was extremely weird. The only tie-in to the infobox issue is a similar concern that one side was labeled, while the other, who behaved, in my view, with even greater bullying and unkind, un-AGF behavior, was patted on the head and allowed to continue their ownership behavior. The inconsistency does bug me. Montanabw(talk)07:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a universal human trait that our own bullying smells of roses, I suppose. That's what the proverb about the mote in your neighbour's eye is about, that you recommended to Wolfie yesterday. A good example would be your wild accusation, also yesterday, that he was blocked for outing. You didn't retract or go check when he objected, but instead hinted that you were probably, somehow, still right-ish — that he must sort of have been blocked for outing. "OK, the exact wording of the one thing was 'IRWolfie is indefinitely banned from speculating in any way upon the real-life identity of any editor in the transcendental meditation area, broadly construed, except that concerns about such may be communicated privately to the Arbitration Committee.' A bit later, you were blocked for three months."[42] Talk about spreading "toxicity". I hope the note in the block log, which I put there, makes it quite clear that Wolfie's only block ever has been self-requested. Please take a look before you go flinging any more mud about it. (If you hadn't seen the log entry yesterday, may I ask how you knew he'd been blocked at all? Some vague yet instantly convincing gossip from a trusted chum, that didn't happen to mention the "self-requested" part?) How can you talk like that and not apologize when you get the facts? (Here you got them.) It's fucking baffling. To save you changing the subject away from yourself and on to the misdeeds of others again, let me say that of course Wolfie's attack on Ched three months ago was over the top and very nasty. Since you cherish the diff for that incident, you may have noticed I told him so at the time.[43] So did Drmies.[44] That said, I can totally understand how it happened that Wolfie finally snapped, or exploded, under Ched's over-the-top block threats, piled as they were on top of Olive's campaign. Admins are in a position of power and need to put some sharp thought into how they use that position, and to look at the facts — being well-meaning is not enough. Also, Wolfie's explosion was three months ago. Your own yesterday posts were just yesterday.
Let's part friendly by all means, if by that you mean you don't post on my page and I don't post on yours, at least for the present. I don't think I'll be in the mood for it for some time. In the interest of "friendly", perhaps you won't mind removing the comic template I wrote — the Shakespeare insults — from your edit notice. (It doesn't work there, anyway, as I expect you've noticed.) And if the above was your best shot at leaving Wolfie alone — cannily referring to him as "said individual" and talking about toxicity, vitriol, exaggeration, distortion — you're not doing a great job of it. Try not discussing him at all. Bishonen | talk16:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC).
Olive's campaign? Bishonen you have no idea what is going on. None. I have no campaign, no agenda, no hate for anyone. My fault is that I too took to long to see what was happening to me and to others. Will I retaliate, no. Maybe some day the whole story will be known, but until then I am trying my best to make sure that other editors, whether they deserve or need bans or not, will have some voice no matter how feeble. While I think the editor Wolfie was looking to sanction indefinitely on the recent AE was not innocent, I thought also there was precedent being set for wording in sanctions that had no basis in policy. I did not address Wolfie and in fact agreed with him in my very short request to clarify and delineate the language describing the reason for the sanction not the sanction itself. What I got back was a personal attack and a deliberate muddying of the water about me and my motives. How you or Sandstein can't see that is beyond comprehension. Also, since Wolfie brought up topics which I am not allowed to discuss, had I said anything in front of Sandstein to try and defend myself against Wolfie's comments mentioning those topics, I'm sure there would have been an effort to have my sanction extended as there has been in the past.
I have always wanted to apologize for jumping when you came onto my talk page to complain about an award I'd made. I overreacted but was feeling a bit raw from the recent AE nor was I in a place to explain why I had done what I did. And truthfully your sarcasm was pretty surprising. I realize that from your comments here you are entrenched in your view and I have no desire to try and change it. With time I could put together a case to support my comments but who really cares and I have no time to spend on constantly trying to combat the false narratives built up about me nor the actions taken against me; dwelling on them poisons life. I will not post here again. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC))
By "part friendly" I just meant that we can drop the stick, bury the hatchet, or whatever. You are free to post on my talk page if you wish. Other than your last post yesterday, I have viewed our past interactions as productive, and I believe I even received holiday greetings from one of your small ankle-biters. I love your insult spout and it generates fresh insults at initial load, but if it's a problem for you on my edit notice, I shall respect your wishes and remove it from there. But humor on wikipedia is in startlingly short supply; You may also recall that I was a strong supporter of your WP:WADR project as well. Montanabw(talk)18:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
As for the rest, I acknowledge I made an assumption that Wolfie was blocked for his attempts to determine another user's identity (which he was warned against somewhere) and I erred in not checking his block log. That's fair enough, and I shall be more careful in the future. That said, I guess we simply must agree to disagree about "said individual;" it appears that we will not convince the other. So in the spirit of AGF, I'll drop it. Montanabw(talk)18:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Montanabw, you have probably overlooked this, but Bishonen specifically asked if you would mind removing the Shakespearean insult generator template that she wrote from your talk page. This seems like an entirely reasonable thing to ask, especially when one of the bitey things in her sock drawer could simply have done it for her. Since it seems to be important enough for her to ask, it would be a nice gesture for you to remove it. —Neotarf (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Um, Neotarf, she asked I remove it from my EDIT NOTICE, noting that it didn't work quite right there anyway. And I did. It's also been on my talk page for months, I love it, I think it's hilarious. Oh, and Bish, I forgot to mention that I was aware Wolfie was blocked because yes, someone mentioned it somewhere... Then during the recent AE drama, he himself noted it, commenting that he couldn't have been baiting the fringe user he reported because he was blocked at the time. Montanabw(talk)04:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so sorry, I still don't see the edit, but if the Bish tribe is happy, then I'm happy.
That said, I do think Sandstein is within his rights to ask for diffs in this particular situation, and I don't think your link to a closed discussion quite qualifies. As far as requiring such a thing to be posted in advance, I'm still scratching my head on that one. If the AE requires more information to process an action, or if for some technical reason the request is not formatted correctly, I should think they would have the courtesy to request the missing information.
FWIW...I protest that we are still caught up in the 20th century denialism over the existence of Bigfoot! I see him everyday dangnamit!--MONGO19:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Must ask you kindly for help on countering vandalism
Hi Bishonen
Anonymous users are again vandalizing this article, can ask you to lock it so only registered users can contribute? Hope I'm contacting you the right way, please let me know if I am doing something wrong.
Hi, Borek. I've semiprotected for a month. You certainly didn't do anything wrong in asking me, and I was around to take care of it, but another time you might get quicker attention if you post on the Requests for protection page. It's more regularly watched than individual admin pages. Thanks for looking after the article. Bishonen | talk11:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC).
.
Happy Valentine's Day
............................................................................................................................................................................ Hafspajen (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Any chance of a short semi-protection at Arvind Kejriwal? It is a contentious BLP article and, per my note here, we have a news situation. A few hours should be sufficient because we'll likely get TV interviews with him by then. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure? I don't see any problems so far. It's true the edit summary "I'm reliable sources" was a little worrying… but I see on talk it was an accident. :-) Sorry, I'm a little dubious about semi on the present showing. I'll try to keep an eye on it. Kind tps, you too, please! Bishonen | talk17:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC).
Response to your e-mail
Hi, in response to your question, admins are not normally authorized to impose non-block sanctions such as interaction bans on their own. Bans can normally only be imposed by the Arbitration Committee or the community, see WP:BAN#Authority to ban. But, as an exception, admins can impose bans, including interaction bans, as a discretionary sanction per WP:AC/DS, which says: "The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; imposition of mandated external review; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." If you envision imposing a sanction of this type, you need to make sure that the editor(s) at issue have first received a warning with a link to the arbitration decision imposing discretionary sanctions (see WP:AC/DS#Warnings). Sandstein 15:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The paperwork surrounding DS could be one reason so few admins venture into it. But in this case it's admittedly easier than seeking consensus in an ANI discussion, because that's work. Bishonen | talk17:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC).
Godspiral still calling another editor a vandal
You probably have seen WP:ANI#Paranoid, offensive subject line where Godspiral is still calling GliderMaven a vandal (as well as saying " This is a case where you should allow the content experts, without bias towards publication sources, the willingness to contribute to wikipedia in an unpoisoned environment." As well as "The reference is not that important, but is the best written and clear argument that I have found, and so arguably high quality irrespective of the publishing platform" referring to [45]. I'm inclined to block over the vandalism claim, given he's ignored my warning. Comments? Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I was just checking it out, Doug. That post is very offensive — "ask what administrative rule may I invoke to pervert truth", forsooth, besides the repeated accusation of vandalism — but it was the user's first post after your NPA warning. So they may well not have seen the warning until after they saved, and the notification came up. Their second post on ANI came after they must have seen the warning (or certainly have had a good opportunity to see it, anyway), and, despite the "encyclopedic style nazis" and "objectively vandalism", it's not as offensive. In the second ANI post, the guy reasons, and has possibly taken on board the warnings ("objectively vandalism" sounds a little like an explanatory response to your warning). So, no, I'd hold off if I were you, and keep a lookout (as will I). Possibly theyre learning the local culture, and they're more likely to turn into a useful contributor without the shock of a block. Bishonen | talk10:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC).
On the bright side, I got to watch Charlotte Kalla's remarkable come-from-behind win. The NBC commentator pointed out that it must be nice for the Swedes to stick it to the Norvegians, but I am sure that such vindictiveness is far, far from common among the generous Swedes. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Half the pleasure is how pissed the Norwegians are! As for your last-chance warning on ANI, that Bbb23 mentioned, [/me puts her dukes up, dances], c'mon, you want a piece of me, Drmies? You want a piece of me? [Whistles for Bishzilla.] Bishonen | talk18:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC).
[Sssht! Message me on Facebook! Not here!] Haha, yes, and they are pissed, from what I understand. It's like the Dutch not winning gold in the 1500 meters (well, for boys). Oh, wait, we didn't--by 3/1000 of a second we lost to a Polish guy. The nerve! Drmies (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
No, it wasn't, I'm bitter. I realized too late that I'd have to have TV3 to watch that stuff, which is pretty much the only sort of sports that I actually like to watch. :-( (Even alpine skiing leaves me cold.) Bishonen | talk00:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC).
Sorry. Well, it was kind of exciting. Right now my kids are hoping no one beats Bode Miller's time in the Super-G. Amazing--three skiers behind him within 9/100 of a second. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Ha, Kjetil Sumpin-sumpin from Norway beat him. And they're better than y'all: in Norway it's on TV2, apparently. Not 3. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Amanda Knox
Hi, I have somehow gotten myself involved in an edit dispute over the "Public image" section of the Amanda Knox artice and the article all together. I simply reverted user Overagainsts edit were he removed the entire section. Pointing out that he perhaps could bring it up at the talk page for consensus before removing a section which has been part of the article for a long time. I then stated that I was not taking a position for or against removing the section but simply wanted Overagainst to bring it up at the talk page. The user proceeded to basically asking my upfront what my opinion was and at that time I stated that I think the section should stay. A few other users has agreed with me but user Overagainst seems to really want the section or the entire article to go. I really do not care that much about the Knox article and I really do not care for endless meta-debates and I know that you are good at these kind of situations :) I might be totally wrong and the section should go but I want someone else to decide that. Atleast take a look, the discussion has also been brought to the BLP noticeboard by user Overagainst were for some reason the user has diminished user Mosfetfaser to some tabloid writer... Its a mess :). The bottom line is that user Overagainst seems more interested in being right than discussing the issue at a level of mutual respect. I have left the discussion from this point on as I can not be bothered being harassed and diminished. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
(Babba, I don't think your edit summary when you removed the section was entirely as polite as it sounds when you describe it above. I can see how somebody would bristle at it.) Has it really been part of the article for a long time? From the history it looks like Rodericksilly added it a mere 17 hours before Overagainst removed it. Maybe I haven't dug deep enough, and it was there at some point further back. But anyway, the section is really sleazy, IMO. As somebody pointed out, the subject isn't a "professional celebrity" of the kind that thrives on being drooled over, so I don't think that section is even close to being right w r t the subject's privacy and, you know, dignity. I wouldn't fight for it. But thanks for the compliment, I'm so glad you think I'm good with sleazy stuff. :-P Bishonen | talk 00:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC).Bishonen | talk00:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC).
Til
I presume you noticed that he reverted your edit (as is his right) with an edit summary "fasciust" (sic). And just off a one week block too. If I weren't a number one target of his I'd probably have blocked him. Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I noticed, as we do, because Echo pushes reverts in our faces. Odd, as T and I haven't even met previously. Complete strangers, so how did he know that about me? Anyway... one can in fact turn off getting pinged about reverts, in the Notification prefs. (I'm thinking of doing that.) Perhaps it's not a really great idea that it's on by default — it won't exactly lower the temperature of the place, you know? "You got reverted! What you gonna do about it? Are you CHICKEN? Signed, Echo." Bishonen | talk22:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC).
Of course, I forgot. Actually sometimes I see a revert and realise I was wrong, that's always useful to know. Other times it's vandalism, also useful. But optin might be better. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Ha, he reverted you too.[47] You're not a fascist, apparently, merely rolled back. Well, depending on what the Amharic edit summary means, but heck, even if it's something about your mother, do you care? Lobbing furtive insults is below pathetic. Bishonen | talk15:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC).
Just a little note, nothing important at all.
At WP:AN/I#Requesting review, you linked in a comment to iff - and as a student currently in a discrete math/logic class, I'd like to say that If and only if is inappropriate in that case, as it's saying both "if she's able to convince an admin..., then she'll be unblocked" and "if she's unblocked, then she will be able to convince an admin...". But, of course, it wouldn't be a good idea to revive an old thread with an off-topic comment, so...yeah. Cheers, 6an6sh623:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the attention, I'm always glad to discuss logic (I took such a class myself once, in the late nineteenth century). If you don't mind my saying so, you're messing with the tenses. We're talking about future contingencies, not eternal truths. Iff in my sentence meant a) "if she's able to convince an admin…, then she'll be unblocked" plus b) "if she isn't able to convince an admin, then she won't be unblocked." Doesn't that fit nicely into the truth table in the iff article, where p is "She's able to convince an admin" and q is "she'll be unblocked"?
The reason I used iff rather than if was that I didn't want b to be overlooked. I wanted to emphasize b, because it's the important one in the context of a comparison between the user being banned, versus "merely" being indefblocked. I suppose I could in logic have stated only b, but I wanted to set the scene for it by allowing the more wiki-familiar a a look-in first. I'll go closer to your propositions, if you like: "if she's able to convince an admin..., then she'll be unblocked" and "if she's unblocked, then it must mean she has been able to convince an admin…". Not elegant, but same meaning as my a + b. No? Hit me! [/me puts up her dukes, dances. It's becoming a habit, see above.] Bishonen | talk23:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC).
Ai-ya! My brain was temporarily (or should I say, temporally) confused! That's what I get for trying to figure out logic when half-asleep (and @Casliber: I'd like some tempura right now too ). So, it should have been "If she's able to convince an admin..., then she'll be unblocked" and "If she will be unblocked, she is able to convince an admin...", the second of which is I guess equivalent to "If she is being unblocked, she was able to convince..." and "If she was unblocked, she was able before that to convince..." - what am I even saying. Heh. 6an6sh601:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, I didn't want to distract the discussion so I thought leaving this here would be better.
Although you may well be correct that I am speaking from a position if ignorance, as I am not all that familiar with this editor outside of the Arbcom disussion. She could be the antichrist for all I know. I also admittedly do not share all of her views. I do however think the choice to indefinitely block her for harassing Arbcom was extreme (if it was for other reasons I suspect it would have stated as such). I do however think she has some good points regarding several elements of arbitration and DS's. I would also add that Nina was not the only one silenced from the Arb discussions. Every editor who criticised the Arbitration DS review were banished. Her, me and 2 or three others. So regardless of whether I am fully aware of all of the intimate details with her participation in the project, the scenario and details of the situation are...sketchy to say the least....and do not portray the Arbcom in a positive luminescience. At the end of the day, I really do not have a dog in this fight (to use a Michael Vick reference). I am barely editing anymore and I foresee the WP project collapsing under its own weight within the next couple years (not tomorrow mind you) if some drastic steps aren't taken to fix some of the problems. So it really doesn't matter to me what the Arbcom does or doesn't do or if they block every editor that makes comments they don't like including me. I just don't have any respect for the project anymore, which is a shame, because I was once a strong advocate for it and held the project in high esteem. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
No, it was for other reasons; your suspicion is misdirected. The supposed "spam" was merely the last straw. But I don't suppose you've read this ANI thread, or my comment in it? Don't bother, I know facts are nothing but a hindrance to free and creative commentary. Bishonen | talk18:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC).
I did actually and I vaguely remember the Arbcom case although I didn't get involved in it. I still don't think that her actions had elevated to indefinite block levels. Maybe at most 30 days, but even then, its extreme given the circumstances. Anyway, I'm not here to ruffle your feathers, I just don't agree considering that everyone who opposed the DS review have been run off so the Arbs can have their secret discussion. The arbs are supposed to prevent this type of block to send a message behavior not advocate it. Its just more evidence that the project has lost its way. Anyway, have a nice weekend. I have to go start my Friday night rushhour, hour and a half + drive home. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Your despicable censorship shows the depths to which Muslims are willing to sink to violently suppress all criticism of their despotic disformation campaign.
PS, dear stalking admins, feel free to assist, as I'm going to bed now. 3 months is a good block time IMO. Please semi if it gets out of hand. Bishonen | talk02:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC).
Thank you Penyulap for the unique hamster-powered fairybread barnstar!This user is a nightowl.
Cakes striking
<Cake collection moved to Bishzilla's pocket. She already ate most of them anyway.>
[/me stares, round-eyed, at the sumptuous display.] And here I thought I had a good collection of sweets on my userpage! For once, there's enough so I can actually invite the naughty socks to tuck in. No, not you, Bishzilla! Maybe kind Hafspajen will post a really big cake just for you on your own page, wait and see..! If I want to leave all those on my page (and I do, you know!) I suppose I'd better archive the stuff above them, so the poor unfortunate Americans with crappy slow connections can load the page. Oh, and the poor dear Chinese network sharing devices likewise. Bishonen | talk10:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC).
AW, thanks for your kind words. IT IS A DEEP HONOR AND FRIVILEGE TO OFFER YOU ALL THESE NICE CAKES. Please make sure that you are not eating everything at the same time. And edit please Alexander Roslin. These are beautiful cake they all look like they were delicious. The lovely cakes are inspiring. Do you offer training? please reply Hafspajen (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Bishzilla has now posted the study materials (=your inspirational cake gallery) for the course in a new fridge in Poet's Corner, and the class is underway in this cosy venue as we speak.[48][49] Everybody welcome! Bishonen | talk19:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC).
Frightfully decent of you to offer me one. I tried the tradition of cakes in Sanok. A whole tradition! Well, here I am. Gastronomically, Sanok turns out to be more rewarding than I'd dared hope, thanks to its excellent Breton baked beans. (Whew!) -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Good afternoon; how pleasant to find an old acquaintance in my dovecot. How have you been these months or years?
For fogeyism, that was small potatoes. Try this œuvre (and my comment or perhaps fogeyish counterfogeyism).
Ha. What could be more enjoyable than eradicating "comprised of" from the face of the earth?? (Except in quotes, of course. But that was just a mistake.) Go, go, Giraffe! Anyway, I like Joefromrandb, I hope he took that in the spirit it was offered. I like old fogeys altogether, if it comes to that. Dear talkpage stalkers, let's not start a thread about linguistic pet peeves, it can get murderously dull very fast. Please have some cake instead, and note your opinions of Hafspajen's offerings here! Bishonen | talk14:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC).
OK, then I understand better why you changed "some creationists" to "some humans". But such a minimal change of one word makes the sentence absurd, you know. You'd need to recast the whole sentence, because with the small change you made it sounds more like some humans, as opposed to some howler monkeys or some earthworms, believe the biblical Behemoth to be a sauropod. Bishonen | talk20:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC).
No offense to 107, but the "some humans" got me chuckling; it's like something our wikipedical Behemoth might say while expounding her expertise on the matter. In fact this whole thing looks like a setup for a Bishzilla-related joke, possibly including the Bishapod/Sauropod connection. I'll wait to see how this unfolds. vzaak00:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
For protecting my talk page last night. You were indeed correct that I couldn't do it myself - I had enough difficulty writing the message I did. I do appreciate it. WormTT(talk) 11:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You're very welcome, but what an asshole, huh? I recently got myself a tablet, and it's good for some stuff, but I'd hate to try to perform a protection from it. The touchscreen keeps pretending I've touched some erogenous zone or something, and does a flurry of stuff I didn't intend! And that, mark you, is good and big (10-inch screen) compared to a phone. It's made me love my huge desktop monitor and keyboard the size of Michigan (I got it for Bishzilla) even more. Bishonen | talk11:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC).
Typing on this Dell XPS-10 is not as nice as a real keyboard, but when the interface is properly designed even a screen the size of a hand can work. Eventually the design work will be done. Sometimes I use a stylus. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
A right pain in the arse. I was merrily checking my emails yesterday evening and someone mentioned that my talk page had exploded - was rather surprised. As for the phone, it's all well and good zooming in and out, but pretty difficult to get to the right place at times. The erogenous zone problem would explain all the buzzing at least! I've always wondered how Bishzilla types, with those tiny arms and habit of breathing fire when annoyed... WormTT(talk) 12:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Bishzilla? No, no. She's got the firebreathing under control nowadays and only breathes lightly on little users in a spirit of fun, to curl their hair or impart a tan. But it's a true pleasure to see the armless little darwinfishes dancing around from key to key on the family keyboards! Agile little buggers. (I use a stylus for the tablet nearly always, Jim.henderson. Darwinbish clearly wishes she could handle one too, but what can you do. She laughs too much to hold it in her mouth.) Bishonen | talk17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Bishonen -
I wanted to point out that it may have been a good thing you were asleep when Ed removed Giano's TPA. After Ed did so, Roger redid the same block, and made it clear that it was still an arbcom block. Even in the case of bad arbcom blocks, if an arb has put in a place a block that removes TPA from someone, modifying it would've been grounds for problems. I'm not meaning to be antagonistic in stating this - a lot of arbcom's actions have confused me over the last week and plenty of them I wish I could've reversed myself - I just wanted to point it out, because I actively don't want to see you desysopped. Kevin Gorman (talk)
Nice of you to say so, but I regret being asleep. I've always figured I wouldn't mind being desysopped in a good cause, and this one would have worked for me. Anyway, I don't believe it. Ed17 removed tpa, not Roger. Roger merely made sure everybody knew it was still an arbcom block. The fact that he didn't actively revert Ed 17's action isn't quite like he, Roger, had taken ownership of removing tpa, because you don't see him saying "do not modify the block without arbcom's consent", do you? No, he says "do not unblock with ArbCom's consent" (... uh? Yes, he says with, lol, I only just noticed. But I won't pursue that red herring.) Anyway, we could all have had a field day arguing about my desysopworthiness. This farce needs another act, surely. I'm credibly informed that both you and Giano have invested in the popcorn concessions. Bishonen | talk17:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC).
There's a real issue at stake here. We elect Arbitrators to resolve disputes, not to re-create themselves as super-admins. There was no reason whatsoever that the block on Giano should carry any greater weight than any other block to prevent edit-warring. What makes some of that crew so full of themselves that they think they get to impose blocks that may not be touched just "because-we-say-so". Sod 'em; they need their noses rubbing into their mess so they realise how inept their high-handed treatment of others has become. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Totally, Rex. I agree with you completely, so much so I most likely wouldn't have merely restored tps, but unblocked Giano, if I'd been around in time for it. That's what I meant when I wrote on Giano's page that the block was done in a provocative manner: it provoked probably not so much him (G is cooler than you may think) as me; it made my unblock finger itch retrospectively. If it had been made clear that GorillaWarfare meant to undo the block herself as soon as the case was closed, I guess I'd have left it alone even though the superadmin "consent" thing angered me; but it was, foolishly, made anything but clear. To quote myself: when the blocking admin doesn't let on what it'll take to be unblocked, "indefinite" doesn't in practice just mean "could be any time, who knows"; no, it smells to high heaven of "to be unblocked if and only if you apologise, admit your mistakes, agree to learn to avoid previous pitfalls, work to address all of the issues, pave the road, seek redemption, face the music, show that you understand why exactly you were blocked and how right it was that you should be, and show remorse". So I might have unblocked, being as I am well aware that Giano wouldn't care to do even one of those things. To no practical advantage, of course; G would have been re-blocked and I desysopped faster than you could say Jack Robinson and perhaps even faster than I'd have a chance to warn Floquenbeam that he must recuse in the matter of my desysopping, lest it be seen as prejudicial that my sock has cybered with his. (Oh, Bishzilla! Oh, Floquenstein's monster! Bad freaks!) Anyway. I slept and it's all speculative. I missed my chance to go out in a blaze of glory and to put poor Floq on the spot. By the way, GorillaWarfare hasn't so far taken her chance to respond to me where I addressed her directly on Giano's page, so maybe not to either you or me here, either. But then she hasn't edited today, so perhaps we shall see. Bishonen | talk23:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC).
Is "to cyber with someone" really a verb now?
I was about to go all NYB on you, and talk about how I would talk about things in the general case but didn't want to get into specifics about a fellow Arb's actions. But GW seems capable of handling constructive criticism, she already knows that, contra Giano, I generally respect her judgment, and I dislike the thin blue line theory of Arb'ing. So, since you've pinged me (or is it pung me?), I'll comment and constructively criticize.
I'm not going to argue with a block of some kind; I wouldn't have done it, nor would I have tried to redact one insult out of the 50 that are still there, but I think I understand why she did it (out of a feeling of fairness, I presume), and it wasn't out and out wrong. If you edit war with an Arb, on an Arbitration page, you can't realistically expect not to get blocked (although there are apparently no consequences when you block one?). However, I would really have liked to see it made clear at the time that the block was intended to be temporary, and intended to be lifted as soon as the case was closed. That would have been de-escalating, whereas the simple "indef block" approach was escalating. But so many people were escalating things yesterday, it seems unfair to single out one person. For example, "stupid woman" was pretty disappointing.
I go back and forth about the benefit of "don't unblock without ArbCom's permission". It's hard to know what would be the bigger risk of escalation, adding that phrase, or omitting it and dealing with the drama if someone had unblocked immediately. Maybe the sting of that phrase would have been taken out if it had been made clear it was a temporary block. I don't know. I'm pretty sure that even if I weren't an Arb, I'd take the position that maintaining order on an Arb page is ultimately an Arb's call.
I'm more concerned about ed's revocation of talk page access, seeing as how involved he was in the case (I can't bring myself to do the time-honored ALLCAPS version of involved). But contrary to Kevin's comment above, I'm fairly sure that even at the time he did it, ed said somewhere that another admin could undo that, so just undoing the protection wouldn't have been undoing an ArbCom-only sanction.
My recusal on this may have been a mistake, but "taking back" the recusal would have (if possible) made things even worse. I would, of course, have supported a desysop of Bishonen ... so that the tools could be given to Bishzilla instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
But only because Floquenstein's monster would have made you do it, I know. "Is it a verb now?" [/me imitates the squeaky voice of young master Floquenbeam. ] You'll make the monster ashamed of your ignorance. Even Wiktionary has it. Cyber: Verb: cyber (third-person singular simple present cybers, present participle cybering, simple past and past participle cybered) (slang) To engage in cybersex. "Wanna cyber?" Anyway, congratulations, the Bradspeak is coming along nicely. Bishonen | talk01:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC).
Take comfort, you're far from perfect at it (yet!). I was thinking of one particular sentence. Never mind. I've taken onboard your comment about GorillaWarfare; clearly you know her better than I do. Maybe she's not having a really good day today, because I'm a little underwhelmed by what I see of the "handling constructive criticism" thing on Giano's page. As I've just said there. But it's always easier to carp from the sidelines, and she's in a difficult position. As will you be if we continue this line of talk. Take it to e-mail if you prefer. Or, well, not, because I'm pretty much talked out on the subject. Bishonen | talk17:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC).
There are significant consequences to blocking a sitting arbitrator [50] -- worse than an ANI thread, RFC/U, and desysopping combined -- we elect you to a future committee! sucker NE Ent02:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't get the outrage, is it because this happened to Giano or the circumstances of his block? Because I see regular editors indefinitely blocked every day, sometimes with no justification at all. I see IPs declared to be "socks" and indefinitely blocked even though they aren't submitted to an SPI and it's based only on suspicion (and it doesn't seem like it takes much evidence to meet WP:DUCK standards). It boggles my mind when I edit on a daily basis and see the amount of indefinite blocks given out, without warning, without a limited block first, they are given out casually every day without a second thought, sometimes with no block notice or explanation of how to get the block lifted. It goes 0>90 mph, sometimes within a few hours. I can only imagine how dazed and confused the editor is when they return to Wikipedia and find that they can no longer log in.
This is where someone else on your talk page says these are damnable statements and I must present diffs or retract my comments. But I'm not saying any particular admin is responsible, it's the environment of WP that these blocks happen without comment or objection. The editor must have done something heinous, right, or they would never have been blocked...such is the circular reasoning on Wikipedia.
I'm not saying being an admin is easy, you all have to make some hard calls. But I think the impact on a person when you shut down their ability to contribute to WP is severely underestimated. It's being silenced. Admins have that power and don't even have to be accountable to anyone. I'm not crying "admin abuse", I just find it puzzling how appalled some folks are with arbitrators when I'm sure every admin has made some bad calls that had much more impact on the affected editors than this temporary block had on Giano. Sorry for this tangent, Bish, but this is where I found the conversation happening. LizRead!Talk!02:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this is just me, but here's what I find to be the hardest part of being an admin. About 80% of the criticism you get is poorly thought out, abusive, or divorced from objective reality. But 20% is genuinely useful constructive criticism—people calling you out for mistakes you've made. The problem is finding the signal in the noise, and taking on board the genuinely thoughtful criticism while ignoring the nonsense and not letting it get under your skin. I think a lot of admins eventually take the very human shortcut of just dismissing 100% of criticism. (After all, they're right 80% of the time, which is passable in some lines of work). Anyway, that tendency may partially explain the atmosphere to which you allude.
Here's another thing that's hard, at least for me. I feel like Wikipedia is a bubble and I'm a visitor from another planet. The way people talk on this website absolutely reeks of a total lack of perspective. If I spend too long here, it starts to seem like the greatest injustice that can possibly befall a human being is to be prevented from contributing to one of the several million websites on the Internet. I mean, most of my problems are first-world problems, but even I recognize this attitude as ridiculous. I can't walk out of my door onto the street without seeing a dozen injustices more profound, and more worthy of our time and passion, than anything that happens on Wikipedia. I will never, ever understand people who spend weeks or months (or years) of their lives and their discretionary time fighting to restore the editing privileges of some incoherent axe-grinder. Surely there are more productive ways to satisfy the universal urge to feel self-righteous. If we could harness a fraction of the effort that people devote to griping about administrative decisions on this website, and redirect it to—I dunno, name a worthy cause that actually addresses a societal need in real peoples' lives—the world would be a significantly better place. MastCellTalk08:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I think if you are open-minded and prepared to change your mind when presented with new evidence, then you should pick up a fair bit of the other 20% of criticism. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
@Liz - here is something to put this into perspective. There is a cohort of people here who spend more time at AN/I and arbitration boards and do little editing. That in and of itself I have no problem with. I do have more of a problem when people who don't do much content work try and dictate to how those that do. Furthermore, many who dictate the Fifth Pillar (as if a Commandment handed down on Mount Sinai) are themselves not following the First Commandment Pillar. What is even more frustrating is folks who are unable to extricate a view of the 'pedia outside these pages, and them assume to opine loudly and repeatedly on what would be Good For Wikipedia. There is a lot of background here that will bring on reams of argument if we go into too much specifics. I don't really have the free time or energy to go into it ATM..... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The concern wasn't the block so much as an arbitrator declaring special status for the block in the absence of any committee action supporting the block. NE Ent10:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of watching everyone going around and around in circles. Has ever so much been written across many pages on two sites? No change will come from any of this. The arbcom is never going to condemn or censure one of their own. All criticism is neatly deflected. for example: a piece of satire (pointing out that GW is a clever, tough cookie who uses enablers to achieve her much applauded ends) questioned why it took two Arbs and an Admin to make the block; that was turned into apparent sexual abuse - ridiculous. They are just going to protect each other constantly and fight dirty; so be aware and either ignore or laugh at it. I shall continue to laugh at them and point out their foibles Giano(talk)10:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
PS: Come to think of it, it has never has been adequately explained why Ms Warfare needed another Arb and an Admin to assist her in blocking one ordinary common garden editor (me) or why she had my talk page access removed. I do hope that she doesn't think I have forgotten about this because she will be labouring under a severe delusion if she does. Giano(talk)18:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Fine, but she didn't remove your tpa, Giacomo. See log for who did. If you have a conspiracy theory that implies she was behind that action, I really doubt it. The admin who performed the action is quite capable of doing it off his own bat. Bishonen | talk18:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC).
Since you have asked me to explain, I will. As The ed17 explained here, he removed your talk page access because of the personal attack you were making against me. This was not something I asked him to do, but I did not disagree with his action. I'm not sure why you consider Roger Davies' modification of the block rationale to be him "assisting" me with the block—it seems like a housekeeping matter to me, as the only thing he modified was the accompanying note. GorillaWarfare(talk)18:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
@[[GorillaWarfare. Sorry? I'm confused. Where was the attack? Did you feel it was because I think you're stupid or because I refer to you as a woman? I really cannot retract the former. Regarding Roger, well I'm sure you were grateful for the help - blocking somebody must be awfully complicated for a 'person' with your experience. Giano(talk)19:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note from GorillaWarfare (moved by me)
Sorry, but it really doesn't fit well anywhere in the section above.
Seeing as JamesBWatson salted it a few minutes ago, it probably was the right place. :-) Me, I got the capitalized version from stalking your page. Useful place! Perhaps more to the point, I've indeffed the user. Just in case they think of more spellings, and more talkpage harassment. Bishonen | talk21:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC).
Lady Catherine's gillie teaching her out-of-control gundog to "sit"
Dearest little Mrs Bishonen, as I expect you know my gundogs are the talk of every estate from Sandringham to Garganta. Only on Boxing Day, Her Majesty's head keeper was heard to say that he had never seen a Labrador catch and eat a pheasant as fast as that of Lady Catherine. In fact the dear Queen often suggests I leave them at home, obviously knows they will put her own to shame. Now you are doubtless wondering why am I here, talking about aristocratic pursuits and skills that someone like you can only dream of. Well! it's like this, the breeding of superior pets if a fine and precise science; it requires great care, attention and genetic study; but I have heard that Mr Floquenbeam has not been as careful with his pet as he could be. In fact, it's been escaping for shocking nocturnal activities and while, naturally, my own well bred pets would never look at such a common and unrefined creature, the same cannot be said for yours. In fact, there's a very ugly rumour circulating that Bishzilla has not been as chaste as one would hope. I only tell you of these distressing rumours because I'm your very dearest, dearest friend and it gives me no pleasure at all; quite the reverse, but I know you'll want to deny them. Assuming, that is, you can? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
[Evasively.] Who.. ? How dare you impugn Bishzilla's spotless reputation, you notorious old creature? Granted, she's playful.. [gathers confidence], but so are you, aren't you! Back in the day, and right now in your disgraceful old age! Bishzilla's little flirtation with Floquenstein's monster is hardly to be mentioned on the same day as your footman-chasing. Bishonen | talk12:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC).
I hope you are not suggesting that I have ever behaved with the anything, but the utmost decorum. I can only say that I am disappointed, but not surprised by your unladylike reaction. I have long thought that you probably had never been properly finished. Funnily enough, you may be interested to know that I am thinking of running a course for Wikipedia's young ladies to teach them how to acquire a sophisticated polish (that's the shine a sparkle variety not that nice Mr Piotrus). I will teach a little embroidery, a little French conversation and of course my speciality, flower arranging - my greatest skill which darlingest Giano mentioned earlier today I expect there will be quite a few of our young ladies interested dear little Mrs Risker and that Ms Warfare too; so I would sign up early if I were you. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Tex! Thanks for offering. I didn't dare ask it of you, what with your milling offspring. Hey, maybe the Tex Babies can curate my page also? Bishonen | talk15:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC).
Ha! Baby 2 is in that stage that he will definitely tell you when he doesn't like something. He has an opinion and isn't afraid to voice that opinion even if he's not "talking" yet. Lot's of screaming and gnashing of gums, that's for sure. Hope all is well with the Bishpack! Tex (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh what fun; I insist on being his Godmother; you must send them him to me for a little holiday. I've had endless (I can't remember quite how many) babies and what laughter we had with them; I remember when I accidently left Iolanthe on a train; Nanny was so cross with me, but it didn't matter because Nanny eventually found her in the abandoned luggage department at Aberdeen six weeks later, and she'd had a lovely time - we think. Then there was my eldest, Hugo; we used to love to play hide and seek together. He eventually won that game when I sent to boarding school, aged five, and forgot the name of the school. Anyway, my advice is to just enjoy you lovely children and don't employ a nanny - they just spend their entire lives complaining and looking sour at one. Just look at my children now - all very rounded individuals, apart from Muriel, but she was always an odd, nervous and ungrateful child. I just can't wait for Little Tex to come to and stay with me. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
An honor to speak to you, My Lady. However, I have heard stories about the debauchery that often occurs in your midst. While I respect you immensely, I would rather not have your manservants corrupting my children. With all due respect, of course. Tex (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Pish posh, Tex. The manservants, especially dear Sven, are far too busy running away from Lady Catherine's lewd advances to be corrupting any nippers, so you don't have anything to worry about. Bishonen | talk21:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC).
This editor was blocked by you (and rightfully so), but is asking for an unblock. The first unblock request was rejected as being insufficient, but between the first and second unblock request they seem to have covered all their bases as far as expressing remorse for what they've done, and declaring that they won't repeat the behavior. I additionally asked them what they would do if unblocked, and while not as specific as I would like, they seem insistent that they wish to be productive. I don't know if this editor is simply telling us what we want to hear to get unblocked, or whether they're sincere. I'm generally in favor of giving an editor another chance, but not over your objections. I do find the editor's behavior leading to the block to be bizarre at best, and horrible at worst, but they've also been a productive editor since 2006 (their account is older than mine!) with thousands of edits, and as far as I can tell they have kept out of trouble until recently. So it's possible that there is a chance that they'll stay out of trouble again if unblocked. I wanted your thoughts first. -- Atama頭22:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Atama. I'm not entirely convinced, especially considering Trueblood's WP:IDHT style on ANI. It gives me pause that it took a block to get anything approaching responsiveness from them, and then that the block turned them into a lamb in the blink of an eye. But I don't object to an unblock, because as you say there has been progress. I suppose it would be churlish to complain that there has been too much progress to be credible! Do please unblock, but if I were you I'd warn them somewhat sharply that a relapse will have bad consequences. Bishonen | talk22:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC).
Definitely. I'm basically going to tell them that I'm giving them a chance to prove their sincerity, and that any repeat of the kind of behavior they had will lead to another indefinite block, and this one will be more difficult to appeal since they'll have demonstrated their untrustworthiness. Thanks for your response. -- Atama頭22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
That didn't work very well. It turns out that Trueblood786 was socking, even during his recent block, and even created a new sockpuppet today. I've reblocked him, and his socks. Just thought you should know. -- Atama頭19:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Atama, hope you're not downcast about it. You were right to AGF and right to unblock in that situation. Bishonen | talk20:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC).
No, I'm disappointed a little, maybe annoyed that I didn't know about the SPI before unblocking, but not downcast. I was downcast after this fun incident where I found that I'd wasted my time for two months enabling an operative of a political organization and trying to convince other people to assume good faith about him. This latest incident is nothing in comparison. :) Thanks for your support though, I really appreciate it. -- Atama頭22:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Tell me
My width is set by your preferences
You tell me please here and now what this user preferece stuff is everybody is talking about, but nobody explains that one can get it. What reader's setting determine the size of the image? Can images be different ? If one puts an image at one size how can this be different, I still don't gett it. Some people run around and upright pictures and the whole aticle looks weird, all kind of images of all sizes everywhere. Hafspajen (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Look at the very top of any wikipage. Registered users will have a link called 'preferences'. Click on it and explore! Specifically the 'Appearance' tab will have a section labelled 'Files' where you can change the default size of thumbnails, i.e. any image containing the |thumb parameter which doesn't have an explicit size set in pixels. The |upright= parameter allows the image to be set as a multiple of the default size you set in your preferences; for example |upright=1.5 would set the image 1.5 times wider than other thumbnails. --Shonen's Technical Support Services (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC) (affiliated with the Bishonen conglomerate)
Well… I really agree with Jehochman that it's not a big deal. About Fucking Åmål, a brilliant film title (at least if you've seen Åmål), I mostly thought the American censorship of the original title was interesting, not in a good way. If our article is to be believed, the Academy Award people were cowed by Variety magazine into exchanging it for one of the blandest titles in Hollywood history. But at least our article is illustrated with the Swedish poster and the original title! (Won't somebody think of the children!) Bishonen | talk21:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC).
I'm not big on foreign (for me, english) films, but you've piqued my curiosity, so I thank you for that - I'll watch it.
Back on topic, I was dismayed to see [51] - I undid it, [52] but am sorely afraid I'll be overridden soonish. Such is the state of things - and to be honest, I probably can't be that bothered to kick-against-the-pricks. I might RFC/U Jeh for stomping down so hard, because I think even the admin-cabal will have a hard time justifying that.
The specific issue is quite trivial - whether it is "F★CK" or "Fuck" for a day... but I truly believe the wider implications are...well, wider. And more implicatior :-)
For the freedom fighters. Let's not give in for those who will keep us in the chains of mediocrity, who fight fantasy and colour. Hafspajen (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Hafspaj. Rather to my surprise Drmies and I haven't been reverted, blocked, drawn and quartered on sw wiki yet. Perhaps the small popes keep early hours. Bishonen | talk00:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC).
Hey, ..........................................................................................................................Freedom of speach and pictures. Hafspajen (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I am on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard Incident Hafspajen - my first time ever.By the way, The picture they removed was the picture of Jesus Christ, and I do love him, he is my hero. Also I am kind of religious, in a clandestine way. Now that made me pissed. at the Swedish Administrators noticeboard Hafspajen (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, sure, and thank you for the star, but an apology to me isn't indicated — nobody did anything to me. Presumably that was because I'm a long-time (though infrequent) copyeditor at sv wiki. <!--Unlike that troll Drmies HINT HINT.--> Bishonen | talk15:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC).
OK. If you are not hurt because they reverted your edits with no explications in the middle of this mess, desto bättre. Hafspajen (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Bah, no, little pajen. You're getting mixed up with all the back-and-forth, and no wonder, but nobody has significantly reverted any of my edits on sv.wiki. Yger re-inserted Rex Sueciæ's comment on your talk, which I had removed, but that was reasonable enough (even though it was a pretty shitty comment). He left the rest. I reverted MagnusA's removal of Drmies' wikilove posts on your page, and my revert is still the last item in the history. Nobody has reverted me on Drmies' page either, where I posted a stroppy remark, still there. I think they may possibly know just enough of en.wiki to be frightened of Bishzilla. ROARR! Bishonen | talk20:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC).
HM, I said that it is not right that they should have those blocks in their history pleasr remove it. And they say that is impossible to remove Drmies and Paley from the block log av tekniska skäl. Is this true? Hafspajen (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Listen, Bishy. I think that it is really best for me to leave that Swedis wiki as I said I will. I really don't think that this will go anywhere. We did not made any point, nobody apologized .
A Swedish administrators talk page, [53] full of pictures and Wikilove, but nobody removed anything from HIS page, pictures of carrots and wikilove, but nobody is terrorizing HIM to take those off.
Thanks Bishy for you kind words. Also, did you see that they treat other editors very differently from the way they treat me? I can try calming down, but I am going to be supervised and folks will remove things from my discussion page just to assert themselves, and will go on partonizing me read this, read that, conform, please to our rules as I was a child, which I am not. I actually have several university degrees and I am working and also go on taking still more degrees as we speak. Have also my own business. And I have been on the Wiki since like six years, here. Hafspajen (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
What's OPP? I shouldn't have said "open" on the user's page. It's a confirmed proxy server,[54] as I wrote in the block log. Also, as James points out below, all the editing is bad (I did check). And the unblock request I declined was ridiculous. Bishonen | talk15:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC).
Being a proxy is not reason for a block, if it isn't an open proxy. As far as this block is concerned, it's not a very important point, since you, Daniel, and I all agree that the block is good. However, the reason I mentioned the matter is that I didn't know whether you did have evidence of it's being an open proxy, or if you thought that any proxy should be blocked, or it was just a slip, or what. Since there certainly are admins who think that any "confirmed proxy server" should be blocked, and I have no idea whether you are one of them, I thought it best to check with you, because if you are, then it was worth warning you about making the same mistake another time, when there may not be other grounds for a block. By "OPP" Daniel no doubt means Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, aka WP:OPP. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Query about an IP block
Hello, Bishonen. I totally agree with your block on 198.228.217.150, here: in fact I have extended it to range block, since virtually all editing over the last month has been from the one person. However, the one thing I am not sure about is your statement that the IP address is hosting an open proxy. I can find no evidence of that. I wonder if you can let me know what evidence you have? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to thank you profusely for the rangeblock, but I know this isn't the only IP range that the vandal edits from, so I know it's not entirely over for now. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)15:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@James: I like the way the block expands every time it's appealed. :-) Probably by now they're wishing they had just quietly sat out the modest 31-hour block. Bishonen | talk16:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC).
Thanks
Thanks Bishonen for getting involved in the whole Swedish debacle - your help and directions on Haf's talkpage helped me find all the exciting action of the day! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Haha, fun, wasn't it? I just posted at the Swedish ANI that I don't think either you or Drmies are too upset about having a Swedish block log. More of a colourful anecdote to dine out on, isn't it? Like having had a remote ancestor who was hanged for horse stealing. Mutatis mutandis. Bishonen | talk00:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
Yes you are right, I'm not fretting over my Swedish block log. I would have been concerned if the block hadn't been removed, but that's not the case. Anyway it was all in a good cause (Haf's Swedish talkpage—I think the ANI thread has been helpful there, unless I've misunderstood proceedings)), and I had good company throughout it all... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Your Block on User Lalitshastri
I think Editor Lalit Shastri should have been given some warning to explain himself before you blocked him. The crux of the issue is in the constant undos to Singahi Bhiraura page, which lalitshastri painstakingly created. A well researched article, he cited an inline published source for everything he wrote.
User Sitush who is rather heavy handed with the revert button edited almost all of it out. The whole thing escalated, and has led to this. With the result Wikipedia is a bit of a laughing stock amongst scholars. If you look at the early edits of the article there are all IP addresses from the BT server at the British Library. We have wifi here in the foyer and I know several academics who added bits to this article, however it was mainly Lalit Shastri who works in the archive who created it, go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lalitshastri, where there is a possible explanation of why user Sitush was so keen to remove entire paragraphs of the article, he reduced an article of some hundreds of words to a stub.
The evidence is there in the history of the Singahi Bhiraura page.
The town itself is an obscure little place of no importance with half the people barely able to read and write. However Lalit Shastri researched the History of the lower caste people who were its first settlers along with Muslims, he cited original sources as well as published material from the extensive records and books here at the British Library.
But the Upper Caste Hindus of the RSS are busy distorting Indian History to fall in line with their own fascist agenda (google and do your own research) and leading Indian and foreign academics have written about it. This is what Sitush who vandalized the article did not like, history as it was, without the distorted RSS version. That the Muslims and India's lower caste Hindus co operated in this town. That the Muslims did not discriminate against the lower castes. That The Rajputs in the 18th century took away the lower caste freedoms in this little town
RSS fascism in India pretends all Hindus are united, they try and hide the dark underbelly of the horrors of the caste system. India's own slave period and shame.
Muslims are demonized what user Sitush could not bear was that the history of the town as researched by Lalit shastri told the truthful tale of Muslims and untouchables cooperating. And the fact that Muslims treated the untouchable as an equal
This is why a little article on an unimportant town has produced this controversy, this is why we as academics take an interest here, we have seen these subtle distortions in the historical narrative if it goes against the ideology of the RSS (try googling RSS Fascism, or Hindutva fascism or Modi fascist).
In Wikepedia the most active and the most committed often get through their point of view. Many follow the RSS ideology in India. Its a middle class phenomenon and the RSS cadre is committed and evangelical, the views of this group often prevails. many in India subscribe to the Hindu nationalist ideals.
Wikepedia does have the same problems, with the Palestine page, the Israel page, the US tea party page and countless other pages. But a common consensus is reached with both sides adding to a controversial article. But user Sitush every time something was added or repaired, he did a undo, (see history of Singahi Bhiraura a page, Now all of us are new to wikipedia some of us have not even a user name, maybe we made mistakes in tackling user Situst who is a experienced wikipedia editor but not a good one as I have looked at all his edits from the past.
I hope Lalit Shastri is not too put off with the ban and will be able to restore his Singahi Bhiraura page off course with plenty of inline citations from published sources and user Sitush will not keep undoing his work
| 12 = User Sitush who is rather heavy handed with the revert button edited almost all of it out.
| 13 = This is what Sitush who vandalized the article did not like, history as it was, without the distorted RSS version.
| 14 = Muslims are demonized what user Sitush could not bear was that the history of the town as researched by Lalit shastri told the truthful tale of Muslims and untouchables cooperating.
| 15 = But user Sitush every time something was added or repaired, he did a undo, (see history of Singahi Bhiraura
| 16 = maybe we made mistakes in tackling user Situst who is a experienced wikipedia editor but not a good one as I have looked at all his edits from the past.
| 17 = I hope Lalit Shastri is not too put off with the ban and will be able to restore his Singahi Bhiraura page off course with plenty of inline citations from published sources and user Sitush will not keep undoing his work
OK, finally, sorry about the delay. You're mistaken, the crux of the issue is the sock puppetry which violates one of Wikipedia's core policies. I explained in my block notice on Lalithshastri's page that I had blocked him for abusing multiple accounts, and I linked to the relevant CheckUser report, but it's like neither he nor you read the block notice. Neither of you have addressed the block reason I gave. It's in your interest to read the sock puppet report I've linked to, because I have now blocked your account indefinitely with reference to it. Note that the accusation of "sock puppetry" doesn't necessarily claim that one individual runs both the accounts. It can also mean that you're editing based on real life collaboration, and not for good or innocent purposes. The relevant part of the sock puppetry policy is here, and I've blocked you as a sock in that sense. Bishonen | talk15:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
Thank you. [Obsessively:] Perhaps you'd like to make a clueless complaint about Sitush? I have to say it's a little disappointing that the dedicated board hasn't been used yet. You, Diannaa, are one of only.. uh.. a few users who have been granted access to the exclusive Extra Drmies option! Artistic new button design by the well-known RexxS now makes clicking for new complaints an almost sensual pleasure! Bishonen | talk18:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
I have to admit those buttons are hauntingly beautiful and I clicked them many times, both the standard complaint and the Extra Drmies (I did not realise that Extra Drmies was an exclusive offer! such an honour). But I think the actual clueless complaining should be left to the official Independent Wikepedia investigators who have the time to conduct an investigation on all his Wikipedia edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
As an example of mangling that is closer to home, I had to take my mum to hospital yesterday and, as happens when they get older, it was a lengthy day. On the way home, six hours later, she announced that she was "shackered". Obviously couldn't make her mind up whether she was shattered or knackered. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Can't be done, unfortunately; I don't see any way of doing it without mocking the English. Actually I copyedit the Generator quite a bit for language, as here. That said, the pejorative of a harlot is a real classic among malapropisms. :-) I hope your mother is doing better! Bishonen | talk13:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
Probably a malaprop of “prerogative”. Still seems rather a non sequitur to me, so I guess it’s a mixture of half-remembered sayings.—Odysseus147906:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Olympic articles changes
Please take a look at user Maxx Fordhams name changes of several Olympic topic articles. Such as the Winter Olympic Games. The user also throw tantrums at talk pages calling users "crybabies" :). He has been warned and blocked before for similar behaviour. In my opinion atleast you do not change article names of several major articles without talk page discussions first. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Erase this if you like. But hey, I guess you don't have an alert to new material on my talk page. Can I alert you here just like when someone else writes on my page, without being blocked?
babba Seems to think that while there's something supposedly "wrong" with my writing on his/her page, it's still "okay" for her/him to throw tantrums on mine, falsely accusing me of "throwing tantrums," and acting as if he/she were an admin when he/she is obviously not (because he/she has to ask you for help with her/his bidding). Now where is the "balance" in that?
Will you please warn babbaq into not vandalizing my page, and block him or her if s/he continues?
Oh, also, please read what I wrote about the accident I had on babba's user page and why I blanked it (but should have just reverted). OK?
"Maxx Fordham"
I find it sad to see that you still do not get what Wikipedia is all about Maxx. You take everything so personal and you react with tantrums instead of responding in a respectful tone. Now please move on with your Wikipedia-life and start doing edits correctly and stop wasting Bishonens time with these kind of comments. And please start signing your comments. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Uhh, still not reacting with tantrums, dude. And yes, I DO know what Wikipedia is about. It's about trying to clean up articles without messing them up, which is what I understood that I was doing.
Also, if you expect someone else to move on (especially since you are not an admin), then you need to move on too. Hey, now you're vandalizing bishonen's page. If you can consider what someone else does as "vandalism," then I can think the same thing about what you do, can I not?
I'm not wasting bishonen's time requesting that you not vandalize my page. If you can request it and get it, then I can too, can I not?
And how do you get notifications of talking on someone else's talk page?
I did not ask Bishonen to block you. I asked him to look at your edits which I personally find to be inappropriate. He agreed with me and gave you a warning. I really do not see your point. Anyhow I am off this discussion you are unwilling to even show even the lowest level of decency towards other users sadly. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I have Bishonens talk page at my watchlist since a while back :) And also it is very easy to follow your trail of indecent comments towards other users at their respective talk page. So there you have it my friend. I will not respond further ... not into feeding....--BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, then you complained at launchballer for what you falsely called "vandalism," then, and he/she threw that warning. I guess I should have asked him/her for that service also.
Where do you get the idea that I'm supposedly "still" making so-called "indecent comments"? I'm only now doing what you were doing, calling your writings on my talk page vandalism and tantrums just like you were doing on mine. So you want to be implying that your responses are indecent too, then?
Well, I have to respond to outright lies. I have not contacted Launchballer about you. Please provide the link to that comment. I only contacted Bishonen. :) Perhaps you should focus more on why Bish and Launchballer warned you independently of each other, than me contacted Bish about your behavior. You have recieved warnings for a reason. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I have responded on Maxx's page. But please note, Maxx, that your very header to this section is a personal attack. Please stop. (And, no, you can hardly blame Babba for calling your blanking of his userpage vandalism. It sure looked like it, although I accept the explanation you later gave.) Keep this on your own page from now on, please. It's merely confusing to spread a conversation over several pages. Bishonen | talk12:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC).
We'll continue on my talk page, BISHONEN (not babbaq), but for the record here, it doesn't make sense that it's "okay" for him to say that I was "vandalizing" his page and not be considered as giving a personal attack if you call it a "personal attack" when I called what he was doing vandalism. What's with the double-standard, man?
Okay then, babbaq, so the "Launchballer" just suddenly "came out of nowhere"? How would he have known about my responses on your page and wanted to consider them the same lame false term as you considered them if you hadn't said something to him?
Comment for Maxx
Bish please post this message at Maxxs talk page instead. I do not want to see a response from him ever again at my talk page. Hope you understand. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Do go for a walk or something, Babba. I said on your page that I would post the warning on Maxx's page as well, and I have. I explicitly told him not to respond to it on your page. I've removed your paste of my warning above, since I think it was kind of confusing for other people — with my sig on it, it looked like something I had myself posted here. Anyway, I'm going for a walk right now. Nice weather in these parts! Bishonen | talk14:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC).
Made a comment earlier today at user Mark Millers talk page. As he mentioned me not responding to that person anymore once again while I already had agreed to that 20hrs earlier by you and Acro. Also mentioned you in the post so I guess I better notify you about it as well. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Coincidentally, I just saw Mark Miller's ping of you on Maxx's talk, and wrote him a rather strongly worded comment. Mark pinging you in that manner was really baiting, calling you back to that page when you had already disengaged, but I'm sure he didn't do it on purpose. See my comment to him. I'm glad you resisted turning up there to respond to him, well done. I suggest you disengage from Mark's page now as well. Bishonen | talk17:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC).
I agree with you Mark did not do it on purpose. But he took Maxx words as the truth and wasted time by not reading through the previous posts apparently. Anyway, back to disengaging from the situation :)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Restoration of post
Good morning Bishonen, I appreciate your intervention at Hpj's. My reason for removing that post was just as you commented in your edit summary, but perhaps you realised that. I take a fatherly interest in this charming editor who works so passionately with this project not in his first language. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| —11:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I know! Yes, he's passionate, and it's a shame his fire was snuffed out at sv. You may help yourself to a few of Hafspajen's cakes at the top of this page, Gareth. Yet another Swedish weirdo, 11:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC).
Good choice. Incidentally, tomorrow's Saturday, the day I give a class in cake eating appreciation in Bishzilla's pocket. You're most welcome to join. Learn all about the deliciousness of cakes! (Trying to imagine the fate of such a page, or even such a sock, on sv.wiki. I suppose we are kind of silly on en.) Bishonen | talk12:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC).
All good fun. Long may it last! Thank you for the link. It is now on my Watchlist for future notice, but with the three international games tomorrow (Six Nations Rugby Union final day) amounting to six hours of non-stop television ... well, I am sure you get my drift. Have a great weekend! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| —12:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your explanation. I'm sure you are right. Unfortunately, though, the diplomatic language you refer to was not helpful to me, coming in as an outsider, not having seen the full history. However, such is life. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Problems with edits?
Hi, a question re Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2: You endorsed jps' outside view, which said, among other things, that Wikipedia "would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics" (said topics, I assume, being the areas where QG's conduct is indicted in the RfC; it's unclear). AFAIK, I've had virtually no interaction with you, but assume you must have reviewed my edits (and block log etc.), and those of Mallexikon (the other RfC endorser), or you wouldn't have endorsed such a strong statement. Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too! Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I see you've sent this question to all the endorsers (or most? never mind.). My endorsement was a while ago (one month); I checked diffs at the time but I'm afraid I'm not willing to go back and do in-depth research at this point. The topic I was thinking of was acupuncture. I remember I was pretty disappointed with the lists of ANIs and ANs you supplied as evidence for QG's disruptiveness since they go right back to 2007 and stop in 2011 — that's effectively no evidence at all, you know, and creates the impression that all you have is old stuff. (I'm thinking of going to the RfC and saying so). Anyway, since it was recent evidence, I looked with particular interest at the thread "Rate of serious adverse events" from Talk:Acupuncture which you had adduced as evidence of QG's refusal to listen in the RfC.[55] Using reasonably recent medical sources is pretty paramount, compare WP:MEDRS, and in that thread you insist on using a source from 2004 in preference to the more recent reviews you say it's consistent with. I'm sorry, but to me your own posts in that thread give the very picture of a POV-warrior refusing to yield an inch. Further, my impression is that you have a conflict of interest as regards acupuncture. Bishonen | talk19:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC).
The problems have been continuing for a very long time at acupuncture. The latest problems are being discussed at the talk page. I don't think the discussion on the talk page is helping to improve the article much. For example, I can't seem to get the other editor to understand that there is copyright violation currently in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh god. I agree with you, QG, but I'm afraid I can't see my way to getting involved in an admin (or other) capacity on that page. I just don't have the time to go deep, and it looks like that would be necessary. I wonder if there are any more "views" on the RFC I can endorse? ...no, it seems not. But I'm if possible even more convinced that I did right to endorse the ones I did. Bishonen | talk17:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
Eh
How came that Afternoon Tea is a picture while Afternoon tea is called something like so silly as Tea(meal) with only one section called Afternoon tea? Was there any intelligent reason for this? I think tea (meal) should be one article and Afternoon tea as the British tradition - a differen. [56]Hafspajen (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
All our mealtime articles are messes. People keep putting OR into them, on the lines of "but this is how we do it in Sundbyberg, what are you talking about?" "Tea" as a meal is a particularly slippery concept, especially indeed British usage itself, the shades of which are imbued with social class. There is no way you can inveigle me into commenting on any meal article, or any meal, except the cake orgy in Bishzilla's pocket. Thanks for livening the talkpage there. Bishonen | talk18:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC).
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK[•]00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Q
Bear Dish, I have a little question. I can't find, here or on the sv-wiki, an article for Boda--that is, Boda the village, the parish, the whatever (there's Bodahamn and Bodasand, if I remember correctly). I'd like to at least have a proper red link for "Vikens betydelse som hamnplats för Böda socken kan knappast underskattas", which I'm about to stick in Grankullaviken, written in honor of <redacted>. Tack sä mycket! Drmies (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Parishes of Sweden is so simplified as to be no use for this. Having read sv:Socken, an Utmärkt Artikel, I think you should keep the word socken, with quote marks when it's on its own, because socken and församling aren't the same. I thought they were, but there you are. sv:Socken#Sockenindelningens användning i Sverige idag is quite interesting, especially this bit: "På senare år har det framförts krav från flera riksdagspartier, myndigheter och organisationer att socknen, och inte Svenska kyrkans församlingsindelning, skall utgöra den minsta enheten i folkbokföringen. Dessa krav har motiverats dels med att Svenska kyrkan numera är skild från staten och folkbokföringen därmed bör vara sekulär, dels med att Svenska kyrkans allt snabbare och mer omgripande församlingssammanslagningar innebär att en månghundraårig indelning av landet hotas, då församlingarna alltmer sällan överensstämmer med socknarna, särskilt i storstäder." (Translation for talkpage stalkers: It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents, except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the house-tops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness. Through one of the obscurest quarters of London, and among haunts little loved by the gentlemen of the police, a man, evidently of the lowest orders, was wending his solitary way.) Grankullaviken is a delight, congratulations! Bishonen | talk10:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC).
Thank you Bishonen for removing the uncalled for reference to me above. It's great that you take a stand against experienced users unable to move on. Lets leave it at that. Luttrad (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
You're a fine one to talk about moving on. I'm sure there was no intention to poke you, but only a jocular reminder to me (as a Swede) from Drmies that he's interested in Sweden and Swedish subjects, despite not being credited with being a constructive content contributor on sv.wiki. You hardly come here — as far as I, or Drmies, knew — and there wasn't a ping. When I saw that you had in fact seen your name — being apparently more interested in my talkpage, or in Drmies' contributions, than I had dreamt — I thought it best to remove it. Nobody has any wish to tease or twit you, you know. Please do leave it at that. Bishonen | talk20:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC).
I just wanted to point out that I found Drmies's spoonerified greeting at the beginning of this thread quite evocative, and, what with all the talk about "Socken", I'm picturing another member of the Bish.family Inc. (the poor creature wouldn't last long, but whatever, I liked the spoonerism). ---Sluzzelintalk22:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't like it when my carefully misspelled and thought-out talk page comments are messed with. Who turned my "sa" into "så"? Bish, thanks for the kind words. I really shouldn't be messing with socken; if you don't mind, can you look over those articles (Böda socken, Grankullavik, Grankullaviken, Trollskogen...) to see if I got it moderately right? Drmies (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure, later. They're beautiful, but I'm a little worried about "marks Öland's northernmost point", you may be being over-literal there and making it sound more paradoxical than it is. I mean, Ölands norra udde is a name. Incidentally, who said ""Vikens betydelse som hamnplats för Böda socken kan knappast underskattas"? You know it's a solecism, right? A mixture of two expressions, as if one should say "hook, line and barrel". (Should be "kan knappast överskattas".) Sorry about the "så", I've fixed it. And after I'd just corrected "the" back to "teh" in RexxS's Wikipedia:Randy in space and everything![57]Bishonen | talk09:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC).
Well, looka here, I claim sv-1 on my user page, so don't get smart with me (cause I'm kinda dumb). "Ölands norra udde" is really a weird(ish) name for a lighthouse, but hey, to each his own. I don't really trust a people that vary the pronunciation of the perfectly clear, straight, rock-solid k depending on the vowel that follows it--I mean, that's just mean, man, and it made me look like a moron in the middle of Skane's flatland. But...but...feel free to tweak, in space or out of it... Drmies (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Given your reminder here, would you consider advising one of the parties involved that comments like this in reference to this thread and comments like this where my use of the word policy is criticized 7 times, twice screaming, within one thread, are problematic? I'll file this elsewhere if you prefer (do consider it a formal complaint which allows me to mention the other user's edits), but I think the interaction ban has been working quite well, at least for me, and I'd really rather it de-escalate, instead of escalating.
(talk page stalker) Hmmm, well, I didn't see any of those, but I did see TRM'sedits to the ANI thread, and have given him a warning (as the first edit is more or less stale at this point, and I wasn't aware of any other violations, I didn't think a block would've been helpful, though I was seriously considering it). If Bish or others think a stronger measure is necessary, I wouldn't be inclined to disagree; certainly if it happens again after this. Writ Keeper⚇♔20:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hmm, well if the disruption to the ref desks continue, then someone should man-/woman-up and do something about it rather than just ignore it. Frankly, it's an embarrassment that this has been allowed to continue for so long. Still, Bish and Writ, you continue to do "the right thing", and allow the disruption, the fallacious comments, the ownership, and block one of the few people who actually tried to give a shit about it. That'll make Wikipedia a better place after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Whether it is still a problem or not, the interaction ban should have made it clear by now that it is not your problem, so just drop it. Writ Keeper⚇♔20:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec) If it's up to me, please don't block anyone on my testimony. I do think the issue is incredibly asymmetrical. There's recruiting of other users and admins against me and against various other users. There is no such recruitment or solicitation or unending assault by me. I hope, at this point, mere notice and documenting of the trends is sufficient. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
That's not a new guy, that's a sock. No idea why, unless to amuse themselves. The user has been indeffed by Ponyo. I've rolled back a few edits, including the strange comment you linked to. They appear to be an experienced user; for instance they added a {{checkuserblock}} template to their talkpage themselves, immediately after Ponyo blocked them. :-) Bishonen | talk21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC).
Gosh, already fixed, and before I had a chance to post the valuable reflexions I just typed? Darn. (I thought it might be frat humour, since the article seemed to be about a fraternity or thereabouts, in an Icelandic school.) Bishis Bishzilladottir, 19:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC).
Thanks! And I'm sure, Rexxson, that you'll have translated that school article by now. Who is this 'zilla you're talking about? I'm positively warmblooded, and I can count past four. Dr. Cornelisson Mies (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
And one more thing: can you figure out how big Böda kronopark is? Does it occupy the entire "top" of the island? Drmies (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes dear Mieszilla, it's both kinds of park. Kronopark means it belongs to the state,[59] Ekopark that the owner has undertaken to protect it. I don't see anything against a park being both: thus Böda kronopark belongs to state-owned sv:Sveaskog, which has turned it into an Ekopark by undertaking to protect it. As Sveaskog says on their site: "För att bevara och återskapa den unika mångfalden i Böda har Sveaskog valt att göra området till ekopark. Genom en väl planerad naturvårdsskötsel kommer vi att skapa mer ängstallskog, ädellövskog, våtmarker och lyfta fram fornlämningar och kulturminnen."[60] If you click on the English version under "Ladda ner broschyrer" on that site, you'll get a nice pdf, even though I can't figure what the direct link is to the pdf. That pdf has a quite elaborate map, with the names of a lot of separate little nature reserves inside the kronopark, and unfortunately without any very clear boundaries as to where the kronopark begins and ends, which is what you were asking. All the maps I've seen on the web are really coy about that, sorry. But my impression from Sveaskog's pdf map is that yes, it's the entire top of Öland, barring the sandy beaches in the extreme north-west. Reasonably, since Sveaskog is only likely to own skog. Bishonen | talk17:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC).
Thanks! ('zilla? who dat?) Yes, why can't they just draw a line around the damn park? Or why can't they define what they mean with "forest" in "Although the hunting park was closed in 1801, the forest remained crown property"? (On page 2 of the brochure.) One day I'll tell you the story about how my maidenhead was almost ravished in Bodahamn. It involves an ant bite and a husband referred to as "the moose". (She did divorce her husband, I think, and now lives in Borgholm, according to various Googlings.) Oh, the PDF: right-click the link and select "Copy link location". I think these things used to be simpler--where Acrobat simply gave the URL. Thanks so much, Drmies (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
In regards to your suggestion in WP:AN/Incidents#Topic ban proposal to site-wide ban & block, I can see the point. What I can't figure out from reading WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK is, if it's acceptable to strike out ones initial support for topic ban and up the ante to site-wide ban & block? Is there an essay lying somewhere on a dusty shell that I would benefit from reading? Best, Sam SailorSing01:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
No essay, but feel free to do it per common sense. :-) There's never anything to stop you changing your own comment as long as other people haven't responded to it. If you had done the proposing, you couldn't change that now, but certainly you can change your support. Just leave your original comment visible ( f ex by striking through) with its timestamp and date, and make it really clear what you're doing, for example by writing something like "I've changed my mind, I'm supporting bla bla instead". But you'll notice how I supported the topic ban as well, as second choice. It's safer to do that, otherwise the person toting up the consensus may merely count your comment against consensus for a topic ban, and I don't think you'd want that. The siteban suggestion I floated doesn't look like it'll get consensus anyway. Bishonen | talk05:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC).
It might not, but I find it worthwhile to make a clear stand and send a signal that this kind of editing is unacceptable. Thanks for your advice. (Illogical fallacies are amusing: "you support banning me, so you have proven not to be an objective admin". Ah, yes, the heathen admins and their witch-hunting on AN/I, hic sunt dracones. ) Best, Sam SailorSing12:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I was just thinking they were belabouring the obvious. Are they likely to think somebody who wants to indef them is being objective and neutral?[61] They might have saved their breath and the ANI space. Bishonen | talk12:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC).
Denial is often endemic. A case for WP:WER this is not. .. The circular reasoning reminds me of my ex-wife, just ^4 here. Good riddance to her. Best, Sam SailorSing13:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
AN/S
Hey Bish, it looks like we may have another report that should be directed to WP:AN/S soon, if the comments today by Shvrs at Talk:Raju are put into action. That said, I've gone an entire week without being mentioned at ANI & I'm starting to get withdrawal symptoms. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Boo, hiss. Seems you have attracted the attention of the wikipolice, Bish ;) Forget the Sheriff and support your local Content Creator, perhaps? I've no idea what the rules are for shortcuts but, hey, enough admins have used this one and/or seen it already, including at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, WP:MfD specifies ""Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Module:, and the various Talk: namespaces. One can see that Wikipedia:AN/S is definitely in the Wikipedia: namespace. I agree that it's also a redirect ... BUT MfD is also for "Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue". So as soon as you dispute whether a page should be at MfD, it automatically qualifies! --RexxS (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a category. (I did not know that.) My concern is that a general user coming across a link with an AN/ prefix would expect it to lead to a non humor page in Wikipedia space: see Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:AN/. (Three of those actually go to the same Betacommand page -- they must have really annoyed people). NE Ent10:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, be serious. Where's the "general user" going to come across that shortcut and be misled by it? Not on Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:AN/, a page which only dedicated Wikipediacruft anoraks ever see. It's scarcely used at all, because people think it's funnier to use the full name. Sitush has been known to use the shortcut to point the group "users of extreme cluelessness complaining on his page" (this is in my opinion a group distinct from the group "general user") to the dedicated noticeboard. Do them good. Anyway, none of them have posted on the Sitush noticeboard yet (which is frustrating, but that's by the way), nor even complained on its talkpage (which would perhaps be more likely), or complained about it on Sitush's page. This to me suggests that they're in the main too clueless to even click on the shortcut. For these reasons I'd rather not delete it.
While I think it's humorous to have a noticeboard devoted to complaints about Sitush it is confusing to have editors referred to that page in AN/I discussions. For a while, I thought the noticeboard was actually going to be in use because people were being advised to go post their complaints there. I don't think it is a problem that it exists but editors who come to AN/I with problems shouldn't be directed to that page. I know there are a ridiculous number of unwarranted complaints against Sitush but being clear to users who are probably new to AN/I is more important. LizRead!Talk!22:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
A summer's day clearly long ago!
Could you be very kind an undelete this image File:Brymptonboat.gif which some over zealous idiot has deleted. It's from Granny Giano's family album and used in a couple of page I've written. Thanks sweatheart. Giano(talk)08:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see conversation here. I'll e-mail you as soon as I have a moment. (You know diabetics need to eat every 30 minutes, right? To the fridge!) Bishonen | talk18:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
Thank you sincerely, for your efforts, but I have better things to do with my time than rescan and reupload images that I have already uploaded because some fool chooses to call me a liar. If Wikipedia does not want my efforts, it can stagger on without them. Most historians and publishers would give their eyeteeth for my photographic archive, and frequently do - only Wikipedia's motley crew of uneducated admins are so stupid as to throw things away. In the meantime I have discovered something far more interesting that the idiots so keen to call me a liar have missed. Enjoy your meal. Giano(talk)18:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
MONGO Army has arrived to help protect page from wackos!
Hi. See my comments on my talk page. I am too tired to discuss this at length - it has been going on too long. But thanks for your observations. Deb (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
.
Bishzilla coming out of the depths. Oops, depths so small! bishzillaROARR!!.Good dog! Bishzilla smells the dog. Snack or skateboard artist? Why not both? bishzillaROARR!!.
Isn't there a version (like, the original version) with ants? Very military ants? Disney? Obviously, you don't find Disney on YouTube or much of anywhere on the internet, but… or am I confusing it with some other military ants? Bishonen | talk17:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC).
"Original" references vs translated references at svwp
I'm engaged in a discussion about a suggestion on Swedish Wikipedia to mark references in translated articles as being taken from somewhere else. The jist of it is that several Swedish users are arguing that if translators of articles haven't checked the refs for themselves, those refs should be marked as "translated". On suggestion is to add a comment to notes along the lines of "based on a source given at article 'Foo bar' on English/Chinese/whatever Wikipedia". I find the suggestion odd to say the least.
Would you (any passers-by are more than welcome to comment) like to share any thoughts on this? Is this a good idea or not?
That looks like straining at gnats and swallowing camels. I mean, the quality of referencing in general on sv.wiki isn't so great.. not that I mean to boast of the referencing here on en, indeed (don't get me started), but at least we have a careful vetting process for Featured articles (leading to incredible referencing pedantry, but then similar pedantry is surely somewhat what the suggestion to mark translated references as special (as.. inferior?) is in aid of, isn't it?) There's nothing like that for Utmärkta artiklar, unless the process has changed a lot since I last looked. And also, as I saw you arguing at sv:Wikipediadiskussion:Källhänvisningar#Praxis vad gäller ursprungskällor vid översättningar från andra wikipedior, why would the references added by a furriner be any worse? Is this the Hederlig Svensk contempt of the morals of the rest of the world rearing its ugly head? Plus, the idea of referencing is that it's supposed to be transparent. That anybody can check. But I hope you don't want me to weigh in at the discussion, because I can't face it. I don't know why it is, but trying to discuss stuff on sv has always felt like I'm shouting into a high wind. It's like everybody else is more interested in winning than I am. Or it could be just that I'm (ridiculously, I know) not any too used to writing in my mother tongue. On the third hand, it's just struck me I hate contributing to discussions altogether.. I tend to put everything I've got into my first post, if any, because I can't stand the thought of making a second. Oh god, date linking..[62] Now I'm depressed. Bishonen | talk20:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC).
Ask you to weigh in? Lord no, Bish. They'd likely just accuse me of trying to call in the cavalry of unruly English-speaking tramsmobbare trying to likrikta all of Wikipeia to the tune of Amerika-dominated tyranny.
Just looked for some external input and/or sanity checks. :-)
Yes, it's weird. If the article is a translation, of course the refs are translations as well. You might be interested in Human trafficking in Argentina, which I translated from the Spanish. I put the original quotations in Spanish, with my own translations next to them, to avoid any copyright issues. The format sacrifices some smoothness for comprehensibility, but all in all, I think it works out all right. There is a template on the talk page, that says simply, "This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Trata de personas en Argentina from the Spanish Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors." --which is the standard translation template for en.wp that I dug out of a policy somewhere, I don't have a separate Amerika-tyranny template. —Neotarf (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Bish, you care to say something inspiring and/or whimsical to inspire me to keep pushing for sanity?
I'm not one to encourage those conscientious little Dutch boys such as yourself to keep plugging that dike. If it doesn't help it doesn't help; I would have given up much sooner. Remember it's a hobby, Peter, it's supposed to be fun, and you're not responsible for the place. Wikipedia is not your mother is usually spoken in the sense that the 'pedia doesn't love you and won't take care of you, but it's also true in the sense that it's not your ailing mother that you have to take care of. (It's just ailing, that's all.) Did you see my new edit notice? Step away from that dike and click on the link on the left and get your daily affirmation instead. Nobody deserves the compliments and flower bouquets better than you do! Bishonen | talk16:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
Hey, that actually helped. You rule, Bish, as always.
I feel that this thread [63] would very much benefit from prompt attention by an admin. Accordingly, I am posting this message on here - I shall do the same for other admins who appear to be currently online. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Responded on ANI. Andy, in my honest opinion, you'd better go for a walk. It's a delightful spring afternoon here, and hopefully there, too. Have an icecream in the park. (I'm not even sure we do have a policy against the use of firearms in dispute resolution.) Bishonen | talk17:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC).
I found this to be a far better analysis. Jimbo came close to getting it right, but hasn't quite grasped that we have WP:MEDRS, which requires secondary sources for medical claims. Demanding good-quality sources (not just anything published in a "scientific journal") is a big help in keeping the POV-pushers away. P.S. If you're interested in the issue, you can come and help me tidy the worst bits out of Acupuncture. --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Cool link, Rex. I'm saving a couple of fine words that were new to me (being a non-native speaker and all) in Bishzilla's pocket for future use: quackademic, woo-ful (or should it be woo-woo-ful?). And just a couple of clicks away was the great zombie Hitler, also a new acquaintance. I'm thinking of releasing the creature on ANI for April 1. And thank you very much for the fixie dust at the Blondin Award template! Bishonen | talk22:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC).
(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) Where is your difficulty: in the headline, Wales’s comment, or elsewhere in the story? (All contain idiomatic expressions, colloquial or journalistic, that I can imagine seeming opaque to a non-native speaker.) The gist of the piece is that Jimbo made dismissive remarks off-wiki about a petition that sought to make WP more inclusive of “alternative” or “holistic” theories & therapies that are regarded as unproven or “fringe” by the mainstream scientific & medical literature.—Odysseus147921:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, god, really? Every time I try to read up on the conditions for issuing discretionary sanctions, I decide that it's simply too bureaucratic. Yes, I realise DS are supposed to make it easier to prevent disruption.. yeah. The day I get into them will have to be a day I feel madly energetic. Sorry, Doug. Don't you think an ordinary revert warring block like I just gave him will tell him something? If he hits the ground running when he returns, there will be longer blocks pretty quickly. Bishonen | talk15:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC).
Actually I think you are right at the oment. But I think next time DS should apply given a block for edit-warring. It's bureaucratic but sometimes it's about the only thing that will work. What I like is the ability to place sanctions on articles to limit reverts, but I don't think that is often possible. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.
You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 3/29/14. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, but really? I hope that doesn't mean somebody else has access to your password. If you were merely editing in your sleep, don't worry too much, it happens. Bishonen | talk15:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC).
John makes a good point. If two people edit simultaneously, clicking "save" in the same second, the edit conflict feature sometimes won't work. (Happened to me yesterday.) That said, it's a little unexpected that Klopsikon didn't add anything in their edit. But I'm assuming good faith, and have commented on their page. Any reason you haven't restored your comment, Babba? Bishonen | talk09:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
Naghmehetaati, who you blocked because they were posting comments in Persian and not answering inquiries on their talk page, is back as User:Naghmehetaati 13. Someone opened an SPI, but I don't think it's really necessary. BMK (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, NBSB. Sorry I wasn't around, but it seems it did get immediate attention, by FreeRangeFrog. It took me a little time to read up, but I have now, as a completely uninvolved admin, declined the unblock request. Looking forward to having somebody tell me they know where my children go to school! Bishonen | talk20:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
Hello Bish, as proven by this diff, where he/she accidentally posted as an IP because of being being automatically logged out due to the Heartbleed bug, there's a clear and definite connection between Finnedi (Finnedi(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), who you blocked for 24h the other day for edit-warring on both Kvenland and King of Kvenland and an IP who was blocked a couple of times last year for the exact same kind of edit-warring on King of Kvenland and Ancient kings of Finland. Which might be of some interest when metering out the length of the next block. Finnedi has filed a case at the Dispute Resolution Board BTW, a case that is a bit chaotic, but might never the less be interesting reading. The most interesting part of that discussion is IMHO that Finnedi brought up the name RasboKaren, a user who was blocked in 2012 for similar POV/fringe-pushing. A user name and user talk page that Finnedi couldn't possibly have found by chance since it happened about a year and a half ago, a full year before user Finnedi was created, and about 10,000 edits ago for me. But then Finnedi and RasboKaren seem to have both the same interests, the same edit-warring habits and the same style when writing edit summaries, so maybe they know each other (or whatever...). I enjoy looking at the pictures of cakes you add BTW, with the picture of 27 "småbakelser" being pure porn. Greetings, Tom Thomas.Wtalk to me21:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
(Dear talkpage stalkers, here's an explanation of the heartbleed bug that even I can understand: [65].) Good catch, Thomas. But RasboKaren edited Rurik dynasty and similar; not quite the same interest, is it? Or is it? I realize they're in the same ballpark, but Finnedi's editing interests seem quite narrow. (Addition: No, I see he has just branched out into Talk: Rus' people. Noted.) Anyway, it's very interesting about the IP, I'll certainly keep it in mind, even though the disruptive IP editing was too long ago to specifically affect block lengths now IMO. OK, you leave my 27 småbakelser alone, no nibbling! It was the highly cake-conscious Hafspajen that added them, but now they're mine! Mine! Bishonen | talk14:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC).
Yes, they are yours, Bishy. Is Tom stealing your cookies? (there are nowadays 98 pics as far as I have counted them - left out fruits and coffee) Hafspajen (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::Wuooah, stop this preciuos thing. It reminds me of that terrible guy in the movie whispering around. Only Germans may use that, because they never watch English movies, and don't get it. Well, they do but they are dubbed. Dubbing (filmmaking) Darling. Hafspajen (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
He has now also branched out to Talk:Vikings, testing the ground for claiming that the Vikings weren't Swedes or other Scandinavians. Which reminds me of yet another Finnish fringe-pusher that I have encountered here on WP. Unfortunately I can't recall the user name of that one... Thomas.Wtalk to me19:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thomas, this is probably what you're thinking of ... Finnedi took it to dispute resolution, and I have a lot of respect for the volunteers there, so I've been trying to follow the rules. However, there's some additional background. The IP that Finnedi edited from was one of those that last autumn were pushing a POV derived from Kalevi Wiik at Runes and Sitones, as well as at Ancient kings of Finland. (I believe I came in based on the Runes and Talk:Runes edits, but I wound up rewriting Sitones and apparently I should rewrite Kvenland too.) You can see characteristic edit summaries in those articles in that IP's contributions. That conflict escalated into open bigotry at Talk:Runes and at my user talk page, where 117 IPs signing "amanbir" got quite rude. I wound up starting a ban discussion, and Amanbir is banned. (And that episode is why I have King of Kvenland and St. Paul's School, Darjeeling on my watchlist.) Finnedi hasn't walked far along that path, and the 91 IP could well be shared - such as a university - but there is some overlap in the content of their edits and those of the 117 IPs, as well as in some of the edit summaries. I also feel really sorry for Thomas.W; some terrible things said to him and about him. However. It's at Dispute Resolution, and I hope that works. And I don't think Finnedi is Amanbir; I think this is really "about" Kalevi Wiik's theory and that we have multiple adherents pushing it. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Your name has been brought up at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard
Thanks, Thomas. I'll be there. Mentioning me as an opponent (and a Swedish opponent! The nerve!) on pages I haven't even read, let alone fucking edited, is beyond the pale, even for that user, so I'll have to rein myself in to sound like a proper butter-wouldn't-melt-in-her-mouth admin. I saw he did it at the dispute resolution too (collapsed by Guy Macon before I had time to respond). Excuse me while I just open the fridge and ring the bell for the Saturday class, and have my own cake breakfast. This one and one of these, I think, with a pot of apple and cinnamon tea. Bishonen | talk09:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC).
[Bishzilla pat bonkers little MONGO soothingly on the head.] Oops… seemingly pat too swiftly? Lorenz contraction reduce little MONGO to disk? [Zilla stuff squashed-flat little user in pocket for rest and recuperation, and re-expansion.] bishzillaROARR!!21:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC).
I would like to apologize for this review and the possible redundancy for applying more sources to the articles. From reading the comments in the FAR, I'm now questioning the issues I've brought up. I'm not fully sure what to do with it at this point. GamerPro6403:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You see how they get dealt with when you post here, without me having to do any work.:-) (Not that it takes more than two seconds, admittedly.) But I'm thinking of posting a query on WP:ANI or somewhere about preemptively blocking any and all coming siblings. There are clever filters, I understand. Bishonen | talk12:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
Haha thanks for that. The fact that they have the time of day to write those wall of texts, in conjunction with making new accounts (with not so new names) certainly says a lot. —MelbourneStar☆talk12:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Since neither you nor me was notified by Finnedi I'm notifying you. Finnedi has now taken his case to ANI, calling for a block on me. Before doing that he repeatedly copy-pasted totally unwarranted/frivolous user warnings on my talk page, copied from his own talk page, which I first saw as mere vandalism out of frustration, but when I saw that he had opened a case on ANI I realised that he wanted to make me look bad, by having warnings all over my talk page...
Please don't respond to him any more on ANI, Thomas, the admins can read. You've done well so far, and no more is needed. Do the dignified silence, like "your errand boy Bishonen." (I did think of posting a haughty "I'm an errand girl, if you don't mind", but nah, never mind.) Sit back and watch the show. Ah... now he's disdaining Black Kite. "You are not an admin". Good one. :-) Bishonen | talk20:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC).
I just saw, after I checked his contributions. Quite a display he puts on. I have really tried to appreciate his point of view :-( I wonder why he doesn't name me this time? Anyway, I got my taxes filed and I hope I helped save the article on the Icelandic professor, so ... maybe this week I can get to the Finnish train crash as well as rewriting Kvenland? That would be nice ... Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
A clue stick, cut down from a larger branch of the Clue tree
Like falling out of a 100 foot clue tree, and missing every branch. Literally everything he said was uniquely wrong. Almost comical, in a sad kind of way. And I always pegged Bish as a woman, not a girl. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER22:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
That's funny. I find myself wondering how many branches a 100 foot clue tree has, but, as usual, this so-called "encyclopedia" is useless: Clue tree. Lame. I always pegged Bish as a Wikipedian. Whether that is a compliment or insult I leave as an exercise for the reader ... NE Ent02:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Have to know where to look Ent: The Clue tree (lignum filo) is a deciduous tree that is said to impart wisdom upon those that fall out of the top and strike the many clue branches on the way down. A person that falls the entire distance without striking a single branch is said to be clueless or incapable of clue. The individual branches are often harvested to create clue sticks, which can be used to beat some clue into a person without the need of climbing the entire tree." Need to start WP:Clue tree with that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER13:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Dennis, yeah, but wouldn't there's be something faintly improper-sounding about "ThomasW's errand woman"? Hafspajen , I think I know what you mean, but it's not exactly a similar case. On that, why did you post a Welcome template to a user who's been editing since 2011? That's unlikely to be well received. Bishonen | talk09:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
How am I supposed to know 'is been editing since 2011? And the guy acts like has no idea how things work... and said he didn't knew? And now starts cursing to people. Fuck of to Dennis and piss of to Drmies and .. What since since 2011? Hafspajen (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Being told to "fuck off" really doesn't phase me, like water off a duck's back. I usually just ignore stuff like that as if it didn't happen and stick to the merits of the discussion. My ego may be large, but it isn't fed at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER16:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You two are admirably untouched, for some reason, and I am glad, for your emotional balance sake, but sincerely it is extremely bad manners. Are we on our way to became Swedish? No pillar 5, no nothing? This is not going to stop here, and the next person might not take that easy as you. Hafspajen (talk)
If it is just once or twice, it usually easier to just ignore it. Often they will get the point and stay on topic, which is the goal. Or if they continue, someone will walk up and block them, as they obviously were not provoked. Either way, there is closure. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER22:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes you have to warn someone to dial it back, but generally, if you have to tell someone to be polite, you are casting pearls before swine. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER22:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Re clue and cluelessness: if you think the user who fell out of the clue tree at ANI is exceptionally clueless, I suppose you don't follow caste articles much. Check out this guy, a gem for the Sitush complaint generator.[66]Bishonen | talk08:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
MONGO's overkill and never heeded advice is to assume that some people can't be fixed with a cluebat...best thing is to hit them fast and loud with something like a MOAB or similar.--MONGO the Sociopath Monster15:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Look at the history of this page, Thomas. :-) Deny attention. I've just blocked the IP for six months, let's hope that puts a crimp in their activities. Bishonen | talk16:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
During his most active phase almost a year ago he used at least one open proxy (in Moldova), which was then given a long block. So it wouldn't surprise me if we'll see him doing that again. He has also used mobile phone networks... Thomas.W talk16:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. Let's stop feeding. Editing my own page doesn't look like they're motivated by any interest in the subject, but purely in it for the attention. Bishonen | talk16:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
I'm getting slow. Probably because I've been using a small laptop these last few days, with a tiny little keyboard instead of the big desktop keyboard I'm used to. So I have to look at the tiny little keyes on the tiny little keyboard the whole time when typing... Thomas.W talk16:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep an eye on new user account Bishoska (talk·contribs), even though it hasn't edited yet. According to the user creation log it was created a few minutes after Thommi.W was blocked, just like Thommi.W was created just a few minutes after NuuttisSon was blocked. Thomas.W talk17:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Bishoska has edited now, and my intuition was right, it was a Finnedi sock. And got what it deserved, an indefinite block... Thomas.W talk17:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yup. So these are some kind of pseudo-impersonation usernames; I didn't think a username like that would be coincidence. Writ Keeper⚇♔17:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hahahahaha, Bishoska's probably just Darwinbish's sock. :-D Poor little Bishoska. Yes, I see I've been visited by yours, Yngvadottir. I appreciate Ponyo's semi, though I'm concerned it may give the person a false sense of importance. Pity my IP block didn't do any good, though. You're probably right about the open proxies and mobile phones, Thomas. Yngvababy would be a nice sock for you yourself, Yngvadottir! Bishonen | talk19:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
Wonder if I should take that personally. The Hán-Nôm article and associated topics is the stomping ground for my "favorite" banned user, one Mr. Kauffner. Favonian (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Favonian is fast :-) I stopped updating the sockpuppet investigation a while back; it should probably be caught up, although the number of updates is already starting to look a bit silly. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
"Starting to look a bit silly": yes, Yngvadottir, it is. Maybe we can update them in batches once a day or so. Or simply post some general statement that they are as the sands of the sea and the grasses of the prairie. Does anybody really care about having a record of obvious and instantly blocked socks? I think I'll just go say so at the SPI. Bishonen | talk22:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
It was the second batch of socks today. A handful of socks were blocked around noon today CET, probably during his lunch hour, and then a few more now in the evening. And another handful were blocked just before I went to bed last night. Thomas.W talk21:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yarrr!
Sail ho, matey!
You're invited to comment on the FAC of the article on Kronan.
And that goes for anyone else skulking around this talkpage. Go on. Do your worst!
There's probably some back story to this little battle about Alison. You probably know about it, but I'm in the dark, as usual. I'm also about to go off-wiki, so if you want to act ... Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Breach of topic ban by SHVRs
The helpful admin (top) has just given the caste warrior (lower) a lesson on more efficient disruption.
Yes, I saw. I suspect the user doesn't have enough clue to be deliberately using IPs to evade his topic ban, since he violated the ban concurrently, and just as cheerfully, from his account. He hasn't used IPs while blocked as far as I've seen. But probably he'll learn. The sad fact is that we educate them to disrupt more efficiently. Have some beans, little caste warriors. Bishonen | talk13:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC).
There is also 117.200.20.68. A bit of semi might be needed before too long. That one is still pushing the Raju kshatriya agenda at Dharmadhyaksha's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, Dharmadhyaksha's comment will be right, however one chooses to read it. It is sufficiently ambiguous that it might be seen as complimentary or deprecatory of me, and I guess that I have both driven off some people and encouraged others. Nice one, Animesh! - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your message on my talk page. I will defer to your judgement, and I apologise if I have misconstrued our policies. In answer to your question, the second part of this edit summary was a reference to redaction criteria 3 of the revision deletion policy. I am sorry if I have misunderstood the scope of that policy. James500 (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for responding graciously. I knew I'd seen (part of) your edit summary somewhere, but you did misunderstand the scope of WP:REVDEL. It's an instruction page for administrators, and not really very relevant for your purposes. Revision deletion is something else than ordinary "redaction", and the criteria are also phrased in a rather abbreviated way without as much hedging and instruction creep as most policies. "Purely disruptive content" is meant as a very strong phrase; it doesn't refer to a mere bit of heated/rude back-and-forth on a discussion page. If I gave you an example of the kinds of things it does refer to, I'd have to wash my mouth out with soap afterwards. :-) Bishonen | talk20:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC).
(edit conflict) Nah - he indicated WP:NPA #Removal of text (i.e. section 4.3). The criterion is "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack."
The thing is, James, what you might think are "clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack" are often seen by others as part of the rough-and-tumble of lively debate. So for the avoidance of doubt, it's best to let somebody else be the judge - if it really is a sufficiently unpleasant personal attack, somebody else will remove it for you. On the other hand, if you prefer the debating style of an Edwardian drawing room, I can recommend hanging out at User talk:The Lady Catherine de Burgh. HTH --T-RexxS (rawr)
@RexxS: "The debating style of an Edwardian drawing-room" is, I suspect, what the civility police desire. But all it not what it seems: some of the choicest insults I've ever read came from frequenters of such places and, of course, a stylised insult is often euphemised (is that a word?) as "wit". I was once good at that but now, alas, tend more towards the cantankerous. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
... which for some reason probably not unconnected with having just consumed three pints of mild, leads me to a piece of doggerel who author remains unknown to me: "In my dotage, I've become inert, defunct, inane/Oh, to be last yesteryear! Ert, funct, and ane again." Beer obviously doesn't affect my memory, just my sense ;) - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't. Mine was a generalised comment and no offence was intended. Believe me, if I want to offend someone then I'd name them - I'm not backward about coming forward! - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you be up to reviewing this?
TParis would like outside admin to review. Barek is apparently out. No point in rehashing. Here is discussion [70]. Input or action would be helpful. --DHeyward (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Bish. Could you please take a look at the contributions of Dogmaticeclectic (talk·contribs)? A user who seems to have totally lost it, issuing totally unwarranted warnings to both User:Guy Macon and me, obviously without knowing what "inappropriate edit summaries", "vandalism" or anything else is... Thomas.W talk10:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
If I sleep long enough, all the hard work gets done by somebody else. That's my idea of a collaborative project. Would somebody else like to review DHeyward's problem above, too, while I have breakfast in bed for a few hours? Bishonen | talk10:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
Hi there, Bishonen. I didn't realize I was making a baseless accusation. That's how I felt, so I'm sorry if it was seen as disruptive. If you want to punish me, then I'll accept it. I'm at your mercy now. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, star, thanks for the alert. I've blocked the sock and told Mr. Stradivarius about it. Mr. S has created a filter for blocking the same-name socks, and has already once tweaked it to filter almost-same-name socks, compare this. If you should see further socks, please take it straight to him. Bishonen | talk09:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
Please can you block ...
An admin trundling into action; two more are just out of picture.
Srinivasan107 (talk·contribs). I'm off out but they are being reverted by multiple people across multiple articles and talk pages and it has been going on for days now. The warnings on their talk page are the tip of the iceberg. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Four admins heading for ANI in tight formation. (But who are the mahouts? Do I spy Sitush there?)
Haha. Metaphor of the week, very apt. You should have sen three of the big blue double-length concertina-articulated Number 4 buses come trundling into Hornstull today after half an hour's wait. Like circus elephants walking in tight formation through the streets. Bishonen | talk21:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
"Bendy buses" is the colloquial term for those things in the UK. I travel almost daily through a section of road where they are nothing but a nuisance, adding many minutes of time and countless grams of nasty fuel emissions from the other vehicles waiting behind them while carrying far less passengers than the vehicles that they impede. All of this because the road simply isn't wide enough to accommodate the things and keep other traffic moving. I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a "bendy admin" but it is an intriguing thought!
As for the photo, I'd need to zoom in but I'm pretty sure that my many detractors would say that I'm the heap of dung behind one of those animals ;) And it is an odd thing that I cannot explain but I always feel sad when I see an elephant - bizarre or what? I can remember crying my eyes out as a kid when I saw them at Belle Vue in the 1960s but even film of them in their natural habitat often gives me the willies now. Some sort of anthropomorphic issue, I guess, but I'm off to have a good old weep. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The summer holidays have started early this year, see [71]. The Saturday class in cake appreciation will shortly be replaced by Bishonen's Fat Camp. But I'll put out the tea and coffe selection, you can have some of that every day. Bishonen | talk18:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
Thomas, why did you do this to us? GR. AWWW, how terrible. You are a naughty boy. I have to start thinking about nice things like roses, asap. And I need the decor to feel home and get distracted, Bishy. Otherwise it doesn't fell like a home. Hafspajen (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
at these posts [72][73], and give an opinion as to whether making such posts to someone who has already voted in an RfC, with the apparent objective of getting them to alter their !vote, might be considered canvassing? Given the circumstances, I'd appreciate an uninvolved viewpoint on this, as I'm obviously not in the best position to make an objective judgement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll have to take a better look at the RfC before I form a definite opinion, Andy. (Woe is me, I thought I was going to get away with not reading anything about that case.) I'll get back to you, but my instinct is to ignore it. Does it in your opinion do actual harm? Bishonen | talk21:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
'Actual harm'? Hard to say. It would depend for a start on whether it actually affected the outcome of the RfC - though that was presumably the objective behind it. It just seems to me that if evidence is being presented in relation to the RfC, it should be done in the open, where everyone can see it, and respond. More so when the evidence is being presented by someone facing a topic ban for "placing undue weight on inappropriate material in articles". [74], and the evidence consists in part of said person's own analysis of sources. Still, maybe I'm making too much of this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you're looking at the RfC, make sure it is the right one. There are confusingly two on the same subject - the relevant one is the second: [75]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It may be something, but I would reserve "canvassing" for notifying people who weren't aware of a discussion. And you see how Balaenoptera musculus had already stated at the RfC that he would welcome somebody telling him about sources.[76] Maybe that was Gaijin42's inspiration for posting, at least for posting to BM. Personally I don't really think it's much of "something", either. It's not exactly stealthy; e-mail is stealthy. And making some kind of a complaint about it would be pretty moot, since G is undoubtedly going to be topic banned anyway. In a word, yes, IMO you're making too much of it. Bishonen | talk09:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC).
No, I can't; only checkusers can do that, so you might consider filing at WP:SPI for a checkuser to look at it. Meanwhile, I'll take a look to see if WP:DUCK applies, but I don't remember the Greengrounds history that well. Was there an ANI at the time? Where did I engage with it? Bishonen | talk12:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC).
Three to a basket
"You'll keep your feet out of my armpit, right?"
I was reading through The ExpeBishon and was struck by a thought: how on Earth did they expect to live for a full month in that basket? It would be really interesting to know a little something the actual accommodations of that ridiculous contraption. Like, where were they supposed to sleep? Is there anything on this in the sources?
Oh, indeed, I'm sure I've seen a full description of sleeping arrangements etc. somewhere in Med Örnen mot polen. Though I can't seem to find it now — perhaps you will. There's a diagram of the basket here, and a description of the cooking here. (The "Oh how wonderful, I'm so impressed, fancy how clever!" tone for every last triviality is amusing at first, then gets a little trying.) Bishonen | talk12:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC).
Oooh. Good reading for a Saturday at home with an icky cold. I can add something so you can focus on, I dunno, pastries and bus/elephant-jokes.
The Kronan-FAC seems like it might be wrapping up successfully soon, btw. I'm no longer sulking, at least...
Sorry I didn't get involved there. I just hate FAC and FAR, sorry. (I'm sulking.) Pastries… ? Pastries! More pastries!! Bishonen | talk13:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC).
Very interesting book. I tried adding a minor paragraph.[77] The descriptions of the living quarters were brief to say the least. There's twice the information about that ridiculous cooking apparatus than the construction of the entire basket. It's literally just "covered, single chamber cylinder with a slightly domed roof; access hatch on the side of the roof [huh?]". That appears to be it. The rest is mostly about the overly clever crap that never worked properly.
No worries about Kronan. It's all smiles and clever new diagrams now. And some fuss about converting the weight of shot. But who cares? I'll get my sixth star anyways. Bwahahahaha!
Btw, I was stalking RfC last night and saw this: "which Parteiadler should we use?" Even the Sphinx would be stumped.
Fine addition. Svedenborg seems mesmerised by everything to do with pissing, did you notice? But I'm pretty sure there's more than that about the living quarters. Maybe in Andrée's own diary, pp. 399 — 457. Bishonen | talk14:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC).
Uhm, pissing? The guy who wrote about the balloon construction? I'm sure I'm missing something. Though I am intensely curious as to how they expected to perform their morgontoalett 40 m above the ground. Maybe they had some hanging apparatus for that too. Hopefully without mirrors.
Been reading some of the diary (depressing to say the least), but I doubt there's anything in there. Something tells me they weren't interested in describing how they'd actually do something as mundane as sleep. Doesn't seem like an activity that is either manly or patriotic.
I do believe the nödiga behov is a both manly and humorous subject. See here and here. Presumably Svedenborg gets it from somebody's diary, either Strindberg's or, more likely, Andrée's. The young Strindberg probably wouldn't write it for his fiancée's eyes. Bishonen | talk15:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC).
Do you think I should go back and clarify my ANI remark? I meant "new to the page," not "new to the project," as I assume Gandy meant. I could go back and put in a little addendum in small type. Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh... I'm not sure. Me, I did get the wrong impression from your ANI remark (which didn't mention who the new editor was, but only provided a diff). Nurturing new editors and not scaring them off is an important part of the site ethos, and I read you as appealing to that ethos by saying Wondering55 was being particularly harmful for retention of the sensitive newbies. (And even though I'm well aware of Gandy's work, I read their remark like that too. Sorry, Gandy, just a combination of the trickiness of the text medium + my stupidity.) But there are so many good reasons for the editor being blocked now that there's not much call for hand-polishing the ANI thread — I probably wouldn't bother if it was me. Bishonen | talk16:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC).
Yeah, and I see that the ANI thread has been hatted. Oh well. Since I provided a diff, I guess people can see that I was quoting an established editor. I know Gandy, and was aware she was no newbie. Actually I'm not aware of newbies per se being scared off that page, but many established editors fleeing or declining to help, which in my view is a lot worse. Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Christopher Corey Smith(voice actor)
Hi, this is my first time sending you a message so I hope I'm doing this right(if not, then I apologise in advance). As for the subject matter, I think that Christopher Corey Smith should be added to the Funimation voice actors category as he has appeared in at least 3 of their titles. The following Funimation shows in which he has voiced characters:
Appleseed XIII
Eureka Seven: AO
Fafner In The Azure(although it was previously licenced by Geneon)
Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood
Fullmetal Alchemist: The Sacred Star Of Milos
Future Diary
High School DxD
Jormungand
Michiko And Hatchin
One Piece
Sankarea
Sengoku Basara: The Last Party
Tenchi Muyo! GXP(as Chris Kent)
Toriko
If there is a reason as to why he shouldn't be added, then please let me know.
Hi, SKO71. You contacted me just fine. I notice the category description states that it's only for in-house Funimation actors; would that fit Christopher Corey Smith? I can't really tell from his page, nor from the Funimation page. The fact is I'm pretty ignorant on the subject. If you want advice as to who qualifies as an in-house actor, from an administrator/experienced user, Discospinster might be a better person to contact. I can tell from the history that she watches the Funimation page. Good luck! Bishonen | talk17:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC).
A situation
Don't suppose you are interested looking a little bit at the Rasputin talk page? I am not asking you to be on expert on the question, but about the situation we have with this editor. He after given to him loads of references and discussing things still keeps removing this debated part, declaring it as a nonsense. Like for the 4th time by now? He just simply declares that he is not beliving what is in those references and that's it. The other editor is Bladesmulti's mentor. Also quite an expert on religion, mysticism and philosophy. I myself are not that bad on it either. Actually the whole thing is quite elementary for someone who is trained a little bit in religion history and such, but there is no way convincing this editor. And we discussed this now several moth. He also removed several other editors additions, [78] (referenced ones). I am not happy about going to ANI, but if no one can't tell him he can't do this and he will go on going this all the time, I might as a last solution. He doesn't care much for any of Wikipedias policies, he is unpolite, sarcastic and absolutely inconvincible. This is why I don't put much fait in a Dispute resolution. Hafspajen (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hafspajen, the article talkpage is hard to get one's head round, and one reason for that is frankly that you write so much on it. Please avoid copypasting whole swathes of policy, for example. Are you sure you should be editing subjects that you feel so strongly about? I'm sorry, but I'm not getting involved. I agree with you that ANI would be useless or even harmful, it would immediately turn into a content argument and that's not what the page is for. If it goes to ANI, I wouldn't have much trouble imagining you both ending up sanctioned for obduracy. To me, the whole thing looks just right for dispute resolution, perfect in fact. Please try that. (Er, Hafspajen? Holy fools and homeless people would typiclly be dressed in rags, not rugs. :-)) Bishonen | talk11:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC).
Hm, I've got to agree with Bishonen about the large amount of text. Though I understand; I've got a habit of doing this too. Sensitive guys, aren't we? Easily touched, making it up with our brains & words. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!12:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Bishonen, are you sure that this guy should be editing subjects that he feels so strongly about? Can you please put it that way? I am sorry about pasting policy, but frankly I think this guy never heard about it. And if I say please read Wp.Civility to a guy like this he will not read it. It is obvious he never ever heard about consensus, civility and neutrality. So I took the trouble to paste. Right, it looks like it looks like, but hey, he is not easy to discuss with.
He will not listen. He got references but he doesn't care. A second Finnedi? I can remove policy and hope he read it by now, just to make the page more readable, I can do that. But doesn't this strike you like odd when having skitloads of references he still removes this part and restore everything to a version he has in his sandbox? And about my English, it is unfortunate but I have learned from the begining by hearing, not writing. A lot my relatives speak English, but it was on vacations and so. Corrected rugs to rags. Filling in for a Dispute resolution. Hafspajen (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Bish. I noticed (in my watch list) that you gave the IP a stern warning, so I thought I'd fill you in. It's an IP-hopper from Toronto, Canada, (using multiple IPs belonging to University of Toronto) who regularly shows up and adds tons of promotional fancruft to scores of articles about car models, causing a lot of work for the clean-up department, so it's not a one-off incident with a new editor who doesn't know the rules around here. But you can't block the entire University of Toronto because of a single editor adding promotional fancruft... Thomas.W talk21:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I suppose you can't. Pity. I never thought it was a new user, the way they were wikilawyering on your page. Bishonen | talk21:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC).
Acting on behalf of other user
Hi! I notice that you have removed notification comments from another user (JzG) talk page that had been restored due to nonvalid reasons of removal (incivility shown by removal). I ask you the question why are acting on his behalf? Are you his spokesperson?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not his spokesperson nor acting on his behalf. I re-removed your comment (not sure why you call it a "notification comment") because you shouldn't have restored it. Your "nonvalid reasons of removal (incivility shown by removal)" is rampant nonsense, as User:JzG and everybody else are perfectly entitled to remove comments from their page. Aren't you clear on that after Dougweller's patient explanation on your page? ("What you shouldn't remove from your own talk page is at WP:REMOVED - also read the next section "Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages".) See the link in there. JzG removed your comment, making it clear he wanted it gone, so anybody who noticed that you restored it could, I'll even say should, have done what I did. Bishonen | talk10:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC).
Removing such comments pointing out misconduct are bad example of incivility especially from admins who remove inconvenient notifications to them by thinking if they are admins they are entitled to remove and not be accountable for their actions. If you are not his spokesperson you should not have intervened to be an accessory in incivility by removing inconvenient notifications.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
More nonsense. I hardly think JzG removed your "notification" because it was inconvenient, more because it was rude and uncalled for. BTW I've just noticed you quoting this from Wikipedia:User pages on Dougweller's page: "User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted; they are usually needed for reference by other users". That's irrelevant; it's about deletion, which is something different from blanking or removing text. I would have thought the context… oh, never mind. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You know, there's a word for picking fragments from policies or guidelines without understanding them. It would be better to listen to what experienced users are telling you. Bishonen | talk10:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC).
TB
Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at BabbaQ's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I have added information about several sentences of the involved parties. Take a look and edit if needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
If you can spare some time...
I think you may have a chance of successfully engaging with Ihardlythinkso (on or off wiki) after you've had a look at the unfortunate recent events surrounding his recent behaviour. Here are some links to discussions (though you will find diffs within the discussions which will lead you elsewhere and references to user talk page discussions too): [79][80].
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the user or the events I refer to. Similarly, I am not sure about the extent of how constructive this user's editing can be. I mean, if you can get through to him and his editing will be constructive after he drops the grievances, then good. On the flip side, if the general conduct/editing is more problematic than not anyway, I don't think there is much which can stop the inevitable, but at least it would not be diluted with possible issues with his reaction to possible issues being raised about admin conduct/actions.
I'd appreciate any time you can spend on it and your thoughts, but am conscious that this can be a very time-consuming and uninteresting exercise so would not hold it against you either way. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)diffs added at 15:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't, no. The issues are too complicated for me to dip even a toe in at this juncture in my RL; I might drown. Bishonen | talk15:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC).
Thank you for doing that, Zarcadia. The IP had only been editing for a couple of hours, and already left quite a wake, so I didn't want to dawdle once I'd seen it. From the nature of the edits, it may well be an open proxy, and if so they'll no doubt turn up from somewhere else soon. Sigh.. Bishonen | talk15:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen! I didn't mean to sound as if I were correcting your post on her/his talk page. Rather, I was trying to elaborate on it: to tell W. to feel free to ask for an unblock, yet think about how she/he got into this situation. And I have some sympathy for W., since I know I tend to ramble in my comments & am amazed that I haven't been dinged for writing walls-O'-text. Anyway, apologies for making it sound as if I were trying to make you say something you didn't say.
And for for something completely different.
I've been working on articles in a nice, quiet corner of Wikipedia. (Former countries which few people have heard of are often nice, quiet corners.) The Empire of Trebizond had the intriguing reputation of being a wealthy, although small, Christian monarchy at the edge of European civilization that survived by an artful practice of its rulers marrying his beautiful daughters to the neighboring Muslim rulers. One could describe this as evidence of women being treated as chattel, although there is evidence that these women were anything but passive pawns in the practice of political marriage. I've discovered that there is enough information about some of these women to justify writing articles about them: an example would be Eudokia of Trebizond, although the best subject would be a woman whose article has yet to be written: Theodora Megale Komnene, also known as Despina Hatun. So after writing that wall-O-text, my question is this: would you know any women Wikipedians interested in offering critiques (or even edits) to these articles as I work on them? Getting useful feedback can be very difficult, especially about articles in these quiet corners of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
No, no, you understood me well. (Not everybody did, but nm.)
Cool chicks. SlimVirgin perhaps? Or Roscelese, if any of them were socialist or HBTQ chicks. ;P
I'm reading Eudokia of Trebizond here. The problem for myself wrt helping would be all those print sources. Being as I reside more or less in Murmansk, our national library isn't strong on English translations of chronicles, unless indeed they have Murmansk connections. I'm also too lazy these days to frequent research libraries in their physical form. Oh, look, I found a digital extract about Panaretos in a German anthology… [81] …
Hmm… hmmm… I like the way Panaretos' own article describes his chronicle as drab, meagre, and sketchy. Most encouraging. (Though I notice his Wikipedia fanclub protests — very valuable work!). Is your Eudokia the same as the lady Eudokia Palaiologina here?
Did you know the "source" for Eudokia of Trebizond, the Bryer pdf, is a dead link? :-( At least, so it tells me when I click on it. Hmm… aha, it creates an URL with spaces in it, so it wouldn't work, would it. I'm an idiot with cite templates, I detest 'em, but all I did this time was click on the link, so I don't think it was me. Is that something you can fix?
I'd be glad to be an extra pair of eyes and do some copyediting if/when desired. Even though I feel a little, well, exposed, doing stuff like that as little 'shonen. But that can't be helped, since my comfortable copyediting persona has regrettably passed on (=been indefblocked). Bishonen | talk21:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC).
I hadn't thought of SV. Been a while since I said hi to her. Never encountered Roscelese before, but there's a lot of long-term contributors to Wikipedia I've never encountered. Some entertaining exchanges on her talk page & archives; she is definitely a thoughtful & intelligent person.
Hmm. About sources: that's always been a challenge when researching & writing articles. An amazing selection of materials are available online -- www.persee.fr has quite the selection of French academic journals, a lot of pre-1920 books are available in PDF format online (although not always usefully labeled), & databases like JSTOR allow access to a wide selection of periodicals -- but it's a lot like sifting thru an attic or storage locker. (Sometimes one strikes gold, sometimes nothing, but it's going to be a long search in any case.) But a lot more materials are in print, most of which are not easily accessible; I've been using my Inter-Library Loan system a lot to get much of what I use.
Anyway, so how should one approach the problem of providing citations? Should one prefer sources easily accessible? Or ones that are useful or high quality, yet are not accessible? My preference is to favor the latter -- but I may be wrong.
But what I'm looking for is that people with backgrounds different than mine -- a middle-aged, somewhat nerdy, white guy with a college education & a middle-class background -- to see if the articles I write answer the questions they look for when they read the articles. I'm often surprised to find some Wikipedia articles go into great detail about some aspects while completely overlooking other aspects. I'm not so much looking to see if I'm using the sources correctly -- although if it's obvious I'm misusing them, I want to know that. What I'm looking for is if I'm making the same mistake: overlooking anything.
About Michael Panaretos: the copy of his Chronicle I'm using I found online -- I expect if I gave you the URL, you could download a copy & read it. It's a German translation of a Medieval Greek original, which I took the time to translate into English to use. (I can communicate in German, but I'm not fluent. I envy people who are fluent in more than one language.) Anyway, I assume from your response that you couldn't find a copy of his Chronicle in case you wanted to verify a statement; is it important to add that URL to the citations?
About Anthony Bryer's article. Hmm. That link's not mine, but the person who started the article, & I assumed it was still good. (I thought I had downloaded the pdf from that link.) I can replace it with a link to a JSTOR URL -- would that help? (Or if you are seriously interested in the subject, I can you a copy of the pdf. I enjoy infringing on copyright when it helps people write better articles.;-)
And about Eudokia: this Eudokia's not the same as the one on Ancientworlds.com. That one is, I would calculate, the great-great-grandmother of this Eudokia. Despite the fact they have the same name, I never considered one could be confused with the other.
JSTOR is behind a paywall, isn't it? Meaning in practice that only university employees can get at it. I don't approve of that. I'd love a bootleg copy of the .pdf, please. And also the URL to the German translation of the Chronicle, please, I can read German if I have to. As long as it's not in fucking fraktur. Bishonen | talk20:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC).
At last! :-D Not sure how one should respond. Merely archive after 24 hours as "No violation", as promised? Or reply "I'm afraid where Indian articles are concerned, Sitush is the 'Wiki team'"? Sitush thinks it's X evading his block (which will expire in a day or two) and topic ban (which never will). He should know, but I'm not 100% sure. Could be a meatpuppet. Bishonen | talk06:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC).
Darn, was that him? I did look for it, I knew of course that I'd seen it somewhere, but couldn't find it. If you can find me a diff, Odysseus, I'll block without bothering a checkuser. Bishonen | talk09:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC).
Right, I was just figuring that had to be it, after Yngvadottir reminded me of the 178.250.118.227 chap on Drmies. No block. Never mind, the practical difference is nil, as the named account in question is indefinitely topic banned from caste articles. Bishonen | talk19:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC).
Remember Spalagdama?
He's back at it again, making his signature POV edits, with a deliberately misleading edit summary ("Corrected grammar. Added links to Wiki's page for the River Indus") to avoid scrutiny. Thomas.W talk09:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Skol [glug-glug-glug-glug]! I protected for one week; it should be more than enough, really, but please let me know if the problems resume later. Bishonen | talk13:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC).
If other people post their valuable text in my userspace, I'm afraid they'll just have to lump it. The page was a joke, it's had a good run (three months). I don't like to let these ephemeral items sit around for ever. If you're attached to the posts you made on the talkpage, I'll be glad to send you copies, or post them on some page in your own space. Or you can have a copy of the whole page + talkpage, no problem. Bishonen | talk00:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC).
I suggest to follow the way others do it "kept for historical purpose", or "this page is now closed" Tito☸Dutta00:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Doug, I took this one as the version reverted to (you didn't list one of those, as such). No? I looked at the history, and the segregation academy thing had been there since at least February. I don't think removing stuff, per se, counts as a revert. Well, I know there are different notions about what counts; notoriously, there's one admin who insists any change at all that isn't pure addition is a "revert". And of course any removal does revert a one-time addition, in a sense, but if it's been there since forever, then… not really, IMO.
The AN/3RR noticeboard seems to encourage my idea that there must be a (reasonably recent) version that is reverted to, by having a header for it.
Anyway. You may be right about the 3RR, I'm not wedded to my own interpretation, but the main thing is they were egregiously edit warring, and 24 hours is the normal sanction for both. I added the extra 7 hours for the tendentiousness. Looking at their contributions worries me rather, giving the impression that they're here to Right Great Wrongs. Especially putting up Segregation academies for deletion, adducing WP:NEO… Google, anyone? And you know what they say about account names with "Truth" in them. Bishonen | talk11:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
Thanks for the explanation. In this specific context (the AfD and Verdad's talk page comments which precede his last 4 edits) I'd argue for 4RR as it wasn't a minor change, but I see your point. Context is king (archaeology being my favorite subject and at one point hobby). I've been so tempted to comment on the name but kept shtum. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't understand the need, context and purpose of your message left on my talk page. Was it due to some mistake or was it intentional? Please clarify.Hrihr (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Joshua, I see now that you've replied quite elaborately to Hrir on your page. Wouldn't it be a good idea to copy both posts to article talk? (Possibly leaving out your comments on good faith and nationality; they're certainly pertinent, but perhaps more so on your own page.) Sources etc are matters for all editors of the page. Bishonen | talk21:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
I'm glad you asked. Certainly it was intentional, I'm not some malfunctioning bot. The reason I wanted to alert you to the discretionary sanctions authorized for pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan was that I watch Joshua Jonathan's page and I noticed your post on it. I didn't like it much. You're not a new user; even though you haven't edited copiously, you've been here since 2011, and I'd hope you'd know better than to baselessly accuse people of "bias", and especially know better than to write "you better focus on Abrahimic religions and left these Indian topics to Indians as we Indians are more knowledgeable about our culture and faith. Don't use wikipedia as a platform to push your Abrahimic POV on others." No, you don't get to shut out other editors from articles on the basis of their ethnicity or religion. In fact you shouldn't even mention a fellow editor's ethnicity or religion. One of the most central civility principles on Wikipedia is that you're not supposed to make personal remarks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." That's a quote from the lead section to the important No personal attacks policy. Please review it if you're not already familiar with it.
Also, seeing your edits to Indian religions, where you added some text to the very first sentence, then had it reverted with an explanatory summary by JJ, and then re-reverted him, I'd like to draw your attention to the essay BRD. I don't really blame you for not being familiar with that essay, but the fact is it's widely accepted on Wikipedia. BRD stands for Bold-Revert-Discuss: meaning, feel free to edit boldly, but, if you're reverted do not re-revert; instead start a discussion on the talkpage, and attempt to gain consensus for your version. (Note, open discussions on the article talkpage, where other editors can see it and take part; not on the reverting editor's personal talkpage.)
So those are the reasons I thought you'd better be aware that Indian topics are hot topics on Wikipedia, and that admins tend to be proactive to keep the related articles from being disrupted. I'm an uninvolved admin, and I thought you should be aware that admins can sanction you if you should edit inappropriately in connection with India-related articles on any page (that includes user talkpages). If you click on the link (in my original message) to the Arbitration Committee's decision about India-related articles — this link — you'll get a bit of background with regard to the problems plaguing these articles.
(I'll move this question-and-answer to your own talkpage; it would be more convenient to keep any further conversation there.) Happy editing. Bishonen | talk20:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
Thanks, guys, but I'm watching User talk:Hrihr, so it's not necessary to alert me here to what happens there. If I seem to ignore important stuff, it's probably just because I'm at some wild round-the-clock party IRL. :-) If it's urgent and I'm not around, you'd better alert some other admin. Dougweller comes to mind. Bishonen | talk12:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC).
Hello. You may recall some discussion of the behavior of Navajoindian at ANI last month. After the ANI report, the user went quiet for a while. Yesterday, the same pattern of editing resumed. Three articles were edited. All of these were reverted as unsourced (by three different users, including one revert by me). One of those reverts was later partly restored by the reverting user. It might be nice if you could take a look. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. It's sad to have to block an obviously good-faith user, but I guess we've tried everything else. 72 hours, and I've tried to explain the problem on their page. I appreciate you keeping an eye on these articles, BarrelProof. Bishonen | talk22:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC).
Discretionary sanctions regarding Indian subjects
Hello Bish. Would you mind informing Suborat (talk·contribs) about the discretionary sanctions regarding edits on topics dealing with India, Pakistan and so on? He has now twice removed the name of Delhi in all languages except Hindi from that article, that is even after being reverted, which may seem like an unimportant minor edit, but my gut feeling is that this could escalate. So it's better to nip it in the bud. Thomas.W talk17:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
(Just got back from a pretty wild party.) Done, but there's nothing to stop you from adding {{subst:Ds/alert|topic=ipa}} yourself if you like, Jonathan, nor you, Thomas. That recently updated alert (not warning) template isn't for admins only, and it's nice and polite and doesn't imply misconduct. You can also add {{subst:Uw-castewarning}} where relevant, but you have to be much more careful with that one: it is a warning, and does imply misconduct. Bishonen | talk22:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC).
Grovelling
And hitting myself over the head with a dead trout. I realised almost immediately I was wrong but hit an edit conflict with you when I tried to reverse myself. I seem to be having a bad day. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
LOL, you mean after I mentioned grovelling, you thought somebody ought to do it? It's fine, currently I'm just wondering why I ever got involved. I bet you are too. I won't even post the piece I just typed to the guy that's been spamming his "full support as a fellow Wikipedian" all over the place. I was planning to helpfully remind him that he's actually missed the BLP noticeboard. Nm. Bishonen | talk15:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC).
I see the unblock request was declined. I think I'll go review my US tax return, that sounds like more fun (I get an extension as I'm abroad). I never can figure these out and it's complicated by being abroad. Then I have to file something with the Treasury so they know I'm not money laundering. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal attack behavior emboldened
Frog cakes for B2B
FYI: Because of the outcome of the ANI discussion today, in which you participated, the person who criticized me on a policy talk page now apparently feels emboldened to continue engaging in such uncivil behavior. Please see User talk:In ictu oculi#Request per WP:NPA.
Criticism is not the same thing as a personal attack. An atmosphere where one is only allowed to say things that are complimentary to others is not a truly collaborative atmosphere; collaboration requires the possibility of disagreement and criticism. I see neither personal attacks nor incivility in the thread you linked. Writ Keeper⚇♔00:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
B2C, after the way the discussion on WT:NPA eventuated, I guess we don't have to go round and round the policy passage in question any more (it's been removed). My suggestions are: don't feel bad, have a frog cake, visit Bishzilla's pocket and decompress with some Victorian poetry! Bishonen | talk05:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC).
See also an article about the movie, The Principle. I wanted to inform you that there could be a renewed interest in those articles. See my edit at Talk:Copernican_principle#In_the_News... where I link to an article about this published at Popular Science. I was wondering if you might consider limiting the edit button on those pages? And to check in and see if there is any problems with User:Joe6Pack?? Joe seems to be less "Regular Joe" and more "single purpose account." He attempted once to edit the Copernican principle page in 2013, but was unsuccessful due to a speedy revert.
(talk page stalker) Woof, I remember Wyattmj from his related edits to Planck (spacecraft). Bish will do Bish things, I'm sure, but in the meantime, no, The Principle can stay where it is, title-wise; we only need the (2014) type things when there are multiple articles that have a claim to the same title, where we give each one different text in the parentheses to tell them apart, like Mercury (planet) vs. Mercury (element). Since there's only one article on Wikipedia that would lay claim to the title "The Principle", further disambiguation via parenthesis-notes isn't necessary. Writ Keeper⚇♔08:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Uruiamme, I'll try to keep an eye out and feel free to alert me again in case I miss some rising wave of meatpuppets. I can't protect pre-emptively, though. Joe seems to have had an agenda, but was apparently discouraged by being reverted all over the place (I just reverted a surviving snippet on The Principle). Bishonen | talk11:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
Hello Bishonen,
I would like to request you to please review the article on Bengali Kayastha, as suggested on talk page discussions by User:Titodutta. In spite of being reliably sourced, the content has been a matter of dispute for quite some time. It would be great if you can spare some time and review the article. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Ekdalian. Titodutta may have the impression that I'm knowledgeable about Indian subjects, but sadly he would be wrong. It's true that I have performed admin actions in relation to caste articles — warnings, discretionary sanctions alerts, blocks, etc — but that has been purely in relation to conduct problems and disruption. Where content is concerned, I rely on knowledgeable editors such as Sitush and Joshua Jonathan. It's not adminship that makes an editor capable of reviewing an article, it's subject expertise and knowledge of the principles of wikipedia editing. I have the second but not the first; Sitush and Jonathan have both, as you can see if you review their long-time contributions. For instance, Joshua is the writer of this informative page, which is an attempt to straighten out the sourcing problems that afflict Raju. (An attempt which not all editors of that page have profited from, unfortunately, since Raju continues to be plagued by caste warriors who care nothing for reliable sources.)
Looking at Sitush's contributions just now, I was very relieved to see that he has started editing again. I hesitate to draw the continued problems at Bengali Kayastha to his attention, though, since I believe he's pretty well burned out from the attrition of dealing with caste article problems. Frankly, the discussion at Talk:Bengali Kayastha can't have helped there, since you've been very resistant to his input and the discussion has gone nowhere. It's obvious that the article needs help, though, and you did quite right to ask for review; you just didn't ask the best people for the purpose. Drmies will probably be able to do a bit more than I could, but I wouldn't exactly call him a subject expert either. My advice to you would be to ask Joshua Jonathan.
By the way, were you aware that discretionary sanctions have been enabled for India-related pages and specifically for caste-related pages? I've put some information about it on your page, with links that will take you to the background and the reasons for these general sanctions. Bishonen | talk08:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC).
Well, I don't know much, but I do know...OK, I found out a couple of things and will leave a note on the talk page so as to not clutter up Bish's beautiful locus amoenus. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
(Am I to assume you're only a poor caveman lawyer?) Amoenus, hmm? Did you see my last post, below? Here be dragons. Bishonen | talk15:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC).
Yes, so I see, and apparently there are major copyvio concerns. Good job neither you nor Drmies are lazy like me. [/me returns to her chaise longue with a French novel and a box of Belgian chocolates.] Bishonen | talk15:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC).
I was thinking Madame Bovary. And I like to read my French novels on the Kindle, though it may clash a little, stylistically, with the schäslong and the diaphanous negligée and so on. Bishonen | talk19:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC).
access to my account
I dunno perhaps it has been compromised. I am trying to say sorry to another user for a comment which I am not sure I ever made and won't repeat the comment, it is something about adolf hitler or something I don't know. I am one of the few who have actually read Mein Kampf and very boring it is too. So I have no idea what this is about. I have asked and apologised but I have no idea. Si Trew (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
No I think I just cocked up somehow and the user was offended. I apologised sincerely and I do mean sincerely, it takes a big man to say sorry and if I am in the wrong I say sorry. I don't know what article or page or what I wrote but if I offended another editor – accidentally of course – you stand up and say sorry. The editor has accepted my apology. So all is good. Si Trew (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
If you don't know what you said, why don't you check your contributions instead of going on about what a big man you are? Here they are. And this is the edit in question, made from your account. There are a lot of typos, so if you did post it yourself and now can't remember it, I guess you may have been under the influence of some substance at the time. It was nice of Yunshui to accept such a poor apology, where you didn't even acknowledge doing anything wrong. But he did, so that's over, and is not my business. Now then, what about your attacks on Rich Farmbroughhere, all about how he was abusing his admin tools to oppress people? Pretty clever of him, considering he's not even an admin. I look forward to seeing the ANI report you said you're going to post about him. Did you see my comment there, right in the same thread? Bishonen | talk14:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC).
Rich is probably a member of the Secret Admin Cabal, formerly known as the Beyond All Legal Limits Secret Admin Cabal Brotherhood. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
UTRS Account Request
[HAL cowers.] Please don't bite me again!
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Bishonen | talk
Cool. I'll get on it.. uh... later, quite a bit later. It sounds like an interesting job, but maybe that's my crazed optimism. Bishonen | talk17:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC).
Re: ANI thread for IPv6 accounts
Re: WP:ANI#Really pissed off IP ... I have no problem with extending the block; but I am suspecting that in this case, the IPv6 being used is likely dynamic. If you look at the contribution history of both the article and the AfD, there are several IPv6 edits over the past several days where the first four number blocks are the same (tracing back to Time Warner Cable Internet). Given behavioural evidence and talk page comments, they all appear to be the same user. The most recent IP did stay the same over at least two editing sessions, but overall they seem to change roughly once every day or two for this user. I had also semi-protected the article and the AfD, so that should help reduce disruption as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh crap. Thanks for telling me. Yes, I do see they're the same, and hardly worth blocking. Good idea to semi. Bishonen | talk17:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) I wish I knew more about how ISPs allocate IPv6 addresses, but everything that I have seen suggests that if one user has been moving around a group of addresses all of which have the first four blocks staying the same, then the chances are very good that nobody else will be using that range, so a range block will be suitable. Unfortunately, until we get a tool for checking IPv6 range contributions (as far as I know, there isn't one yet) there is enough uncertainty there to deter me from putting such range blocks for more than a short time, though. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Vast tribe
Oi, come on ... Darwinbish, Bishapod, Darwinfish, Gooch, Bishzilla, ... how many of these fuckers ARE there? (And you've got less than 48 hours to answer, or you get beer poured over your head.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
[Defensively:] The Bishonen conglomerate is really not very big as sockfarms go. Gooch is merely a friend! A sock indeed, but not a bishsock. And Frutti di Mare, who did good work, has been indefblocked! As for the others… [starts to stammer slightly], uh they're not very active, such as young Bish and chips. Sleepers, really. There was a baby of sorts, a messy eater… [Roots around in her jumble of a password file. Nothing.] Where did that go? And wasn't there some more fish? MONGO, do you remember a young pallid sturgeon bish, that looked a lot like Bishapod? As I remember it, that business was all your fault. Anyway, both I and Bishzilla deeply regret Bishapod's foolish creation of the Darwintwins, what can I say. They're smarter and worse behaved than the lot of us and may take over the whole shop in the end. Darwinbish has been angling for adminship for years. :-( Never mind, now, are there any more, mmmm, pseudonyms used by your sockmaster? Eh? Eh? Bishonen | talk20:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC).
Yeah, I always wondered how it was kosher to have all of those alternate accounts, without linking to them on your user page. You seem to be the exception to the rule because the accounts are so amusing. Don't forget about The Lady Catherine de Burgh, too. LizRead!Talk!17:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I had been wondering about Lady Catherine, but I couldn't see anything detailing her pedigree anywhere. Is she a lady in her own right, or just some Lord's chick? Bish and chips I think I had seen once, but forgotten. It's good to see that Frutti di Mare is blocked, because it means that if ever I catch you doing anything I don't like, I can indef-block you for block evasion, so watch it! (evil laugh...) Oh yes, I've got my eye on Arctic Balloon, too. Pseudonyms used by my sockmaster? I'm afraid my family is really boring compared to yours. My parents have really sober children, who don't do anything very exciting or amusing, and have mundane names such as JamesAWatson, JamesBWatson, JamesCWatson, JBW, JBW test account, and JBW0. However, the family has become so successful and celebrated that many other people, totally unrelated, have tried to emulate us, like JamesDWatson, JamesBWaston, JamesBWatsan, JamesBeeWatson, JamesBWatsen, JamesBWatson1, JamesBWatsonSucks, JamesBWatsonSucksShit, JamesBWatsonisgay, and at least one more that I don't remember the name of. Nice to be subjected to the sincerest form of flattery. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not the first time the Lady has been ascribed to me. In a way I'm flattered, because she's very witty… but mostly I feel the assumption is the sign of a person who doesn't understand Lady C's aristocratic nature, nor my own clog-shod lack of such. How many times has she not very justly implied to me that her ancestors were already la crème de la crème at the time my own (the inspiration for prehistoric creatures such as Bishzilla and Bishapod) were performing primitive war dances in ice-age northern Europe wearing nothing but blue woad? I'm proud, and a little incredulous, to be able to call her a friend nevertheless. An illustration of the fact that those truly secure in their own superiority are never snobs. @JamesBWatson: it strikes me as psychologically likely that I was impelled to create the Bishonen conglomerate because I never (that I know of) had any such enviable imitators as you. Good, because I've always wondered why, and so have many many others. Mystery solved. Oh yes, Arctic Balloon... yes, that is in fact another indeffed relative, but it was such a long time ago! Bishonenisgay, 20:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC).
Emulators? Certainly Bishonensuksc0k, pretty certainly BishonenSwe, and perhaps also at least some of Bishonen on wheels!, Bishonen-Griffishonen, Bishonen1, Bishonenism, Bishonens. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Er... cough. Bishonenism is my own, I think. OK, so the conglomerate is a little bigger than I immediately recollected. :-) Good! Powerful family! Bishonen | talk21:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC).
Firstly, I will point out, JamesBWatson, that there is no male Christian name, in the civilized world, with the initial 'B', so one can only speculate what that stands for. Brian, I suppose, is a possibility, but that's rather reserved for snails, and Bertie, of course, is a spaniel's name. Furthermore, permit me to inform you that my pedigree is perfection and completely Burked and Almanached, and is well documented here. For the record, though I cant think what business it is of yours, I am in no way related to poor little Mrs Bishonen (charming though I'm sure she may be); my blood is altogether of a different hue. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
No, I didn't think you were related: I just said that I had wondered, but I had rejected the notion. As for what business your pedigree is of mine, who said it was my business? Aren't I allowed to stick my nose into other people's business? Oh yes, and what makes you think the B stands for a Christian name? Or even for any sort of name? Or for anything? Did you imagine for some reason I meant James B. Watson, and that I was too stupid to be able to type spaces and full stops? The editor whose real name is "JamesBWatson", and not "James B. Watson", or "James Benedict Watson", or "James Boris Watson" , or anything else (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This above all: to thine own self be true....similarly, many assume my real name is MONGO...either due to deed or wit or lack thereof.--MONGO14:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Not to butt in here, but Bish, didn't you get your first (and best) sock from an "enviable imitator"? I thought I remembered when looking up Bishzilla's history that someone created that account to harass you and through the wonders of all your Bureaucrat friends you were able to take over the sock. Am I not remembering that right? Tex (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
You've perhaps got that from Bishzilla's block log, Tex, it's almost as colourful as mine. You're perfectly right as far as Bishzilla's on-wiki history goes, but what you're missing is the pre-history, her birth in the murky primeval swamps of IRC. A sort of spontaneous generation, like crocodiles from the slime of the Nile, you know? I think there's a hint of it in her RFA… ah yes, under "Questions for the candidate": "Bishzilla unjustly accused of being merely popular #wikipedia IRC personality. Clearly untrue, active on wiki also, kindly and helpful." Sounds like at that time (2007), she was mainly an IRC thing. And then somebody thought it would be amusing to create a User:Bishzilla on Wikipedia, which made me so mad that I suborned a bureaucrat (who she's kept in her pocket ever since) and liberated the account, and she stept proudly into the encyclopedia and requested adminship. (You remember she actually was an admin for quite a while? Are any of your socks admins, JamesBWatson?) And hello there, little Gooch! The pocket has a well-stocked cake fridge, but not balloons and funny hats like your sock party. Perhaps you should add some to the Victorian parlour? Bishonen | talk16:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC).
Wow! 'Zilla used to be an admin! I never knew that. I'm impressed. is she the only non-human admin, or are there lots of them, scurrying around, sneakily blocking us humans, and stuff? I see that she was desyssopped some time between 29 May 2008 and 25 January 2009. Was she very upset to lose the mop? Did she need a lot of comforting? And no, I don't let any of my socks become admins, in case they start deleting my toes, or blocking my shoes, or something like that. It would be rather inconvenient. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't think so. Bishzilla seemed rather relieved to be… uh, to be relieved of the tools in January 2009. She was absolutely delighted the time she got the mop — I remember it well — how she basked in the congratulations of her fans, how she condescended to me. But when Monday morning broke, it became obvious she hadn't counted on it being quite so much work. I think she may have been one of those sad cases that want the tools chiefly for the status of it. Darwinbish, now, she'd probably never tire of having a banhammer added to her already impressive armory, and would really use it. Let's all join in trying to prevent her from laying her, hmm. [[Discombobulated for words again]. From laying her feet on it. As for other non-human admins, I had some hopes that User:Floquenstein's monster might request adminship, but now that his sockmaster is on arbcom... well, one of the many, many disadvantages of that job is probably that it hampers your socking. Hampers fun and ... impulsiveness altogether. Bleh. Bishonen | talk18:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC).
Monster is monster, yes. But is human monster. Like friend Hulk. Calling "non-human" hurtful. Lizard owner Bishonen not check own non-monster human privilege. Not check privilege bad. (NB non-human monster lizard sex was experiment phase in college). --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
[Bishzilla, who has cherished the romantic memory of cybering with little Floquenstein's monster on their page some time back (among her many, many romantic memories, admittedly) is tremendously hurt at this betrayal. Had you forgotten what a sensitive womanish creature she is?] Experiment phase in college??? bishzillaROARR!!18:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC).
must add: 'ZILLA FOR ARBCOM. MONGO too. we need some rough types in arbcom, shake things up a little, maybe even get some things done, pass out some bans. -- Aunva6talk - contribs16:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Bishzilla already have greater influence than all arbcom...dread of incineration enough to keep miscreants inline. MONGO powers are puny, unless one stands downwind of the beast.--MONGO19:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Or unless one share Victorian parlour in Bishzilla's pocket with beast. Getting a little worried some recent arrivals may be overcome by MONGO emissions![82] [Bishzilla throws another two hundred joss sticks onto the fire in the cosy fireplace.] bishzillaROARR!!19:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC).
Jimbob is jealous is all. He's actually the Ghost Founder on behalf of mighty Bishzilla who has more important matters than Wikipedia to attend to.--MONGO11:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No no, little Jimbo adore 'Zilla, Jimbo fondest wish is he was still in pocket! But possibly Zilla forceful action of blocking little sitting arb still count against her. Unfortunately 'shonen conglomerate not well adjusted to wiki hierarchies. Blinded by low-class egalitarian Scandinavian background. Zilla naively blocked disruptive user without thought whether arb or IP. bishzillaROARR!!12:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC).
Wikipedia needs the whole tribe as active admins, both because it might help perpetuate the species (although 'zilla seems to have a fairly good grasp of that lately) and because we probably need the whole corps to keep the big admins with serious weight problems in line. And I think we all regret that User:Little Stupid will never be able to graduate to User:Big Stupid, although, um, given some of 'zilla's behaviorshutting up now.John Carter (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thanks for deleting the long term abuse page on IIIraute. Though your criteria for deleting it were not within the Wikipedia policies you cited. It was clearly not an attack page under any Wikipedia definition - it cited a long term pattern of abuse on Germany related pages, that has nothing to do with my content disputes with that user. It also does not personally attack IIIraute, it simply cites to a pattern of edits that goes back for years. You may be correct that the ANI was the appropriate venue, and that it should not have been a long term abuse page - I really don't know - because it is not a single recent incident I am highlighting rather a sustained patter of NPOV edits in the following pattern:
Living Person x is a German-American actor/doctor/whatever - German added by IIIraute
Living Person y is a polish/russian-whatever-German - other nationality deleted by IIIraute
It's pretty subtle but its a well documented and maintained pattern that goes well beyond 'good editing.'
When the subject is 'German' he adds it to the lead sentence, when the subject has another ethnic root he tries to keep German in the lead and argue that the other ethnicity is trivia or irrelevant and should not be in the lead.
The other pattern is deleting of cultures east of Germany from European related pages (cuisine, language, etc.)
Finally highlighting German war dead, war losses, Russian crimes, etc.
Not sure what the proper notice board for that is but I will say that my long term abuse page was
not related to any content dispute I have with IIIraute - it deals with totally separate behaviour
not related to my personal feelings about the topic - I am not East European, I am not German. But I think nationalistic editing or editing based on 'racial principles' should be banned.
FINALLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY - NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK - please let me know which of the g10 criteria for speedy deletion was present on that page?
The pattern of edits by IIIraute is long term abuse. I know that anything I say is tainted in your eyes in this matter, that you believe VolunteerMarek is also suspect - of which I can have no opinion. I still don't think you should ignore the message because you don't like the messenger. Look at his edit history in this topic area. It is clear what he is doing. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC))
The Long Term Abuse page is a venue for keeping track of banned long-term vandals and sockpuppeteers, as you can see if you take a look at the actual listings on the page. I understand that the page can be misleading, and should have more information about its purpose, or at least more forceful information. (In fact I think the page should be marked "historical" per WP:DENY, but that's an issue for another day.) Even though it says at the top that "Names should only be added for the most egregious and well-attested cases" and "Only add vandals that have a need to be pointed out, such as sneaky sockpuppeteers, prolific trolls, etc", the report form on the page seems likely enough to lure the inexperienced to create inappropriate attack pages against opponents. For the deletion criterion, I refer you to Wikipedia:Attack page. If you disagree, you can take it to WP:Requests for undeletion. But I say that more as a formality, as I don't get the impression that you really want the page undeleted (it's malformed, after all, if nothing else). I get rather the impression, even though you start as usual by thanking me, that what you want here is to complain about me being unfair — my "teaming up" with IIIRaute, my bias against anything you say, etc. If that's it, we probably won't get any further here on my page. To get fresh eyes on such an issue, you could file a report specifically about me on ANI or a request for comments (note that there's a special section for requesting comments on the use of admin privileges). I don't recommend these venues, mind you, I think you'd find using them quite frustrating, but you should be aware of the options you have.
More importantly, imo, you have now within a short space of time taken IIIRaute to WP:DRN, to WP:ANI and to WP:LTA (this after voluntarily undertaking, in response to my May 3 warning, to "not engage with that user any more."[83]) and posted essentially the same complaints in all three, including making trebly sure that it becomes known that IIIRaute is blocked on another Wikipedia, over an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with his editing on en.wiki and that happened in 2012. Even though the DRN was about a trifling issue which I can't really believe either of you cared much about, you strayed so far off topic as to make stunningly irrelevant remarks about IIIRaute's non-en block. Seriously, that is harassment, Mostlyoksorta. People are supposed to be able to put ancient history behind them here, and definitely not to have non-enwiki history raised against them over and over again. You need to stop. Read WP:forum shopping, too. Bishonen | talk17:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC).
To be honest I agree with most of what you say. I don't want the page undeleted, and I don't want to complain about you. I just wish you would let other administrators deal with me and IIIraute. And I want to clarify that I am aware that the ANI and LTA are for the same conduct, and I did not know which was the appropriate forum, because I believe the conduct is long term - editors on the ANI have said, that the conduct I am speaking of there is 'old'. Second clarification, The ANI/LTA is totally separate from the content issue at the DRN. DRN was seeking to put that content fight behind us. The volunteer decided 90% in favor of IIIraute, yet both you and he challenged the finality of the process, which doesn't really seem like 'peace keeping' or whatever - since the result was in his favor. That really confuses me. Third clarification, when a user is banned permanently from any wikipedia for supporting holocaust deniers, and then continues to edit pages focused on Germany with a bias towards 'the German nation' I think people SHOULD know about it. No matter how careful that editor is.(Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC))
Mostlyoksorta, Wikipedia projects operate separately. You'll find many editors who've been indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia who are not only active on other Wikipedia projects (like the Commons) but they hold administrative roles. If IIIraute is a Holocaust denier, it will be evident in his edits. But editors are not preemptively blocked for what they might do, but on their conduct here. LizRead!Talk!18:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
@Liz: I see that you got the impression, from Mostlyoksorta's post that IIIRaute is or might be a you-know-what, or supportive of that position. It's not surprising, as Mostly's post seems slanted to put the matter in as dark a light as possible, but it's absolutely untrue. IIIRaute was blocked from German Wikipedia in 2012 for making personal attacks. He hasn't made any PAs here as far as I know. May I ask if you're being fed this line by somebody else, or reading German Wikipedia for yourself, Mostlyoksorta? How's your German? (Mine is workable for simple matters, and I've checked your links as well as some discussion pages.) If you can't restrain yourself, or alternatively if you don't understand what (false) impressions you're creating with remarks like that, I'm going to either block you, or ask for a one-way interaction ban for you with regard to IIIRaute, which would forbid you from either mentioning, hinting at, or interacting with, him in any way. I haven't decided which yet, but it'll be one or the other. You've used up all your special-tolerance-for-newbie-mistakes, and your character assassination campaign needs to stop right now. Bishonen | talk22:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC).
@Liz: and Bishonen, my German is pretty good too, not sure how you would describe the passage below, anyway here is the link - its all towards the bottom on the left side. [84] - I think if you banned me and IIIraute from editing asmallworld - that would be a great solution. I would never mention him again, because I would have nothing to interact with him about. The fact remains he is engaging in dubious editing of Germany related pages - the full conversation is below:
<not any more: I've removed the rather unattractive copypaste with all its broken links etc. Mostlyoksorta has pasted it to his own page as well, and I'd rather not give it houseroom. Bishonen | talk16:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC).>
The long term abuse pages record some users who have been banned by the enwiki community, and who have a long term pattern of abuse at enwiki such that an LTA report is warranted. The purpose of the report is to enable fast resolution of future problems if the banned user returns—an LTA page is not a memorial, and it most certainly does not record users who are not even blocked at enwiki. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a edit war on the talk page of User:Darkness_Shines, I would like to ask if Darkness Shines is allowed to remove active sanctions. I've read somewhere that a user is allowed to remove anything they want from their talk page, but I can be wrong here so I am writing you. OccultZone (Talk) 06:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you in principle, Johnuniq, but unfortunately, WP:REMOVED contains the wording "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: ... any other notice regarding an active sanction". As it happens, DS was hit by that back in January and took it to ANI [85] where it soon became clear that common decency says that editors should be allowed to remove notices that they have read - even those of active sanctions. DS then tried to update WP:REMOVE to reflect what actually happens [86], but was reverted by the inertia of some who think that guidelines require extensive discussion just to be descriptive of actual practice. So it's dismal that the argument he won in January (but was not allowed to document) now has to be re-litigated four months later because of the stupidity of having a guideline that doesn't reflect community practice, but is so much effort to change that nobody is able to do so. Then we wonder why we're losing editors. --RexxS (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Yikes, is that what those waffly words mean—I'll have to retire injured, or at least confused. I remember long discussions about that from a couple of years ago and I edited the guideline once to implement what I thought a discussion had concluded, namely that the wording implied that current block notices could not be removed, but the wording was not clear (that is, my clarification was to explicitly state that such notices could not be removed because that appeared to be the consensus at the time). Then it was overturned—my edit was removed after some further discussion. Perhaps it's done a couple of revolutions that I have not noticed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
He left the Arb block notice, which is active, so the other is moot. Seems pedantic to force him to keep a notice about an action he can't possibly violate since he is blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER13:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Well done! I added a sentence about her best-known book to the lead, see what you think. I remember she was all over the media after that one. Bishonen | talk09:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC).
The question you asked at the end of this edit probably deserves an answer. The simple reason is that no one has ever offered to nominate me for adminship and I am reluctant to nominate myself, as doing so would be "prima facie evidence of power-hunger" :-). I'm not averse to helping out with admin stuff if anyone thinks I'd be useful, but in my old age I'm also perfectly content gnoming away in the background, where things tend to be much less stressful. Deor (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
They haven't? I'm surprised. I've actually never nominated anybody… I'm a little uncomfortable with the role of nominator, partly because I favour self-noms. Adminship isn't, or shouldn't be, some sort of exclusive country club that you need a sponsor for! I always support any self-nom I catch sight of, unless there's something seriously problematic about them. IMO, self-noms show a commendable spirit of independence, which is a good thing in admins.
I don't mean I'd exactly recommend you to self-nominate. You're quite right that stupid comments like the one you quote are all too common, and the negative attitude to self-noms seems to be getting regrettably more common. If I were the closing 'crat, I'd disregard opposes with nonsense rationales like "self-nomination shows power hunger" … but it's probably not what happens. (Or is it, Writ Keeper?)
On the third hand, it would be great to have you in the admin pool, so I'll think about abandoning my principled stand (and my reluctance to enter the cesspool that RFA easily turns into). I'll just ping Drmies first. I assume you saw his comment on ANI, too? Anyway, I hope you do decide to run! Þæs ofereode, þisses swa mæg. Bishonen | talk15:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC).
Bish, please don't get all Old English on me. DYK that at one point I thought about getting those lines tattooed? I may have told Deor this at one time or another (probably another--way back when). Deor, I have never dug into your closet for skeletons, and I don't have your resume here at hand, but I would be happy to nominate you. If you like you can email me, so that we can set up secret appointments and agreements, cabal-style. Oh, my RfA wasn't a cesspool, though there was one little puddle of shit in the middle (and it's a funny story, which perhaps I'll share later); I see these complaints about RfA, but folks like Dennis Brown, Kelapstick, the aforementioned Writ Keeper, Bbb23, and many others just sailed through. I've never been able to find Bish's RfA--it's probably one of her socks who blackmailed some bureaucrat to check that little box but hey, I'm not complaining. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
You can't find mine even though it's on my userpage (along with all my RFC's, that I'm somewhat more proud of)? Sterling display of admin knowing-your-way-around there, doctor. Never mind, here it is. Not that one..? OK, here's another. I've actually got the Deor lines on a T-shirt. No, not kidding, Geogre gave it to me, it's right here in my closet. Bishonen | talk16:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC).
Yes, yes, adminship is not a country club btw, we tee off at 3:30 bish. Open to all and whatnot. From the looks of it (and I did look), he appears to have adequate tenure and proper background. Besides, we need the dues. And I didn't sail through, it was in fact an ordeal. I had to bribe most people for votes, including Drmies, whom I still owe four lawn mowings. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER15:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Didn't I miss your RfA entirely? Through my own negligence? And don't worry, Mrs. Drmies does the lawn. I just repair the mower. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No, you even added a side comment at my RFA. We had socks, blocks, swapped votes and drama. Good times....good times. But then again, I'm a overly persistent, opinionated (but polite) type so I'm very confident Deor will fare much better than I did. I would be willing to ride shotgun for you here if he so chose. Maybe we should see if we can beat Pedro's record and get 6 or 7 noms. ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER16:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't encourage that co-nom nonsense, please. I really hate co-nominations. The entire old guard of the country club making themselves look too important to simply support like a normal person! Deor, don't accept no co-noms! I'm not saying they would make me oppose (how would you like "Too many nominations" for an oppose rationale, Writty?), but it would chill my enthusiasm. Of course, it's not my business, you must do as you like, Deor. (But it's still silly!) Bishonen | talk16:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC).
I can offer up a "neutral - too many nominators" if it helps [87]? Seriously though, the days of a boat load of nominators have, rightly, gone. I think it was my RFA that finally prooved the point too many wasn't a good thing (although I believe Phaedriel and Giggy possibly had more nominators at their RFA's). Anyway, Bish is right. One, maybe two nominators. Just my 2p. Pedro : Chat 08:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Pfft. You're no fun at all. I will say that I don't recommend self-noms. I think that having one or two nominating you speaks to the trust those people put in you. I don't think they need to be admin, and in fact, someone without the bit and who has a solid history of being a contributor is best. Drmies has the experience and the bit, an exception to the "admin don't do content" rule, and he's a pretty good guy when he's sober, thus a good choice. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER17:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, you almost missed my RfA, and you were supposed to be my nominator. I didn't really become a 'crat for the closing RfA side of things (too exciting), but my general line is that there's very little that I would totally discount. "Hunger for power", in and of itself, is not a completely illegitimate concern in a candidate, and so I wouldn't be likely to disregard it outright. But the mere fact of a self-nom is not particularly compelling evidence of powerlust; if that was all they had to justify their concern--and I'm sure that people would jump all over that, if it were--I doubt that I would give such a comment much weight, if the vote were to fall into the discretion range and I was to be the 'crat to close the RfA. Writ Keeper⚇♔16:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
WK, I was probably drunk--my apologies. Deor, I have a draft written up already. It's full of nice words and witticisms, but I'll need you to check for grammatical mistakes, of course. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know deor well enough to comfortably nominate him/her, but after looking through edit history, I would/will for sure support an RfA. (this also caused me to ponder my own chances for RfA, decided I need more mainspace edits.) -- Aunva6talk - contribs19:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of multiple noms at RFA, the current one wasn't planned this way but it is how it worked out. In this case, it is 3 admin that work in very different areas of the 'pedia and have different styles, not just buddies piling up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER15:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Nice going
Guess you figured you didn't have enough enemies, well now you've just made one more... nice going... You'll never be able to keep me out, now you're going to have your hands full. Nice going. 71.127.135.231 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I regret your recent unfortunately completely justifiable actions regarding Til, but I also have to say I am not particularly surprised to see them. Just wondering whether you knew he says on his user page that he has alternate accounts and whether they have been blocked to, or whether they should be, I dunno. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, John. No, I'm sadly not really surprised either. I would have supposed he'd have some alternate accounts, but I don't think one can ask a checkuser without knowing what they might be, so... I just hope people who edit those pages will keep their eyes open for anything suspicious, and either tell me about it or open an SPI. Bishonen | talk21:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC).
And that account claims to be that of a sysop and crat at the Amharic wikipedia, if that is at all relevant here. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh. Thanks, BMK, I didn't even go look, I simply assumed the socks wouldn't be named there. An acknowledged alternative account is unlikely to be used, I guess, as he probably wouldn't want the hassle of having that one indeffed as well, assuming that he calms down and asks for an unblock in a few months. So I won't block it at present. I don't want to send a "you are simply not wanted here" message by blocking a properly declared account. John, yes, I read the userpage. Blocking it here wouldn't interfere with its use on the Amharic wikipedia, but I'd simply rather not. Bishonen | talk21:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC).
… I can only quote another user in the same situation: "Wishing to be friends is quick work, but friendship is a slow ripening fruit" (Aristotle). I'm sure we can if you water this plant. Bishonen | talk18:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC).
Update: Since you seemed to be offline for a while I reported it at WP:AIV, resulting in an indef block for the new user account too. Thomas.W talk20:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That finger always does, but Vsmith got in between the cup and the lip! Not fair! [her bloodlust up, /me roams off looking for other opportunities to shoot from the hip. Creates User:Liam Irving in passing.] Bishonen | talk20:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC).
-- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Like but better give the 'zilla some of that pie or else she might come over here and cause trouble! =:-O Montanabw(talk) 17:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy Yuletides! 
_Flower.jpg)
Hafspajen (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
). So, it should have been "If she's able to convince an admin..., then she'll be unblocked" and "If she will be unblocked, she is able to convince an admin...", the second of which is I guess equivalent to "If she is being unblocked, she was able to convince..." and "If she was unblocked, she was able before that to convince..." - what am I even saying. Heh. 6an6sh6 01:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
-- Diannaa (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
) Best, Sam Sailor Sing 12:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
If you're unable to, would a kind admin-tps of yours, please block?—MelbourneStar☆talk 17:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hehehehe. How unpleasant to meet Mr Eliot! Bishonen | talk 19:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC).
What can I tell you. Bishonen | talk 08:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC).
![[29]](http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=File:789px-FirenzePalazzoPittiPiazzale.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[34]](http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Sale_1.jpg){kind=link}
![[37]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Sale_1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --AntonTalk 16:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
