Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

User talk:Bishonen/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26

Goddess

I liked her. Bring her back. Please. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, since it's you, Roxy. But the fly is all yours now (though also crawling around in my archive). Please take good care of it. Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC).
I updated my fly before commenting earlier. Put in the transparent background latest version. Also, even though my personal favourite artist isn't featured in your rotating picture gallery, I always pause for a moment whenever the Monet comes up. It has always taken my breath away. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I've added one by Peder Krøyer and a Turner also now, see what you think when they come up. Who's your favourite artist? Bishonen | tålk 12:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC).
David Hockney rules the roost here, he has such an eye, and has constantly surprised me each time he does something else. I'm not going to refresh the page for your new pics, but shall wait till they happen naturally, it wont take long! - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah. I don't know him well. There's very little by Hockney on Commons, as is natural with a living artist. But if you'd like to add the one that I found there, Roxy, or indeed another image of some kind, to my carousel here, feel free. (Don't add this one, it's fair use only.) Note the instructions at the top of the module, and note, talkpage stalkers, that this offer is extended to Roxy only. Anybody else who'd like to add an image, please ask first. Bishonen | tålk 15:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC).
Cannot say I miss the fly. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The fly wasn't really suitable for Bish, it is far more appropriate on my page.
As to Bish's generous offer to add to the picture gallery there are two reasons I have not accepted the invitation. One, I'd probably banjax the technical editing aspects beyond repair. b) This is Bish's page, and should reflect her taste, not mine, and lastly, I forgot. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Udham SIngh

Thanks for restoring the stable version. I would like to request page protection since these caste warriors are active in this article, and they wouldn't discuss in the talk page. I've tried it with this IP/newbie user. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Right. I see a whole year's semi set by me expired fairly recently. It's the kind of article that needs semi at least, surely, so strongly as people feel about the caste aspect etc. (Even for a caste issue, it just seems strange that anybody cares if this guy was a Kamboj or a Dalit. Perhaps there's something there that I'm not getting.) So, I'll do two years. That's not even in the drop-down menu, but I'm doing it anyway. Thanks for your vigilance, Fylindfotberserk. Bishonen | tålk 20:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC).
Thanks ma'am. This caste POV push gets obvious when they'd just rant some anecdotal evidences and original researches, instead of seeking consensus backed by scholarly sources. On top of that they choose to rant everywhere except the section I asked them to discuss in, the one in which we had a consensus. I'd notify you if further disruption occurs in that article. Thanks again . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, please do, Fylindfotberserk. The user I reverted is autoconfirmed now, and I've given them some advice on their page. Bishonen | tålk 10:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC).
Yes ofcourse . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bosporus

Good morning Bishzilla

through one of your many powers :-) could you please move "The Bosporus" back to its original name? Someone has moved it without discussion. Thank you, Alex2006 (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Alex, long time! I've moved it back, with a comment on Talk. I didn't actually need to use the fiery breath or other tools — I suppose there was no redirect in the way. But now, if I remember these arcana correctly, it'll need admin tools or a dinosaur to move it again. (I did leave a redirect.) Bishonen | tålk 16:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC).
PS, ha, I see in the deletion log that there was in fact a redirect in the way, which I deleted without even trying, or noticing. Such is the power of the breath of the Zilla! Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC).
Great, I knew it would be easy for you, thanks! I suppose the delay between my message and yours was due to the fact that you were patrolling the sacred borders of the homeland, which have recently been subject to annoying intrusions from the east... but even they don't stand a chance against you! :-) Buona serata from Zürich in spring mode, Alex2006 (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Republican party

Hi Bishonen, hope you are having a good day. Apparently Nidhiki05 doesn't want to discuss this [1] and has decided to remove a tag [2] without consensus. [3]. I know you have warned them about similar behavior in the past. [4] If you feel this is not an issue feel free to ignore it, otherwise please help us calm this situation down. Thank you. DN (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC) I will be stepping away and will continue the discussion tomorrow. This incident has put me off for the rest of the day. Thanks again and sorry to disturb you. DN (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed the template per WP:WTRMT 3: "If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong". I am not sure why this made you so upset. Toa Nidhiki05 23:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The issue is being discussed on talk, Darknipples, so I don't think it needs admin attention right now. Templates are removed all the time, and Republican Party (United States) is an article where intractable differences of opinion play out all the time. So I wouldn't expect the {{misleading}} tag to survive for very long. It seems like a good idea to leave the discussion for a bit and catch your breath. When you return to the article (if you do want to continue to be involved with such a highly contested article ), it seems to me it might be useful to look for sources and either propose a specific textual change on talk, or boldly make a change/make an addition to the lead and see where it goes. I hope you don't let these things worry you too much. Bishonen | tålk 07:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC).

Thanks - EnIRtpf09b

Thanks - EnIRtpf09b
EnIRtpf09b thanked you for blocking user 95.186.184.224. EnIRtpf09b (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

DS alert

I don't understand your question about DS alert. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

An ARBPIA alert was placed on your talk at 18:34, 15 May 2022 and about an hour later (19:50, 15 May 2022) you started an arbitration enforcement request against the person placing the alert. The question at WP:AE was "Was there any connection, Triggerhippie?" [between the two events in the diffs in this comment]. That is, did one lead to the other? As mentioned at WP:AE, the question was pretty rhetorical as the answer can be inferred, so there is no need to reply now. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
That's right. People often take the placing of a DS alert as an unfriendly action, even though it's just for information and says "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date" (bolding in the original). I was asking if you were thereby inspired to take unfriendly action (an AE report) in return. Bishonen | tålk 10:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC).
No, I started AE after he added and then reinserted a line in an article, which is under 1RR (the rule I thought he broke). His notice on my page didn't influence me posting on AE. Does it matter? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
No. Bishonen | tålk 15:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC).

TurokSwe rangeblock

Hey, Bishonen. How are you doing? It appears as though TurokSwe has gotten a bit bolder with his socking from his range. He's back to edit-warring, as always. BOTTO (T•C) 15:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Add a little blatant vandalism to the mix, as well. BOTTO (T•C) 15:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Botto. That's bad vandalism you link to. I found another, more harmless, instance here. But I don't know — I'm not sure I have any taste for blocking that range again, after reading their block log, with Bishonen all over it. It's been a long time since TurokSwe was blocked. Aren't most of the IP edits all right? Where is the edit warring you mention? And do you have any more examples of vandalism? Maybe it's time you took it to ANI, for more admin eyes. Sorry. Bishonen | tålk 16:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC).
I have unburdened you from the weight of the rangeblock.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, my little Ponyo. Bishonen | tålk 21:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC).

2405:204:A105:CAFB:0:0:62A:8A0

Perhaps a revdel of their edits [5] [6]. Those stuffs certainly fall under purely disruptive material. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Veni, vidi, vici. Abecedare (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Abe. Bishonen | tålk 17:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC).

ip ranting on the talk page

They're more than aware of what talkpages are for, this is their account and they've previously been warned for this type of behavior. For confirmation, see this diff where they say that it's their account. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Billy7 is blocked on German Wikipedia by unsachlichen Admins aus politischen Gründen, I note. No surprise there. [Bishonen is distracted by the great German verb concatenations. Diskutiert werden muss! Love it!] Not blocked on en, though. I wonder why Billy stopped using the account here? I do see the warnings, yes. I'll keep it in mind, Prax, though they seem to have given up on Talk:Great Replacement, for the moment at least. Thanks for filling me in on the background. Bishonen | tålk 21:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC).

About changing my username

Hey Bishonen I want to change my username here. I noticed on many Facebook pages, my username has been subjected to attack by people who don't like my edits. In order to avoid issues, i want to do this as soon as possible. Please change it to Vijigishu. Thanks.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the harassment, Heba (but unfortunately not surprised :-(). I'm afraid I can't change your name; special "renamers" do that. See Wikipedia:Changing username. Or make it simple and go straight to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. Hope the name you want isn't taken. Bishonen | tålk 09:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC).

Oxygen

Yeah, thanks. I figured that out. "Chump don' want no help, chump don't GET no help! Golly!" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Mutey McMuteface. Peace be unto you. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Book burning

Would you care to look at this page where Savonarola and the book burning police have come during the night for our old, and much missed friend Fil. Giano (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ravenswing 02:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #58923

DeaconShotFire requests unblock. They write,

I understand that I was blocked for rude behaviour and edit warring. I fully admit to doing this. If I am unblocked, I will not begin edit wars or harass other users. I will not engage in this behaviour again. I have a genuine interest in improving Wikipedia, as evidenced by my edit history. I have made significant changes (that are still in place) to lead sections of major articles such as Ronald Reagan and Elizabeth II. I hope to continue improving the lead sections of articles. Another editor stated on my talk page following my indefinite mute that I should be given a chance to appeal it, an editor with whom I made those kinds of major edits.

Would this be acceptable as far as it goes? DO they need a TBAN as an unblock condition? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Otocolobus cat looking through the fence window expresses my mood on this matter. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Roaming Wikipedia to edit lead sections while ignoring the rest of articles is a terrible habit, typical of fly-by editors and those pushing a strong POV. Generally, such editors have no interest in whether or not the statements they add to or remove from the lead are supported and sourced lower down. I'd be more likely to recommend an unblock on condition that the user leaves lead sections alone for say three or six months, in order to learn to edit articles rather than lead sections. As for the "other editor" who thought DSF should be given a chance to appeal the block specifically on their talkpage, yes, I saw that, and I'm not sure why DSF thinks it's a good idea to remind people of it. It was GoodDay showing his good judgment by asking why somebody should have talkpage access removed merely for addressing me as "degenerate". I don't know what the problem is that GoodDay sees with appealing via UTRS — it's not as public a place for posting choice insults, that's all. Otherwise it works the same way. Anyway, if you can carve out conditions for an unblock, Deepfriedokra, it's fine by me. I'm rather taken with the notion of DSF leaving lead sections alone for a time, but you needn't be bound by that. Yes, the Pallas's cat is expressive, isn't it? It would make a good admin. Bishonen | tålk 15:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC).
Thanks. I had not considered the poverty of wisdom in that request, seeing only that he seemed to be interested in finding more thin ice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, I was unaware of you degeneracy. Perhaps some day we should compare notes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
My degeneracy is expressed in my enjoyment of fake power.[7] I hope you have more fun with yours. Bishonen | tålk 16:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC).
Oh, I lernt long ago (and far way) that power is an illusion. That never gets old, btw. Alas, my degeneracy is of a far more personal nature. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This explains the post (hours ago) on my talkpage. Let the lad go, but give'em a 6-month lead ban. Such a probation will be good & if he messes up? re-ban. PS - If he wants? he can call me a 'degenerate', as I've been called worst. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, I pinged you only in order to not talk behind your back, I didn't mean it as an invitation to come here for a chat. Bishonen | tålk 17:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC).
DSF is a four time loser. The fourth being insulting a user after being blocked. Time for a root cause analysis and a tailored action plan. Firstly, DSF needs to be able to identify alternatives to edit warring and lashing out. Then we can work toward other behavior issues. FWIW, I think there are already a number of admins who already channel Pallas cat. Oh,'tis the link never gets old. Not the old saw. You might want to find a suitable frame and hang it on your wall. Degeneratively yours, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Here’s another lovely editor. User talk:Subject Matter Expert Supreme Doug Weller talk 18:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Very charming, Doug. Indeffed with tpa revoked. Bishonen | tålk 18:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC).
Thanks. Clearly NOTHERE. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
No worries, Bishonen. I've not the ability to unban the lad & I'm guessing there's not going to be any consensus to unban him. It's his hole to dig out of, not mine. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Please take a hint, GoodDay. Don't post here any more. Bishonen | tålk 20:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC).
I'm going to restore TPA with some suggestions. --Yamla (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Soooo burned out! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Email response

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Requesting Admin action: topic banned user back (right after the ban is over) and active on the same articles

Hi Bishonen.. I am aware that you may not be in a position to take action in such caste related stuff. I would like to ping RegentsPark, Doug Weller, Vanamonde93 so that they can have a look at Nobita456's recent edits right after the ban period is over. Nobita was topic banned for 3 months considering their excessive interest on Baidya/Bengali Kayastha rivalry and persistent disruptive edits on the consensus versions of these two articles (apart from related ones)! Since Nobita is an extended confirmed user, they have again resumed their old agenda related to these two protected articles. Would request all admins active on this talk page to review their recent edits and take suitable action in accordance with the objective of the topic ban imposed earlier. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi admins, I would also like to request you to please check my edits as requested by Ekdalian. This is a content dispute and I think an experienced editor like LukeEmily is well capable to solve this matter. That's why I asked for his help. LukeEmily also agreed with me on the Bengali Kayastha talk page. Not only lukeEmily but Satnam and Chanchaldm also gave their opinion in favor of mine. I think this is not a big issue. My previous topic ban was unfortunate and has nothing to do with this as in three months I learned edit war has no value in Wikipedia thanks to you guys. Nobita456 (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
A fit case for indeffing as a SPA. Stayed low for three months (about 20 minor edits) and came back to edit-war. This particular proposal has been discussed to death at the talk-page. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Go ahead and file a SPA. Edit war? but where? TB please check the edit summary of every edit. Nobita456 (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Waves at Bish. Climbs back into deep fryer. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • This is above my paygrade. But I will say to Nobita: there's no need to go off half-cocked because you're called an SPA. It means "single-purpose account", and there's nothing to "file" about. Do you deny being a single-purpose account? Bishonen | tålk 16:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC).
I will definitely edit more articles. Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

May music

May songs

I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Varna in lead

Hello Bishonen now TB and Ekdalain are breaking sitush's caste article rules check here. they are mentioning the controversial Varna in the lead of Baidya article. Nobita456 (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nobita456: This is better discussed on the article talk page. Regardless of the "rules", if you find yourself reverted by a couple of editors, you should open a discussion on the article talk page rather than edit war on the article. Discussion and consensus forming is always your best option. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
RegentsPark this rule was made by sitush way before, TB doing the same thing again and again. LukeEmily also told TB about that. Nobita456 (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong. When reverted, you should use the article talk page to make a case for your content. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Already did that in TB talk page. He is not following the rules also His attitude is not good. we need an admin in this. Nobita456 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I have requested TB to avoid varna in the lead. Nobita, you may check the revised version by TB now and use the article talk page for any further concern. Ekdalian (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
DFO

:::::: He is not listening to any of us. changing the consensus version as he owns the article. Ekdalian please revert him. I am on verge of the 3RR rule. Nobita456 (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Asking someone to revert so you don't hit 3rr is just as bad, if not worse than doing it yourself, especially considering you're asking this on multiple pages. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Now who are you bro? Nobita456 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
First, I am not your bro, second, obviously I'm an editor and I suggest you stop shopping around to get people to do your bidding before you wind up blocked again. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I am tired, thanks for your concern. Nobita456 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
PRAXIDICAE, please let me know if anyone in this debacle needs a partial block from article space. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
someone is changing the consensus version of a article by his own, breaking rules and you guys treating me like I am a culprit. Nobita456 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Nobody's right, when everybody's wrong --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @all, Bishonen, Doug Weller, TonyBallioni, Yamla, RegentsPark, Praxidicae, Deepfriedokra for your prompt action. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bishonen, Doug Weller, TonyBallioni, Yamla, RegentsPark; it seems this blocked user has come up with another sock, Sigmaron having same agenda, promoting the caste Baidya. It is clear from their contributions that they cannot be a new user! Can anyone of you check the latest revision history of Baidya and the article talk page! I believe, they may be blocked as a suspected sock! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble; the suspected sock has already been blocked. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your vigilance and happy new year, Ekdalian. (Yes, I know Bishzilla already sent you a card, but best wishes from me also.) Bishonen | tålk 08:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC).
Thank you once again! Yes, I have thanked and wished Bishzilla, would like to wish you a very happy & prosperous new year from the core of my heart! Stay blessed. Ekdalian (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Question about stalking

Since evidently noticing me at Kelly Loeffler, User:Reywas92 has been very obviously WP:HOUNDING my edits. I don't recall experiencing this before. Could you give me some pointers on how to deal with this? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Ouch. While I hesitate to invite User:Reywas92 to my page (I was hoping to walk away and ignore, considering the tone they've taken against me,[8]) they should preferably not be discussed without being pinged, so I have now done that. This is not an invitation to post here, Reywas, and I hope you won't; it's merely an FYI. Marquardtika, you both edit a lot, so this is a little unmanageable for me. Could you please provide diffs for where Reywas has followed you to pages they had not previously edited? If it is indeed obvious, I will act. Bishonen | tålk 07:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC).
Sure, thanks. So here they undid my edit at Kelly Loeffler. They then headed over to J.D. Vance, which they had never edited before, to undo a recent edit of mine. They then headed over to Herschel Walker, which they had previously edited, again to undo a recent edit of mine. Then it was onto John Fetterman, which they had never edited before, where they made this edit. Then, finally, to Angie Craig, which they had never previously edited, to again undo a recent edit of mine. This cannot be coincidental, and seems instead to be some sort of revenge campaign or intimidation tactic undertaken after getting all caps BULLSHIT angry at me at Kelly Loeffler over what is, in fact, an incredibly boring dispute over whether readers need to know the name of her castle or what have you. Anyway, thank you for taking a look. Marquardtika (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
It's amazing that my modest edit at Kelly Loeffler has blossomed into all this aggression, with edit warring and hounding. But since it did indeed all follow from an edit I made, I don't think I'd better take any admin action. Instead, I've taken it to ANI. Take a look, Marquardtika, and see if you want to add anything. Bishonen | tålk 17:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC).
Thank you for pursuing this, I appreciate it. Reywas92 has apologized (on the noticeboard thread you started), and I have accepted the apology. I don't think any further action is needed at this time. Marquardtika (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

June music

June songs

Look: I made the pic you liked my June calendar pic! Ukrainian peace music is "on" today, with the conductor! - Pentecost (on last Sunday and Monday in Germany) brought a rich harvest of great music in two church services (one with me singing in choir) and two concerts with my brother in the orchestra, - four pictures I took besides the symphonic one. Did you watch the violinist's story? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! Bishonen | tålk 07:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC).
My song collection is especially rich, look, and the hall where I first heard DFD, Pierre Boulez and Murray Perahia. Do you find the baby deer in the meadow (last row)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
today: a song about getting through the night, after plenty of music over the weekend --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Sitush7

Sitush7 appears to impersonate another Wikipedia user. Thoughts? Dr.Pinsky (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Dr.Pinsky. Thank you for your vigilance, but I don't think we can do anything about this username, even though it's a little unfortunate since the original Sitush is so well-known and respected in discussions of Indian articles. I was already discussing it with some Indian admins, and when I get a more definite reply from them, I'll probably ask the "new Sitush" (whose name is after all clearly distinguished from the original) if they'd be kind enough to change their username. Bishonen | tålk 07:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC).
FYI, Dr.Pinsky, a sockpuppet investigation has been opened. I think we'll be able to block any further "Situshes" on sight. Bishonen | tålk 06:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC).
I swear, I become aware of more SPIs from watching this talkpage than from watching the actual SPI feed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin: I'm not sure I agree with closing the SPI, this is likely part of a much larger farm and it may be beneficial to run a CU to find the right master and/or the other socks. Unfortunately, I've been away to long to identify the correct farm. —SpacemanSpiff 12:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff: Thanks for the ping. I looked into this a bit further to see if there was anyone worth endorsing against (as I'm loath to send a CU fishing anywhere on the subcontinent); Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammadahmad79 jumped out based on this last year, but I see that angle was CU'd in May without a conclusive technical result (and I tend to agree with RoySmith that the writing styles are a bit different). If you can think of another master to check against, I'm open to endorsing; or, if you think the totality of their editing behavior adds up to an indef rather than the tempblock I gave for socking, I don't object. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I am still confident that Muhammadahmad79 is the actual sockmaster. Compare this edit with that of this new sock.[9] Both are adding the image of Muhammad Ali Jinnah "wearing a Sherwani and Jinnah Cap" and just above another image which was captioned as "[[Fatima Jinnah]] is also wearing a female Sherwani". 1 month block was beyond lenient. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin: Like I said, I haven't been active for a while, so I haven't kept up with the sock farms over the past year or so. Anyway, if it is a sock, the disruption will be revealed soon and a non-sock indef may happen. —SpacemanSpiff 14:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

European Colonization of the Americas

This went nowhere fast.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I should not be blocked from this because two guys set me up. They do have bad faith motives. They are bullying me. As an an Italian Ameriucan Catholic disabled perosn, I represent many voices on this page. You cannot just unilaterally block me from trying to correct the bias here. I am the one who asked for help in the first place. To whom do I appeal this? You cannot be the final authority as one administrator? Why do you tyake DeCausa and Doug Weller's side over mine? There are veyr few Italian American, Catholic, or disabled editors here. Wikipedia discirmiantes against us. I use my really name. You can look me up. I am asking you to please unblock me. I should be allowed to edit one word from an article without being blocked. Who is your superior adminsitrator? You cannot be the final say? The article pushes a point of view. Why am I not allowed to fix that? I had not tried to edit it in months. I should not get penalzied for all the months that I did not edit it? I am begging you to unblock me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 23:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not know how to request being unblocked. You gave me the information, but I could not figure it out. My disabilities do come into play here. Cbinetti (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I see Muboshgu fixed the unblock request template for you. The reason it needs to be in a specific template is that the template calls an uninvolved administrator to the page to review your request. I see this has already happened (Muboshgu did it themselves), and the request has been declined. That's unsurprising, since in the request, you double down on the one comment I singled out for criticism in my block rationale. How has anybody been bullying you for being Italian, or Catholic, or disabled? When you made that comment on the article talkpage, how was anybody supposed to even know you were these things, to bully you for it? You were opposed (not bullied) for arguing in an unreasonable way, nothing else. Your nationality, religion, and state of health aren't Wikipedia's business. You only make yourself look more unreasonable by insisting those qualities were the reason. Doug Weller and De Causa have abided strictly by our policy WP:No personal attacks and its important dictum Comment on content, not on the contributor. You should do the same, and stop ascribing bad motives to people you know nothing about. Those aspersions violate both our policy WP:No personal attacks and our important guideline Wikipedia: Assume good faith, and you can be blocked sitewide if you persist in them further. Bishonen | tålk 07:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC).
This is classical bullying and blaming the victim. I need this block unblocked. I tried to edit one inaccurate word from one article, I was bullied. I begged for your help and you retaliated against me for citing illegal discrimination. I have every right to edit inaccurate and misleading ideology in a fact-based history article. They attacked me personally but you do not give them trouble. They push a point of view but only I got in trouble. This is manifestly illegal for a public accommodation to do. Cbinetti (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I already apologized to you, but I will do so again. I do not know if you were the administrator who blocked me and the one who refused my appeal, but I need you to unblock me. I have already asked for mediation with Robert McLennon and apologized to everyone, however DeCausa is still bullying me. You only saw the data but you did not see the whole story. I came to you for help and then you blocked me. Are you not curious as to my side? I have a solution for the European Colonization of the Americas page. Please respond to my honest entreaties for mediation. /s/ cbinetti Cbinetti (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

P-block needed

NebulaOblongata is too invested in WikiIslam. cc: @Doug Weller: TrangaBellam (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Some might perceive it to be poor form to appeal for a p-block against a user when you are engaged in open content disputes with them (i.e, 1, 2). I would have appreciated receiving a notice about this appeal to p-block me out of sheer courtesy. I am glad I happened to snoop on TrangaBellam's contributions to come across this appeal.
I would appreciate TrangaBellam engaging in meaningful discussions before attempting to enforce retaliatory punitive action against me. This is upsetting and creates needless hostility.
What does TrangaBellam mean by "too invested"? I would like to know. Also, is being "too invested" in an article grounds for p-blocking? Furthermore, I have already clarified on my Talk page to another user that I have zero connections with WikiIslam.
  • I am happy to defend my case and provide administrators support with whatever information they need (within acceptable limits).
  • I have recently increased my editing activity on Wikipedia due to abundant free time on my hands lately, in case anyone is interested in my personal life and motivations.
Sincerely,
NebulaOblongata (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Fwiw, P-block means partial block. And, every puppet claimed to us about having no connection to WikiIslam till they got blocked. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Because puppets have claimed to having no connection to WikiIslam, it doesn't give you the right to assume that I am guilty of what you accuse me of. Please read guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy. NebulaOblongata (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

See my comment on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding this editor's COI. Snuish (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Requesting revdel

[10] per WP:RD2. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done SmartSE (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Palladian architecture

I have nominated Palladian architecture for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bish

I started a new article (I've been outside too, it was very nice), Larries. Weird subject, feel free to watchlist, it may attract passionate people. I'd like to redirect Larry Stylinson to it, but that requires the power of Grayskull, I mean admin. So if you are willing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Holy shit, there's a name for that. It's a constant source of vandalism and disruptive edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish You're quite welcome to watchlist it too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Already done. After dealing with [11][12][13][14][15][16] and more, I'll definitely keep an eye on that article too. I expect once word is out it'll end up semi'd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
[17] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Shipping (fandom), Mr. Fröding? Never heard of it, but I lead a sheltered life. OK, I've created the redirect. Not sure if I'm supposed to recreate the ridiculous history as well... nah, surely not. Your reference, Tiffany, Everything I need I get from you: how fangirls created the Internet as we know it, sounds very interesting. Brand new, too (2022). Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC).
It (shipping) was new to me too, but WP-articles to the rescue. I had to look up slash fiction too, turned out it wasn't about stories with Jason Voorhees. I haven't seen Sherlock (TV series), but now I know about Johnlock... also toplock and bottomlock. I am no longer sheltered.
On shipping, did you ever have an opinion on if Dylan should be with Brenda or Kelly? 1990:s shipping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Deanna Troi with William Riker or Worf is my old-school shipping. Weird that Troi's headshot is so bad compared to Worf and Riker. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
You may enjoy this article of mine: Shakespeare and Star Trek. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I knew much of that, but not all. Fascinating. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I read that like this. I assume that was the intent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Check the softarchive dot is link at [18] for some sharing is caring. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:Allen Career Institute

Hello, I hope you are doing good. I am reaching out to you regarding this draft that was protected in 2016. I gathered a lot more sources after that time and created a new draft and went to deletion review. It was decided that the draft should be allowed for the review. But it is still locked...I reached out to robert who were one of the participants [19] and they suggested I should reach out to closing admin, that seems to be you. May I please request you to unblock it so that someone can review? Mtpos (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Mtpos. I don't quite understand why the article would need to be unprotected in order for the draft to be reviewed. But then I'm not very familiar with the review process. I have asked Robert about it, here; please feel free to go there and take part in the discussion. Bishonen | tålk 17:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC).

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DeaconShotFire unblock Thank you. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Fritter. I think I won't comment. Bishonen | tålk 07:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC).

A Barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For your hard work, dedication, and perseverance! I hope that you will continue the good work. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Bengali Wikipedia

Hi Bishonen.. I was just going through Hindi and Bengali Wikipedia to check whether the same kind of POV pushing exists there as well. Hindi is somewhat okay; but the Bengali one seems to be a complete mess with users like Dr.SunBD's contributions (hope you remember, now blocked) and Nobita456 still active there! I am not sure whether these Projects (English Wikipedia & Bengali/Hindi Wikipedia) are completely separate or somewhat related; need your advice! I understand that most of these articles were created in Bengali Wikipedia (mass creation) using bot several years ago, and seems to have been edited mostly by POV pushers. For example, Vaidyabrahmin was redirected by you (after a lot of POV pushing & discussions), but the same exists there as it is in Bengali Wikipedia, here created by the same user User:Dr.SunBD!! When I tried to redirect the same, I was reverted since the users active there are not aware of the consensus here in English Wikipedia. Same applies for the article on Baidya --> BengaliVersion, Kayastha --> BengaliVersion last edited by Nobita, Sengupta --> BengaliVersion, Nobita's contributions, also Dasgupta --> BengaliVersion, Nobita again & other blocked users/socks, same for Gupta --> BengaliVersion edited by Nobita and/or blocked socks, Bengali Brahmin --> BengaliVersion, misinformation added by Nobita. Honestly speaking, I don't have the time and energy to fight against this kind of misinformation (by blocked users in English Wikipedia), by arriving at a fresh consensus there in Bengali Wikipedia! Can we do something about this? Please suggest.. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think we can, Ekdalian. The national wikipedias are completely separate. It sounds quite Herculean to do something about those POV-pushing users that we know so well from their exploits here. And we also know how determined and defensive some of them can be, so I certainly don't blame you for not having the energy to dive in. Do you want to add something to our article Bengali Wikipedia? Mind you, you'd need reliable sources — discussion in secondary sources — not just your own knowledge. That may be hard to come by. Sorry. Bishonen | tålk 10:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC).
(talk page watcher) Ekdalian, I read the comments on your bnwiki talk page. As noted by Yahya on your talk page, guidelines/policies on one language Wikipedia isn't valid on another language Wikipedia unless the local community vets it. Yahya notes that you can, however, start a local community discussion. The proper location for that should be bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:আলোচনাসভা or the talk page of concerned article. Global action can sometimes be taken, through RfC on metawiki: but that typically requires local community discussion first that has been wrongly decided. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@আফতাবুজ্জামান: Do you have time to investigate the above? What Ekdalian tried to do can be seen at bn:Special:Contributions/Ekdalian. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Nobita? That's brilliant, Ekdalian. Bishonen | tålk 16:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC).
Yes, Nobita! Thanks a lot! Ekdalian (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You are being biased, i dont know why, user peacepks also vandalised karan caste page and routray surname page as well, u did'nt do anything about it but reverted my edits really disappointed AuthenticSources2546 (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

What is vandalism according to you ? Adding sources is Vandalism ! And anyone can read the info of your source in Routray page. You're playing in grey Area despite getting copyright violation notice before. Also abusing admin without any proof is another mistake. Peacepks (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I did'nt abuse u, i was stating facts, if he would have been neutral he would have reverted your edits as well and not removed my sources, anyway i dont want to argue u very well know what you have done..good luck, i just went through the khandayat page and u not only removed sources that were added by me but also previous sources which were part of the article from the very start based on consensus. Bishonen being an admin supported u, not expected AuthenticSources2546

(talk) 20:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Read the wikipedia policies before criticise Me or Bishonen. No one supported me. It's you who is playing on grey area & decide what is right or Wrong ! Wikipedia as a community don't work according to individual perception. Learn better behaviour & use better words to address other editors & admins. Thank You Peapks (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You removed previous sources which were there on the article from the very start based on consensus of the user situs, u also mass removed my sources and information contained in it, i dont know why AuthenticSources2546 21:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Reply Bishonen why u did such kind of an act being an administrator, restore the page to it's authentic page as it was done by sitush, all the sources which were there on the article from the very start as per previous consensus should be there, also u mass removed my sources citing copyright, but if copyright was the issue u should not have removed all the sources which were added by me, you have commited grave injustice to a fellow wikipedian. AuthenticSources2546 21:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Both sitush & I discussed on the improvement of the article. Sitush didn't removed my edits because it was authentic. While you're playing in grey area and engage in edits according to your own perception without caring about Wikipedia Policies. So I reverted your edits and admin Bishonen also did the same thing. There is nothing wrong in it. Peacepks (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Simple thing if copyright is the issue then why mass remove sources u also removed sources concerning shudra varna as per previous concensus, just dont lie go through the page bishonen if u want to verify AuthenticSources2546 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear administrator please also go through the history of karan caste page, you will get to know that this user peacepks was vandalising the page and adding emojis to mock me. So my question is should such kind of activities be allowed in a highly reputed platform like wikipedia AuthenticSources2546 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

See now he is not replying coz he knows what he has done such things on a public platform like wikipedia, he also removed sources from the karan caste page as well alongwith his emoji vandalism, he also removed sources from routray page as well,he also added unsourced content to gajapati empire a month back, go through the history of this user bishonen you'll get to know what kind of an editor he is AuthenticSources2546 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Bishonen u can also go through his talk page, sitush had warned him a long time back regarding his edits in caste related pages, he also removed sources from karan caste page alongwith emoji vandalism not only that he also removed sourced content from routray page alongwith sources, he also added unsourced content to gajapat empire page a month back, go through his history you will know what kind of an editor he is. AuthenticSources2546 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

He also mass removed content from bhoi dynasty page alongwith sources, u could go through the history of the page to verify. AuthenticSources2546 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Sorry I wasn't around for this; it was night in my part of the world. To both of you: adding sources wasn't the issue (even though the way AuthenticSources has relied on Google Books is a problem in itself); repeatedly adding copyrighted text was. AuthenticSources, you ignored all warnings about copyright violations, and all explanations about how important copyright is to Wikipedia. You have been blocked for two weeks. Please take some time to read up on Wikipedia and copyright (there are links in the warnings you have removed, which you can find through the history of your page). Bishonen | tålk 06:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, the user user:AuthenticSources2546 done another large copyright violation in Khandayat page. Despite 2 Warnings before for Copyright Violation, the above user simply don't care about Wikipedia policy and Admin's warning. He reverted your edit & did the same mistake again. His previous edits on other pages are also full of similar Wikipedia policy violation. Can you please do something about this ? Thanks Peacepks (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation ive just represented the information as it is mentioned in sources while you are representing the information in a distorted manner, also why remove sources if copyright is the issue alongwith previous consensus sources which were there from the very start, stop your disruptive editing you have been exposed, bishonen u can go through the khandayat page to verify this user has mass removed content alongwith sources ,he also remove previous consensus source and information which was there in the article from the very start AuthenticSources2546 22:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear admin u can also go through his talk page where admin sitush had warned him of citing sources badly and representing the information contained in them in their distorted manner ignoring neutrality, u could go through the history of khandayat page he has done the same thing there alongwith removing reliable sources and creating fake summaries to confuse other editors. AuthenticSources2546 03:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern about another editor, what’s your perspective?

Hi Bishonen,

Thank you for standing up to Moxy, who has been doing all kinds of passive-aggressive WikiBullying lately. The user's behavior and profanity does not surprise me. Likewise, it might not surprise you to learn that the user has caused many problems at the US article and its talk page including, but not limited to: leaving a nonsense comment that led to a full-blown edit war with multiple admin combatants and ultimately led to unnecessary 2-week protection of a talk page, and the user has not even once acknowledged responsibility for the comment or made any attempt to remove it; and also abusing their rollback tool (while ironically boasting on their user page about having never been blocked) by recklessly smashing over multiple clearly productive edits with zero explanation of any merit-based reasons why those edits don’t belong. User was also called out for being a dictator there, by a very experienced editor with multiple editing privileges too; and was also seen blocking a discussion of editors working to repair a major 7-week rollback. Perhaps you might be interested to take a look at some of the recent activity at the US article and its talk page.

I’m also not surprised at the Saudi Arabia vandalism, as the general tone of that article is poorly biased and hate-based, which is evident in many of the backstage talk discussions there too.

Overall, this pattern of behavior might merit yet another trip to ANI (which would be the user's third this month, the most recent in which the user was recently caught trying to tag team).

Anyways, thank you for your consideration.

P.S. The US article and talk page have been very crazy lately, so if you haven’t been around there, you could be a set of neutral eyes for the recent activity over the past few weeks.
P.S.S. The mass censorship of the user’s own talk page is also very suspicious, like they’re trying to hide unscrupulous activity. 24.4.185.224 (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi, IP. My sole encounter with Moxy was unpleasant enough — I don't feel like researching or engaging them, and might not even be altogether neutral if I did. You can take your concerns to ANI if you like. Advice: if you do, and if there have been other relevant ANI reports recently, you should link to them, not just gesture at them. Permanent links, please, see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide for how to create those. (It's dead easy.) And generally provide diffs for any accusations you make (see the same guide page). Diffs are useful and help the reader assess the situation, unlike links for things like "WikiBullying" and "Tag teaming" — those are frankly more likely to annoy the reader. So is your P.S.S.; Moxy is allowed to remove stuff from their own page, so that's nothing. Bishonen | tålk 13:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC).
Bish, this is a pot-stirring block-evading IP which is now blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Ponyo. The bit about the Saudi Arabia article being "hate-based" was a red flag for sure. Bishonen | tålk 18:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC).
Yes. I was watching and wondering. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Garbatella

Hallo Bishonen, if you have a moment, could you take a look at the Garbatella article? There is an editor who keeps removing sourced content (I am the second editor who has been trying to restore it in the last 24 hours) pretending that the source is not reliable, and refuses to go on the talk page. The funny thing is that the removed information is in the universal domain (Garbatella is with Monte Sacro one of the two Roman "garden cities" built in th 1920's), but since he has never heard of it and "lives there" then he keep deleting it. Moreover, he breached the 3-RR Rule. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex, but it's a pity you didn't give them an edit warring warning. You can do that with Twinkle, or by placing {{subst:uw-ew}} on their page. I can't sanction for edit warring unless they've been warned. That said, there's certainly disruption. I've page-blocked the user from Garbatella. Bishonen | tålk 16:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC).
Thanks Bish. Luckily I'm in Helvetia Felix now, where it was 12° this morning (but it rains like during the monsoon), so actually I took pity on him, because in Rome these days it's 40 degrees (and 25° as a low, which is much worse) and I suppose that's a (partial) excuse for what he wrote. Tomorrow I'll add some more sources there, although the existent one should be enough. Cheers,Alex2006 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The user has now been indeffed (not by me). Really hot here too. Helvetia felix rules! Bishonen | tålk 19:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC).
Suecia too :-) Strange... From his comments I got the impression that he was a fascist, but his comment about Giorgia Meloni shows that he is of the far left...the extremes touch each other! Alex2006 (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

RaWWrr! says the JDLosaur

Terve! Query whether this warrants revdel: [20]. Maybe it just warrants keeping an extra-close eye on this agenda-driven non-WP:NPOV editor by you and your followers (I'm shoving an arepa into my face before finishing a project with a filing deadline this afternoon so everyone can go home a little early for the long weekend, and need to get back to work 75 seconds ago).

Much obliged! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, young dinosaur. Can't be too careful with BLPs, so yes, I'll revdel. User blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | tålk 21:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC).

Ukrainian Melody

July songs

today: violin solo and you can listen Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

yesterday I attended a unique concert - the 18th Thomaskantor after Bach conducting - and with some good luck caught him happy afterwards! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Beautiful, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 06:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Most beautiful music made by Voces8, pictured - I have a FAC open, in case of interest --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
today: birthday music for a friend, after hiking in the Swiss Alps and a funeral with flowers on a bench and a Rilke poem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 07:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC).

IP block of 92.16.15.253

Hi Bishonen! I hope you're having a great weekend! I was looking through Special:BlockList and I noticed that you had recently set an indefinite block on 92.16.15.253. I think this block should only be temporary, maybe a few months or longer. As you know, we want to avoid setting indefinite blocks on IP addresses. To adhere to best practices, can we put an expiration onto this block? :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right, Oshwah. The idea was for the block to point them to their talkpage; but in case they still never respond, of course time-limited is better. Changed to six months. Bishonen | tålk 19:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC).
Bishonen - No worries; I saw the indefinite block in the list, saw that you made it, and I immediately figured that it was accidental. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Still ultra-platinum. – SJ + 13:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent block

Hello and thank you for blocking Chisrtsan vida. The account Christian villafuerte may or may not be related. Certes (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Certes. Looking at it, I think they're socks for sure, with Christian villafuerte actually the older account, by a day or so. Compare my note to User:Cabayi. Bishonen | tålk 15:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC).
Update for Certes: it looks like Cabayi didn't have the time, so I've created a sockpuppet report, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christian villafuerte, in hopes of getting some other Checkuser to look for further socks/sleepers. Bishonen | tålk 06:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC).

Serious admin attention required

User Peacepks has mass removed content from multiple pages alongwith sources, he removed almost everything from Karan caste page, such activities could lead to serious social friction, please restore the content back to it's previous state, the content he removed from these pages had been approved by multiple editors and was present in those pages for months, such mass removal of content really harms articles, I'm taking up this matter to other admins too, karan caste page needs more protection. Liontiger250 (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

He mass removed content from already protected pages, caste pages to be specific such disruptive editing could have serious consequences, please take a look at chasa caste page as well he mass removed sourced content and has also placed unsourced content to related groups, this kind of an activity is not at all acceptable in a public platform like wikipedia, im lodging a complaint now, please if u can resolve this matter do it soon, such activities have serious consequences. Liontiger250 (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you don't know but it's a wikipedia policy to delete the edits of a blocked ID. Your edits seems like you operated that blocked ID User:AuthenticSources2546. You're also giving threat of legal complaint. Admin must take action on this id as well. Peacepks (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Mass removal of sourced content and sources is not wiki policy also the edits were constructive contrary to what you are saying, u have mass removed content from almost all pages , and placed unsourced content in the related groups section of chasa caste defaming communities. Liontiger250 (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Just went through the history of this particular user, in fact almost all his edits are connected to caste related stuff, u can take a look at his edit log and if I'm not wrong he got warnings too in his talk page regarding his disruptive edits to caste related pages, strict action should be taken against such editors. Liontiger250 (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both. I have inquired of a CheckUser. Bishonen | tålk 07:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC).
And the CU has blocked Liontiger250 as a sock. You had it right, Peacepks! Bishonen | tålk 09:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC).
Thank You Bishonen

Anyone can guess from his edits & he gave similar threat from his previous id as well. Peacepks (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. But it's just as well a CU has looked at it, considering that Liontiger is now insisting on their page that it's their first and only account. Bishonen | tålk 10:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC).

New message from Admantine123

Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at Abecedare's talk page.
Message added 12:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Bish, Long time to see you here. Can you help us here. Just a short suggestion required from your side, it's not like the case of those articles, where you don't want to involve, because of prolonged conflict of interest. Thanks Admantine123 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

..? I don't see any message directed at me there. And the discussions on Abecedare's page look generally to be above my paygrade. Sorry. Bishonen | tålk 15:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC).
Koi nhi (Let it be) got the suggestion, i needed. :) Chill Admantine123 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Myoctopusteacher

Actually a sockpuppet of User:No-genius. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, oh Lord. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for your good work! Andrevan@ 05:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

[Jealously]. For Shonen? Bishzilla was better admin! Soon Bishzilla's turn again to wield the tools! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 19:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC).

Bishzilla was indeed a good and tough admin back in the day, and defended the wiki to the point where she was admonished by ArbCom. [Bishonen is jealous in turn:] I've never been admonished by ArbCom! But it's very nice to be appreciated by the little Andrevan, thank you. Bishonen | tålk 19:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC).
Having spent some time in Bishzilla's little 'crat pocket, I can confirm it had delicious espresso. Andrevan@ 20:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Palladian architecture scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 13 August 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 13, 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you, Gog! But, me? Did I possibly nominate the article for FA, back in the day? I might have done, but User:Giano wrote it. I'll alert him, don't worry. Pretty nice to see the article featured on the main page just a month after it was taken to FAR! Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC).
You did indeed, back in the day. It was a TFA in 2004, and now gets to wear its party clothes again. Giano, nice work, it has certainly withstood the test of time. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Palladian architecture

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

What a good idea to recognize editors who do this work, Sandy. I see Z1720 came up with it, and you were also instrumental right from the start. Bishonen | tålk 07:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC).
Yes, it was Z's baby, but I ran with it. The good news has been it has encouraged many more editors to work towards saving stars. The less-than-good news is that not all of those editors understand FA standards, so sometimes we see FARs dragging on forever, as someone intends to save the star, but doesn't have the ability. It's hard to know at what point we should call a spade and get them shut down. So, we're seeing many more saves--and saves of important high-view articles (James Joyce, Climate change, Earth, Speed of light, J. K. Rowling, etc)--but some very long FARs that are backlogging the page because of good intentions towards a save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Bishonen. Thank you for your time! Regarding this case [21], I think this squarely counts as 4 reverts, so there is indeed violation of the 3RR rule, and I am not the only one to think so apparently. And I am discounting the tons of verbal abuse... Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right, पाटलिपुत्र. I'm sorry to say I missed this edit of yours when I read the page history, even though I thought I was reading it very carefully. It's that edit that makes it four reverts by F&F. I have warned them. Bishonen | tålk 19:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC).
Thank you, Bishonen. Can you correct the closing accordingly? Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Journal notability

I've noticed that this is not an isolated issue. There are a lot of 1 or 2 sentence Lugnuts-esque stubs on Wikipedia dedicated to academic journals, which are indexed at List of scientific journals. Take for instance Cretaceous Research or Gondwana Research, which I would consider representative of most academic journal articles. Is there anything interesting to say about these journals other than their self-declared mission statement and impact factor? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: You may want to loop DGG in as he's very knowledgeable regarding academia and notability.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sock, again!

Hello Bishonen & Ivanvector, this is regarding the sockmaster User:Nikhil Srivastava, who has abused multiple accounts, please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nikhil Srivastava. The last discussion here related to such scocks is this. Possibly, User:Wearsome studies was the last sockpuppet, who was recently blocked. Can you please check the edits of కాయస్థ శిరోమణి, whose user name resembles that of another sock from the same sockfarm User:קייאסטה שירומאני! Please have a look at these differences - 1 and 2. Would request you to take necessary action! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ekdalian. Unfortunately Ivanvector hasn't edited for 3 months — I'm hoping that's just a long break, but who knows — and also is no longer a CheckUser. I see the similarity between your diffs,[22][23] and it convinces me that Wearsome studies and కాయస్థ శిరోమణి are one and the same, i. e. that they're both socks of Nikhil Srivastava. I've consequently blocked and tagged కాయస్థ శిరోమణి, and added the account to the SPI. Bishonen | tålk 20:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC).
Thank you so much, Bishonen! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

DS

Hello! I happened to see that you placed Paulistafan under a topic ban for BLPs. However, I do not believe that they were formally aware of DS for BLPs (or any topic, for that matter). Was there something I am missing? FWIW, I agree that it was an appropriate sanction! HouseBlastertalk 03:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Look at their talkpage. Cullen328 notified them on July 17. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's how you become formally aware. For which I thanked Cullen. Couldn't have done it without him. Bishonen | tålk 07:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC).
Frick mobile not showing collapsed warnings nor tags. Should have looked more carefully—sorry to bother you! HouseBlastertalk 19:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
No problem. But did this edit not show up on mobile? Weird. Bishonen | tålk 19:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC).
IIRC I saw the three edits in a row made by Cullen, which I (incorrectly) assumed were edits to the same section. I checked this edit and did not see a DS alert being added. Again, sorry about the confusion! HouseBlastertalk 20:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Serendipitously, the very Cullen328 himself has written an essay on mobile editing which may interest you: User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. Bishonen | tålk 20:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC).
I don't make quite such a deal out of smartphone editing as Cullen328, but like him I do a large proportion of my editing on a smartphone, and there was a long period when I did virtually all of my editing on one. His essay covers a whole lot of points, but to me by far the biggest one is that you don't want to do it using the mobile interface. Switching to the desktop interface on a smartphone is about 20 times better for reading the encyclopaedia, and 1,000 times better for editing. The "mobile" interface is one of the many features of Wikipedia which would be better consigned to history. JBW (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Insecticide

Feel free to borrow this, User:JBW! Bishonen | tålk 20:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC).

I just noticed, when I posted in the section above, that you've swatted your fly, or something. I've still got mine, so there. JBW (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Irritating, aren't they? Feel free to borrow my death machine, JBW|! Bishonen | tålk 20:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC).

Well, what do you know. You linked me twice in your last post here, and I got two notifications. I never knew that would happen. A good way to irritate an editor you don't like: hundreds of pings in one go. JBW (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought the ping in the caption probably wouldn't work. (But wanted to check if it did, so thank you for letting me know the result of the experiment.😛) Bishonen | tålk 21:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC).

About Sneha04

Referring to your comment that day, I misinterpreted Stay Off his talk page as needing to remove my dialogues with him as well. Can you please put back the dialogue? I promise I won't do it again.--Hongqilim (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand, Hongqilim. No, I won't put anything back on Sneha04's page, because I think it's better that they manage their page themselves. They can easily put it back if they want to. Bishonen | tålk 19:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC).

Palladian architecture

August songs

Thank you for having nominated Palladian architecture for FA - in 2004, - great to see it today, saved! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. Looking good on the front page! Bishonen | tålk 19:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC).
Today: the church where I heard VOCES8 and more discoveries --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The Little Mermaid (character)

Hello, if I make a article with this name for the main character of The Little Mermaid By Hans Christian Andersen; There is no problem in terms of notability? What about other policies and guidelines? تیرتاوافن (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a friendly talk page watcher, with some advice, تیرتاوافن. The main article, The Little Mermaid, already seems to contains a lot of information on the character. If you feel there's enough independent material to support a comprehensive article on the character alone (and it doesn't exist anywhere), then go to WP:AFC, and start working on a draft. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Now that I see, the mermaid character is famous; with all due respect to you, I think that not only is this character famous but it deserves its own article; there are many things that could be written in that article, like the characters that are adapted from this character and Many other things, just because my English literacy is not so good, I ask from your to helping me for complete this article. Say tirtawafen instead of تیرتاوافن. تیرتاوافن (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
A good article depends on the sources. Find them first, and start a draft. A lot of my contributions on Wikipedia are devoted to improving the English of material added by foreign language speakers. If you can find the reliable sources, then I'll help you write the article. But you have to start it. You don't have to do it all at one time. Just do your best. I've assisted with article creation for years, and the AfC volunteers can help too. We're here to encourage you to contribute, not to discourage it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Thank you very much. Now where should I start? تیرتاوافن (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Check out these links: WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and try editing a quick test article with WP:The Wikipedia Adventure. Those three pages will teach you how to start an article. But start it using the link in WP:AFC, so other editors can help. If you have any specific questions, I can help you with that. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I do it. Draft:The Little Mermaid (character), it's just very minor and it's not even clear what the character's name should be. تیرتاوافن (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
تیرتاوافن, Symmachus Auxiliarus gives you good advice. Note also that we already have an article about the perhaps most famous version of the character: The Little Mermaid (statue). Bishonen | tålk 14:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC).
I mean the character in the tale of Hans Christian Andersen, not a statue, we have an article for a famous character in Disney that is adapted from this character, but that character is in Disney's The Little Mermaid and this character is in Hans Christian Andersen's fairytale. تیرتاوافن (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Uh.. not a statue? The statue in Copenhagen is meant as a portrait of the mermaid in Hans Christian Andersen's fairytale, as you'll see if you follow my link to the article. Bishonen | tålk 15:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC).
Respectfully, but this article is for the statue and I don't think there is any problem for making a article for The Little Mermaid. تیرتاوافن (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
We're at cross purposes. I'm not talking about problems, I just mentioned the statue as an interesting fact that you might want to refer to in your new article. Never mind, just forget it. Bishonen | tålk 20:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC).

User talk:Mutitusports

You may wish to revoke TPA.Cahk (talk) Cahk (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"definitely block indefinitely"

The best kind of indefinite block! ;)

But yeah, my thinking on JamesJohn82 (talk · contribs) is, if this is someone whose constructive edits are all a smokescreen for the spam, no way they'll take that deal (and in that case I'm sure we'll be seeing them under another username soon enough). But if it's someone just failing to communicate their misunderstanding of that source's reliability... Well, AGF springs eternal.

I'll say, I put "if you can agree to X, I'll unblock" clauses on a lot of my indefs, and people almost never take the offer. Sigh. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ygm

Please check your mail; thanks! Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I've replied, Mathglot. Bishonen | tålk 10:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC).

You've got mail

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Ekdalian (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Received and replied. Bishonen | tålk 09:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC).
Thank you so much! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Irony

Regarding the SPI here I note the nutshell of WP:CLEANSTART: A user who is not under current restrictions or blocks may stop using their current account and start using a new one. Which seems precisely what the OP did. Perhaps that SPI entry should be blanked.

Yeah, I miss MP. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be blanked. But I'm not sure what you mean about the OP — you'd have to give me a link. Perhaps by e-mail, so as to keep their new start clean also. Bishonen | tålk 19:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC).
Email sent. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
And received. Thanks, JoJo. Bishonen | tålk 20:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC).

Harassment and 30/500

Any chance you can look at Shaheed Ibrahim Berro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when you have a moment, or any of your talk page stalkers with a mop? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Rädisa. You've probably seen by now that they were blocked with tpa revoked by Ad Orientem while I was skiving off. Bishonen | tålk 20:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC).
Yeah, noticed when I got back. Thanks nonetheless, as you've taken care of these kind of requests for me in the past. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the lesson on British slang. Cullen328 (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I admit I looked it up to check, Cullen328. Being a cursed foreigner, I learned my English mostly through reading 19th- and early 20th-century novels, and although I was pretty sure the slang phrase to skive off had once existed, I was afraid Wiktionary might tell me it was obsolete. It didn't, though, so I typed it in. I suspect it's only used by the cohort "older speakers", though! Bishonen | tålk 21:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC).
In other words, you worked hard to explain why you weren't working. Cullen328 (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Of course. I always do. Bishonen | tålk 21:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC).
In my student days I was on the ferry from Stockholm to Helsinki, and encountered two Finnish girls who told me they'd perfected their American accents by watching The Rockford Files to get the right California intonation. They still occasionally used a British pronunciation, but it was otherwise idiomatic American English. They, of course, also spoke Swedish and German, and better French than I did. Acroterion (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately the only other language I speak is the scant bit of Latin I remember from my three years of high school classes. I do know a New England Finnish phrase for "shit the bed" though. "Had the radish." No relation to my username though.
My father spoke Finnish when he was young, but alas, he lost it by the time I was born. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Well I for one won't be having a radish salad in New England ever again. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
"Shit the bed" as a term for broke down or wore out. My car won't start again, I think this time it's had the radish ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Ghirth

Same old that you've dealt with before, this time coming primarily from a single IP range. Don't know quite what the solution is, since locking the talk page is probably draconian. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. Now that we have partial blocks, I propose trying to block the (admittedly huge) range 2409:4054::/30 just from Talk:Ghirth, for persistently adding non-encyclopedic demands on this caste talkpage — some in good faith, some not, but all apparently focused on promoting their own caste. Such a block should at least partly help, even if those IPs are not alone. Pinging Yamaguchi先生 for review, since I'm not an experienced or clever blocker of large ranges. Yamaguchi先生, I saw you topped up the various page blocks for (the even larger) range 2409:4000::/25 from one month to six months on 19 August 2022.[24] That's why I'd like to pick your brains, if you don't have any objection. Does my proposed 2409:4054::/30 block look ok, or would you recommend me to instead hitch my page block for Talk: Ghirth to your /25 range block? Opinions from other range wranglers are also welcome. Bishonen | tålk 00:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC).
I see that Drmies applied a block to the most recent IP, and JJMC89 issued partial blocks to the IP range last month. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I only adjusted the existing block on 2409:4000::/25. I'll defer to Yamaguchi先生 on what is going on with that range. (Hi, Bish) — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
There has been considerable disruption from the 2409:4000::/25 range, with a soft-block currently applied to a specific subset of articles. The block is currently set for the maximum number of pages on a partial block. If the desired outcome was to limit disruption to the Talk:Ghirth page from the same ISP, it would either need to be swapped with a different article on the partial block, converted to a sitewide block, or a newly defined range block would need to be placed. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, of course, I forgot there's a 10-article limit for partials. I'll block 2409:4054::/30 from Talk:Ghirth for three months, then. Thanks very much, Yamaguchi先生. Maybe it's time for some form of sitewide block, but I don't think I'm the right person for it. Johnuniq, might you be interested in looking at the possibility of blocking any of these ranges sitewide? Bishonen | tålk 14:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC).
I didn't really know how to anything useful, so I did something maybe a bit useful. What Yamaguchi先生 sketches is valid. The best idea might be a "middle" range--broader than the /64s I blocked, of course, and wide enough to prevent a significant amount of disruption, and place a sitewide block, because there was plenty of disruption on other articles, if I remember correctly. BTW the block log for the various ranges was a huge patchwork; that alone is indicative of the likely need for a sitewide block--but I see that I am really repeating and paraphrasing Yamaguchi. Figuring out the range is the hardest part, always. [ec: And I see that Bish is on it. Thank you.] Drmies (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. Thanks, Doc. I've tried to fix at least some of the Talk:Ghirth issue, but I'm reluctant to stumble around these block patchworks like a blind hen, so I've pinged Johnuniq for rangeblock smarts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0, please let me know if there's still significant disruption on the page. Maybe we'll try the draconian semiprotection for a while. Bishonen | tålk 14:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC).
Wow. This does get complicated, and is Greek to me. I used to ask administrators to watchlist contentious pages, then learned that everyone's watchlists already overflow, in a digital sense. At times I revisit old pages--if I see more disruption I'll drop a line. Thanks everyone, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand it either, but I'm doing my best to cultivate the jargon. 😈 Thanks for reporting, IP. Bishonen | tålk 19:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC).
I'm also hesitant because I don't know how "tweaking" a block on one small IP range affects the larger range, and vice versa. Then there's the question of whether a temporary sitewide block "undoes" a longer-term partial block--it requires too much education and brain power for me, so I tend to leave them alone. Meaning, I leave it to smarter people... Drmies (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
A temporary sitewide does undo a longer partial; don't waste brain power on that one, just see the section "Packer&Tracker‎" here, where one of my clever talkpage stalkers lays it out for the likes of you and me. Bishonen | tålk 16:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC).

I can't add anything useful but observe that Bishonen has partially blocked the /30. An irritance is that that range's normal contribs link does not work as /32 is the smallest number supported. If I can still manage binary numbers, four links can be viewed to see all edits in the /30 range, namely 2409:4054::/32 + 2409:4055::/32 + 2409:4056::/32 + 2409:4057::/32. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, interesting, John. I note that 2409:4057::/32 has no contributions. Taking a quick look at recent edits from the other three /32s, I see a lot of disruption from 2409:4054::/32; mainly OK football editing from 2409:4055::/32; and extreme incompetence, rather than vandalism, from 2409:4056::/32 (e.g. many article edits in all caps). Well, that's just the last few days, but it nevertheless gives me an idea. We know that a short sitewide block for the /30 range, or the /25, would nullify all their partial blocks, so that those would have to be re-crocheted when the sitewide expires. Which would be a bother, to put it mildly. But supposing I were to block a couple of the /32s — 2409:4054::/32 and 2409:4056::/32 — sitewide for a week or two? Would that mess with the /30 or /25 partial blocks? Do you know, John? Bishonen | tålk 08:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC).
I don't know how reliable it is, but this API link is supposed to list all local blocks that affect 2409:4054::/30. The results, after removing fluff, are currently:
Update: This API stuff is obsolete—See NinjaRobotPirate's comment below and use "Current blocks" on contribs of IP or IP range. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
user: 2409:4054:0:0:0:0:0:0/30
by: Bishonen
timestamp: 2022-09-01T14:37:06Z
expiry: 2022-12-01T14:37:06Z
reason: Persistent caste promotion and non-encyclopedic requests and arguments on this caste talkpage
restrictions:
    Talk:Ghirth

user: 2409:4000:0:0:0:0:0:0/25
by: JJMC89
timestamp: 2022-08-03T18:42:01Z
expiry: 2023-02-19T14:17:16Z
reason: {{rangeblock|create=yes}} <!-- reduce collateral -->
restrictions:
    Civilization
    Cholistan Desert
    Thar Desert
    Ra'ana Liaquat Ali Khan
    List of Jat people
    Jat Muslim
    Gobi Desert
    Dogra\u2013Tibetan War
    SBI Card
    Raghav Juyal
The \u2013 is an en dash (so the title is Dogra–Tibetan War). I don't know if blocks to other ranges would upset the above. My guess is not. Please try it and tell us what happens! Johnuniq (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
You're very adventurous, John, OMG. I'm not good with the binary numbers, but wouldn't the fact that my /30 block did not mess up JJMC89's /25 block imply that we'll be all right? ... OK, I'll do it. Blocking 2409:4054::/32 and 2409:4056::/32 for two weeks. Done. You know, I have a good feeling about it, because the buttons I got said "block". When I try to give a short sitewide to, say, an account that already has a long partial, the button says "change block", which is pretty much a warning that "You're now losing the previous block". Bishonen | tålk 12:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC).
I've done some more pondering and am also confident that your /32 blocks will work and will not affect the other blocks. One thing I hadn't noticed before is that the IPs in 2409:4054::/30 are also in 2409:4000::/25 (the /25 range includes all of the /30 range because the first 25 bits of each of the ranges are the same). The API link I gave only shows blocks that apply to every IP in the requested range. The API link to see the blocks that apply to the single IP 2409:4054:: is this. That IP is in three of the range blocks discussed here and sure enough, the API shows that IP 2409:4054:: has three blocks (2409:4054::/32 + 2409:4054::/30 + 2409:4000::/25). Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I just ran CU on some total disruption (Loriann Oberlinn), and I'm all for blocks on this range. Many blocks, hard blocks. It's unbelievable what disruption comes from this. Bish, maybe your experts want to take that into account too--blocking account creation. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing about the soft blocks, Drmies. Pinging some of my experts: @Yamaguchi先生:, @JBW:, @NinjaRobotPirate:. Bishonen | tålk 07:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC).
You can layer multiple range blocks on top of each other, but it's difficult to keep track of them. They can have different settings, like one could be a hard block, another could allow account creation, and another could disable account creation. They all take effect, but harshest setting overrides any others. There's a link near the geolocate link when viewing an IP's contributions that says "current blocks". This will list all the blocks affecting an IP address, which might help. It's difficult for me to write more because I'm on a laptop/tablet thing with a touchscreen. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Bish, I don't know where you got the idea that I'm one of your experts on this. I always assumed that blocks were cumulative, in the sense that all the restrictions on all blocks covering a particular IP affected it, which seems to me to be similar to "They all take effect, but harshest setting overrides any other", as NinjaRobotPirate puts it. However, some years ago someone or other said that the block on the smallest IP range overrules all those on bigger ranges. Now in this discussion we have people saying other things, and I just don't know what the truth is. (I suppose that makes me a bit like Donald Trump. What a thought.) JBW (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I got it here. You started those /25 blocks, which I'm pretty sure means you know a lot more than I do about ranges. Bishonen | tålk 22:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC).
OK, judging by various things you've said at various times I probably do understand IP ranges better than you. However, I'm certainly no "expert" when it comes to the ways that Wikipedia blocks interact. ☹ JBW (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
There used to be a time where a smaller block could override a larger block. This was useful for 'punching holes' into hard range blocks to allow some safe IPs through. However this changed many years ago, and the current 'layering' system seems here to stay. What NRP says is right. BTW, when making huge partial blocks, such as this /30, you might want to disable 'account creation blocked', because no one will be able to create an account from within that range. Preventing accounts is sometimes desirable, but unless you've been advised by a checkuser, it's usually not. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: Thanks for explaining about the change in how blocks work. That explains why I have received conflicting accounts at different times. As for disabling 'account creation blocked' on range blocks, my policy is normally to do so, but unfortunately I quite often forget. The only situation that I can think of at the moment where I might deliberately block account creation on a range block without consulting a CU is a /64 block on an IPv6 range, and even then not unless it was 100% clear that all editing was from one person. JBW (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Revoke TPA

Could you revoke the TPA of the IP 140.0.2.206? All they're doing is using their talk page as a sandbox which isn't an appropriate use of a talk page (even when you're not blocked) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's a sandbox, it's more just copies of articles. You did right to blank it, but I'm not sure I want to revoke tpa. It doesn't really do any harm, does it? I'll just tell them to stop. Bishonen | tålk 19:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC).

FAR for Swedish emigration to the United States

User:Buidhe has nominated Swedish emigration to the United States for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't care. Bishonen | tålk 07:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC).

Lightbreather appeal

The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from Lightbreather (talk · contribs). You are being notified as you participated in the last unban discussion. You may give feedback here. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Socks

Hi, I noticed that you blocked the account User:Home nursing in Fresno. There appear to be more socs of this account created in the span of an hour:

MT TrainTalk 12:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, MT Train. And more, it seems! Pure spam accounts. There's an an SPI now. Bishonen | tålk 15:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC).
@Bishonen@Mark the train all blocked I see. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Deo Sun Temple

Hi, interacting with you after a long long time.[25] Recently I wanted to create a redirect of Deo Sun Temple to Deo Surya Mandir. But found that Deo Sun Temple has been Salted by you. Can you please unsalt the article title so that redirect could be created to Deo Surya Mandir, Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, hi, Jethwarp. Long time, indeed! I've lowered the protection from admin protection to extended confirmed. That means an established editor such as you will be able to create the redirect, but inexperienced editors won't be able to turn it into an article or otherwise mess it up. Bishonen | tålk 14:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC).
Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
A query just cropped up in my mind and since you are very active and experienced admin - I thought you would be right person to guide me. Recently I had applied for Page Mover permission, looking at my long term records I fulfilled all the basic criteria and I did not expect it to be rejected. Please check the link [26]. I just want to be aware which exact criteria an editor needs to have this right. If you feel, it would not be appropriate for you to reply to this as an Admin, I would not mind. I am asking for a friendly advice - so that in future if I again wish to apply for this Right - I would be aware of rules, thanks in advance Jethwarp (talk) 05:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry you were disappointed, Jethwarp. I'm not experienced at all with page mover permissions, as I've never worked that corner of the 'pedia. But from the replies you got, it looks like you need to use Requested moves more (but only when it's not something you can do yourself), and then apply again when you've got more of it under your belt. I realize the remaining redirects are the problem when you do the moves yourself; if you request speedy deletion for those (or WP:RCSD when appropriate), your case will presumably be viewed more favorably next time. Bishonen | tålk 08:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC).
Yup, thanks for advice. Jethwarp (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Clarification

I didn't really intend to attack anyone, my morals don't allow me and I didn't know the laws well I'm so sorry Vergth (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

But I also want to make it clear that the claim that the naval commandos sank the Egyptian minesweeper before their capture, this is an unrealistic claim that was not mentioned by even the Israeli sources. Vergth (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

https://zionism-israel.com/dic/Shayetet_13.htm Vergth (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I have a lot to say in terms of bias and not appreciating the feelings of one party to the other when they see this massive unrealistic bias of all sources including Israeli sources Vergth (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry and I hope you will accept my apology, you have my deepest respect and appreciation Vergth (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Deep respect and appreciation Vergth (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

???

How the hell..? Oh HA HA, very funny. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's a new user, it may have been innocently done. "How can I create a similar template for users from Yemen? Oh, I know..!" But an admin definitely will block them if it happens again. Bishonen | tålk 10:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC).
My current hypothesis is that it was something of a prank on Bonadea, per new user's talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
They found it through Bonadea's page, no doubt. But I doubt they're capable of such a sophisticated prank with such little experience as they have. Anyway, I've posted a good-faith-assuming warning. Bishonen | tålk 12:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC).
Thus speaketh a good admin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
And you understand mistakes since that time you deleted ANI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure. I was probably trying to delete the main page. Bishonen | tålk 15:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC).
Some cynics (not me! I always say the glass is half full!) would say that ANI is WP's main page... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Nah, that's this page. Go Yemenites! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

le sigh...

You might want to extend this users block to more than just that one article given their edit warring and name calling at Romani people in Serbia, and you know, the usual shit show that is my talk page. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Pickles. Their talkpage made an interesting impression when I went there just now: it said "Retired, this user is no longer active on Wikipedia" and below that, courtesy of a script I've got running, "Last edited 1 minute ago". Mm hm. I was going to leave it to Bbb23, who gave them an "only warning" a short while ago, but then I saw their reply on Beeb's page. Might as well get it over with. Indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 16:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC).
You may also wish to remove their TPA, for continued attacks against other editors. I have removed what they said per DENY but you may want to remove access to stop it happening again. Blanchey (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
upd: they have just restored it. Blanchey (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, I did consider removing it with my original block, as it was so likely they would abuse the talkpage access. But, well, give people a chance and all that. I've revoked it now. Thanks, Blanchey. Bishonen | tålk 19:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC).
No problem, have a great day! Blanchey (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

September music

September songs

Thank you for your patient help all around! - I was greeted by roses! - This rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and that day in 2022 was full of music, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto (my brother played in the orchestra), and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Roses in the dark! Thanks, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 19:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC).
If you click on songs, there's more light ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
... and today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
travel and strings sound --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

A question

Hi Bishonen, I've come to rely on Doug a bit when I suspect I'm dealing with a sock of Mikemikev, which is not infrequently. I know that I can file an SPI, but as you may know Mikemikev tends to cause a big disturbance with each new account and then abandon it before the SPI process has time to work. In such cases, Doug has been willing to use his tools and his experience to pretty reliably identify Mikemikev's socks. My question is, while Doug is recovering, are you able to do that kind of check? And if not, can you recommend someone who might be willing? The account I am concerned about right now is Emotional Ballerina, which is currently trying to drum up drama at NPOVN. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

No, Generalrelative, I don't have the CU tool. But I see GeneralNotability (a relative of yours, perhaps? ;-)), who does have it, has blocked the account as a Mikemikev sock. Bishonen | tålk 18:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC).
Aha, thank you very much! It must be something that runs in the family. Generalrelative (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

caste pov in rajbhar

there is lot of caste pov and promotion in rajbhar, please edit and confirm

Rajbhar - Wikipedia Runngummer (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe you, Runngummer. Thank you for contacting me. The page history is certainly a horror show. I have reverted to your latest edit, and warned a few editors (see my latest contributions). Bishonen | tålk 07:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC).
Bishonen thank you very much Runngummer (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Update for Runngummer: My warnings (as well as your warnings) had little effect, so I have now blocked a couple of users from editing Rajbhar. Bishonen | tålk 08:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC).

Unblock Request

Dear, you have blocked my IP for 3 months by a mistake. You have mentioned that I "Persistent caste promotion and non-encyclopedic requests and arguments on Talk:Ghirth caste talkpage". But in actual, I even didn't ever visit this page. Please remove block from my IP address or tell me actual reason. Your Sincerely 2409:4054:2285:8E02:4942:8AF:AB40:F750 (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC) I read your talk page and came to know that there have been edit on Talk:Ghirth talkpage from IP addresses like me. And I have checked some of them and found that many of them are from Jammu and Kashmir and I'm too from there. But with zero contribution on Talk:Ghirth. I think you have blocked whole range of network of some regions of Jammu and Kashmir which is not a good thing at all. I'm doing edits on Kalakote from long time and you can check my history there too. My intentions are never wrong while editing and always try to edit from neutral point of view. I even did not edit anything wrong but still sorry if there is any mistake from my side.2409:4054:2285:8E02:4942:8AF:AB40:F750 (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. Rangeblocks do catch innocent people, and are absolutely not to be taken as an indication that everybody in the range did something wrong. I'd never siteban such a large range for three months. The range I blocked, after advising with range experts here, contains a dizzying number of IPs, and I'm sure the large majority of them have never edited Talk:Ghirth. But the point is, do you need to edit that page, considering you never have? Were you planning to edit it? Please let me know below. If you were, perhaps an exemption can be carved out for you, so that you can create an account.
Regardless of Talk:Ghirth, I'm pretty sure you would benefit from having an account. I see you haven't been using this particular IP for anything other than posting here on my talk. So, no, it's difficult for me to check your history on Kalakote, as you suggest. Without an account and with a rapidly fluctuating IP, you basically don't have a history. Did you make the recent edits to Kalakote from 2409:4054:200d:e1e2::2a72:78ac and/or 2409:4054:200d:e1e2:f592:3384:7f05:2c? I'll ask my talkpage stalkers to help here, too. For instance, @Yamaguchi先生:, @NinjaRobotPirate: and @Johnuniq:. The IP above is on a range that I page-blocked with account creation blocked. Any way they can create an account? Bishonen | tålk 07:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC).
Yes, the affected person (using the IP above) should request an account be made for them. I believe that when they log in with that account they will be prompted to change the password. The generic advice is at WP:ACCOUNT and searching that page for "request" leads to Wikipedia:Request an account. I don't know anything about the process other than it will probably take a few days since it's volunteers all the way down. To the IP: the world is not perfect and neither is Wikipedia. Your choice is to make an account or spend your time elsewhere until the block expires. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
No, I don't have to edit Ghirth.
I'm using Wikipedia from almost 2-3 years (not regularly) and used to correct grammatical mistakes, update info-box and minor stuff like that, so I never felt need for account. As I mentioned, I didn't use it regularly because I was at HSC level at that time. Now I passed 12th and felt this is right time to create account but unfortune came my way.
Yeah 2409:4054:200d:e1e2::2a72:78ac and/or 2409:4054:200d:e1e2:f592:3384:7f05:2c are my IP's.
Its ok, I'll wait till block end, as all we need is to make Wikipedia better. 2409:4054:2285:8E02:BC20:2F28:F84C:1CE1 (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much, John. I don't quite understand why the IP doesn't profit from your advice and creates an account, now that you have described what they need to do, but that's up to them. IP, there's bound to be more blocks on the range in the future, since there's so much vandalism from it. Requesting an account would be the smart thing to do. Bishonen | tålk 10:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC).
A /30 is really wide. That disables account creation for four /32s. I usually try to allow account creation on these Indian range blocks so ACC doesn't get flooded with requests. India has a massive population, and each administrative division has the population of a large European country. Sometimes you have to do really harsh range blocks to stop trolls, but I've come to think that for petty stuff on large IP ranges, it's often best to start with account creation allowed. Putting the smallest barrier in front of people is often enough to discourage impulsive disruption. Telling a 12 year old vandal that he has to take 2 minutes to create an account is often enough of an impediment that they'll move on to trolling in Reddit comments or whatever. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense, Ninja. OK, I'll change the /30 block to account creation allowed. Bishonen | tålk 15:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC).

Aren't you lucky

The deletion of this article [27] is on OpIndia. @Star Mississippi, FYI ping to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That's something else for sure. Thanks for the heads up @Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Star Mississippi 13:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
That's pleasing, I suppose, but I'm disappointed I wasn't mentioned by name. Bishonen | tålk 16:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC).
Well, at least I learned a new word, "malafide". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
their conspiracy theories are wild. Star Mississippi 19:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
No, no! Obviously, deleting a page about a cricketer is "defamatory" and "besmirches" the subject! As for malafide, assume bona fide. Bishonen | tålk 21:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC).
...are you perhaps getting this issue mixed up with Arshdeep Singh (also in the media)? But. then, for all I know, the other guy may have played cricket too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Bish and @Star Mississippi, FYI Tuhin Sinha is back in mainspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I see the recreator claims it now has "proper sourcing". Considering the SNOW delete at AfD for lack of notability and lack of reliable sources, it seems a little strange that none of the people weighing in at the AfD were able to find these proper sources, but I suppose they could have come into existence more recently. I'll take a look in a day or two. Do you have time to do the same, Gråberg and Star Mississippi? Bishonen | tålk 20:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC).
I saw that, and that it was an established editor. I have some superficial concerns, like sourcing from papers he also wrote for but haven't had the chance to dig more deeply. I'll also try to have a look at it this week Star Mississippi 21:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

As you were so helpfull...

Can you take a look at 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:FCE7:AC6D:CFC5:3126 They are removing a lot of information on abortion rights in US state articles. (I will pester someone else next time, I promise (probably). Knitsey (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User:2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:FCE7:AC6D:CFC5:3126 Knitsey (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Scrap that, someone has caught it already. Knitsey (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Discouraged

So I followed your advice and made a proposal at AN. Some editors are now talking about fully banning me from editing Wikipedia. This is truly mind boggling to me. I apologized for my last mistake. I undid my last edit. I have really tried to conform to ever increasing rules. I made one mistake and was banned from editing for a full month. I have made one very small mistake since then, which I rescinded. The thing that got me banned from editing for a month does not even relate to the topic ban that I was talking about at AN. This response seems over the top and unjustified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

John, I must contradict you when you say I advised you to appeal your tban. I did not. I answered your question about how to appeal your ban. I'm not cognisant enough of your wiki career and/or your wiki problems to either advise you to appeal, or to not appeal. I saw your question on your page, and, feeling I could help, I looked up what the relevant pages (notably WP:BAN) said, and relayed it to you, on the assumption that you had decided you wanted to appeal. No advice involved. But I'm truly sorry you're feeling discouraged. I don't want anybody, especially not a longtime editor, to feel like that. As for the AN discussion, I have sort of been following it, and I wish I was up for doing enough research to weigh in there, but unfortunately I'm not. Lot of distracting family stuff atm. Bishonen | tålk 19:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC).

Blocking by you

Done with this. Bishonen | tålk 18:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have to say nothing about your blocking of me, as I know that the whole Wikipedia community is dominated by a certain ideology, and having preconceived notions and ideas about any particular topic, they do not want to listen any opposite view, even if the latter has adequate sources, sometimes even more than the dominant ideological people here. Even if sources are given, the sources are said to be not trustworthy. The only truths worthy sources are of the dominant ideology here. This is not the first time or the first page, where I have suffered, or I have seen someone of a different viewpoint is made to suffer. Although I must say, 4 or 5 years ago, tve bans or notices on me were just, as I was a beginner then. I already had an idea that something of this kind action was going to happen, I only did this to give people attention to the two pages, having similar allegations and ideas, were reported so differently, even if one film, which showed what happened in reality in past was declared propaganda, and another, which was really just imagining and creating unnecessary fears was deemed art and creativity. This is only one example of what is happening in India and the world is seeing. The world other than India is being fooled by a small class in India, that's why people of India cannot connect with the foreign media reportings of India, and that's why the west can't understand why people here are supporting the extremists, if India is a democracy. The problem they are not understanding is that, the people they are understanding as extremists are not so, and the real culprit is the dominant ideology here and the small class of the same ideology in India, reporting there. Therefore I've avoided editing in any political or social articles here, because I've no hope of situation getting better. I usually ignore such misreportings and propaganda therefore and concentrate on my core topics such as history, linguistics, polity and other such things. This time I could not resist seeing the hypocrisy of the two pages. I had previously edited, given sources and talked in the talk pages, but edits were either reverted or the slighty modified. My sources were deemed biased, whereas in India, no one can say those sources biased, those media houses certainly produce some light biased article, but that is common in any media house. Further, some of the sources (for eg., the wire) in the article were so biased, that they are not just biased against some political ideology, but write biased, venomous, negative and dehumanising articles about Indians, Hindus and nationalist muslims in general. Even the media sources, which are considered left leaning in India, were said to be not accepted here, because it's only soft left, and not that degree that these administrators expect. Similar things have happened when I wanted ro edit the Delhi riots page, but nothing positive happened, even after giving sources, similar things happened. I only want to say that we should trust only on primary sources, and never on secondary sources. But it never happens on Wikipedia, nor in the academic circles of that dominant ideology in India or elsewhere. Circular reasoning, circular citations and preconceived biases are common, even in their articles on history and polity. All the alternate viewpoints are just named fascist. Remember, I don't subscribe to any ideology or ideological viewpoint, that's why I and people like me suffer on the platforms like here. I am currently studying in university with my concentration in Indian history culture and archaeology, with separate interests in linguistics and physics. I have many things to do in my career, and only provide some of my experiences and knowledge here. If you don't want it, you are free. It will not affect my career or my future here. But please, try to contact the seniors and change Wikipedia-the free encyclopedia to Wikipedia- the ideological ghetto. I may sound harsh, but that's all my feelings. If you'll unblock me, I will, as usual, ignore going into any political article, because I know all the efforts there are unworthy, but I can still contribute to other articles. Of you can restrict my ban to only political articles, because anyway, I can't change those. But do only if you feel my need. But one thing is sure, if you'll continue this process, no neutral Indian(or of other countries too) will be left here. I also have a message to you personally, that if you want to know about India, please try to know by as much primary sources as possible, because secondary sources are always biased, either by right or by left. Ashutosh Jha (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ashutosh Jha: Wikipedia does indeed prefer secondary sources to primary, compare the guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That preference is a built-in part of how Wikipedia functions, you might say it is its very bone structure. To turn it on its head would be a Herculean task. Quite frankly, rather than trying to accomplish that, you'd probably be better off contributing to some other website. As for me blocking or unblocking you, you have not been blocked. As my notice on your page already stated, if you want to know what "topic banned" means, you can look up WP:TBAN. I did consider topic banning you only from Indian politics, rather than from all Indian subjects, but I felt there would be too much of a gray area inherent in such a limited ban. Do any of my faithful talkpage stalkers have a notion of how it might be done? Bishonen | tålk 19:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC).
The aggressiveness in the message to you suggests to me that the wider ban is a good idea, and shouldn't be commuted. I'm not seeing any sort of commitment to abiding by WP policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
You’ve just had two senior editors, both Administrators, respond. And I’m one of the most senior and experienced editors/Administrators on Wikipedia, see my user page. You are showing yourself not to be a good fit for Wikipedia. A full block may sadly be the only solutions. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I try to control my emotions mr. Vanmonde, but here I became somewhat emotional, but I simply can't understand what aggressiveness I demonstrated. Here you are again misnaming me and tagging me as aggressive, which will do no good, and will prevent anyone talking to me. Just tell me, what is the way to give any meaningful addition to a wikipedia page if I have enough sources. You can check my edit history, except the three instances I have mentioned, I have tried my best to not edit any article without consensus or talk. My main area of contribution is India, and if you'll ban me there, why even i will be here. As I've said earlier, despite the biases on Wikipedia, I try to abide with the rules and policies here, and the only reason for my latest edit was to highlight the hypocrisy of the policies of Wikipedia,you can yourself check those two pages. As i have said, my main contribution area is history, polity and linguistics, and those areas belong to a particular geographical area. If the ban on me is reverted, I am not going to interfere in that area till there is a serious threat. Even then my acts are only symbolic, because I know that edit is going to be reversed, but it will remain in edit history and guide any future edits out there. And even these kind of edits, I've done only three times in whole of my editting history. All of you know that Wikipedia has some inherent problems, but only acknowledging them will not change it. That's why I use this symbolic Gandhian protest. Anyways, it's up to you, and I again repeat, I am working in history and archaeology department in one of the top ranking institutes of India, and this will not harm me, but only Wikipedia is going to lose another Indian volunteer. My professor, my colleagues and many such my friends have left Wikipedia because of these policies. And also, Wikipedia is not the only platform today, I can see whole world going towards Orwell's 1984 world. If you wish you can research independently on the topics I have edited, based only on primary sources, and then I think you can understand why I, who remains usually apolitical, why interrupted in particularly those articles. Ashutosh Jha (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

You came here to appeal the scope of your ban, but began by posting a lengthy rant about your perceptions of Wikipedia and its biases. If you don't see how that's a problem, I can't really explain it to you. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, please show us that you can in fact abide by our policies, by editing constructively in other areas. Or at least showing some evidence that you see what the issues with your editing were in the first place. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I am preparing for my seminar tomorrow, so I do not have enough time, but I'll certainly give all the references by tomorrow for the the pages. I am certainly aware that in my most recent edit, I edited out of frustration (seeing the hypocrisy there), without giving proper sources which is not quite correct, but I and many others, on the those two pages (The Kashmir Files and Delhi riots) have previously given proper sources and then edited, but all of them were reversed. I posted those lengthy articles only because no one is ready to listen, where should I complain that the pages are biased. I firstly took the matter to talk page, also took the matter to arbitrators, and even they agreed that the page(Delhi riots) is biased, but said he can do nothing about it. Those two pages are even being discussed in prime time debates in national news channels in India, in the parliament and supreme court of the largest democracy in world, and still you think that those two pages are not biased. And lastly, I will contribute to Wikipedia, if I will be given chance, and my core areas are not political, but history, polity and linguistics. And I will usually not interfere in any political article, as my history suggests. So you can be relieved that I will abide by the policies of Wikipedia. If you can tell me how to flag a biased article, how to add new information with sources, without the fear of it being reverted just because of political motivations, I will not do even these rare edits which I do out of frustration. And I will try my best to give all the discrepancies with sources in those articles in a few days. Ashutosh Jha (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

You can also go to the talk page and edit history of those two articles and you will yourself get my points. I will be however, giving all the sources by tomorrow or a few days after my seminar ends. Ashutosh Jha (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

History? See, that's exactly what I mean by a grey area; it's a rare Indian history article that doesn't have at the very least a political subtext. (Not to mention polity.) Btw, Ashutosh Jha, you have been here five years, isn't it time you started performing such basic talkpage courtesy as indenting your posts appropriately? Have you never noticed that other people do this? Bishonen | tålk 21:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC).
You are currently topic-banned from Indian topics, meaning you may not add references to those pages. Please read WP:BANEX. Furthermore, I've just looked through other contributions you have made, and there's similar problems there. this edit, for instance. The FPJ source says nothing about Dharmic religions. crwflags.com does not appear to be a reliable source, and in any case does not support "Though Bhagwa is considered as sacred in Hinduism and same in Sikhism, but many Sikhs also debated that the colour of Sikhism is light-orange." this edit was also largely unsourced. I cannot in good conscience support modifying your topic-ban until you show, by editing elsewhere, that you are able to abide by WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The first edit you showed to me, was an edit revert, as the edit showed no sources, and the previous edits itself had sources, so i did not felt the need to give sources there. And in the second edit, i only edited the format, as the page was in bad formatting. I didi not added a single new information to that. Ashutosh Jha (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

History can be political, but fortunately, many articles on Indian history are not biased, and with proper sources, edits could be done, that's why no problem there. But, in contemporary poltical pages, biases are so high level, that it can be compared to propaganda. However, i ignore going in thise areas usually, and if you can tell how to give proper information to the pages, to which i have sources, which i can do in any page related to history, without getting reverted, i will not do my Gandhian protests. Ashutosh Jha (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that this, the combined diff of all your edits to that article, does not add a "single new information"? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you serious? I can't help if you can't see how simple edits I've made there. I've only made the formatting clear and user-friendly and given some proper links. Upon seeing there more attentively, i remember that most of the information, which you are seeing probably added by me are just expansion of it using the sources already there in the article and another article on Wikipedia (Ancient higher-learning institutions). If this had been asked by a new user, I could've understand, but you're so experienced, and still making unnecessary issues. My latest edits, I agree, were not sincere, and done only out of frustrations of the policies of Wikipedia. But, these edits, which you are showing to me, are so simple and genuine. Ashutosh Jha (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You should ask for arbitration, when you information is biased and somewhat controversial, but you should understand, how basic those information were. Some more references are needed for sure, but I think there is nothing controversial information there, and the information is so basic and known to all already. These are so common that every student in India know these. I will surely try to give some more references out there. Ashutosh Jha (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ashutosh Jha Arbitration deals with conduct, not content. When you mention arbitrators agreeing with you about the Delhi Riots, you're confused and the only relevant post of yours seems to be at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#Biased article on Delhi riots 2020https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#Biased_article_on_Delhi_riots_2020 which doesn't look like anyone commenting anyway, so what exactly are you referring to? So far I'm wondering if you are using more than one account. Doug Weller talk 06:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Ashutosh Jha, do you read the replies you get, or do you just write? Compare my request for indentation here. Please indent you posts as others do, using colons, so that the conversation becomes easier to read. See WP:INDENT for how, or just look at how others do it. Bishonen | tålk 07:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC).
I am sorry for that, and sorry for any mistakes i make or have made, but the problem here is that everyone loves to lecture here and no one wants to listen. You can write in points, the problems you have with me, I will certainly answer each one of them, and will also apologise, if there will be any mistake. Ashutosh Jha (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Can you read what I've written? Ashutosh Jha (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I did read what you've written. It raises more concerns, not less. The verifiability problem is not resolved; you copied unsourced material from a different article. And in doing so, you also violated copyright; see WP:CWW. You couldn't have known about the copyright, but the excuses and evasions you've given me about your lack of source use are not inspiring any confidence. I'm quite tired of this conversation, and will be stepping away. If you really want your topic-ban lifted, please contribute constructively elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Mail!

I sent you one :) Generalrelative (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Revdel, I think

I think at least some of the content removed in these edits needs revdelling. Could you push a magic button? --bonadea contributions talk 20:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bonadea:  Done JBW (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 10:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

October songs

A tree for you - TFA Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, third time went well - I passed the trees you liked years ago, thinling of you every time I go there ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Such fine trees! Thank you, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 15:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC).
today a fine woman playing, Ella van Poucke, I took the pic, and don't miss video --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
leaving the month with reformation and a cat treat --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A pie for you!

PIE Partyfrittata (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

pov fork

Hi, I saw that you redirected the "new" page "Political editing on Wikipedia" back to Reliability of Wikipedia as a POV FORK [28].

The same user then went and created the article "Political manipulation of Wikipedia". Now, maybe it's just me, but if "editing" is a POV FORK, then trying to do the same thing with "manipulation" instead seems a bit like a not so subtle attempt at WP:GAME. Volunteer Marek 19:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It's the other way around, Marek: I removed the word "manipulation" to resolve Bishonen's concerns and align the article's name with existing ones (Ideological bias on Wikipedia, Vandalism on Wikipedia, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia). Maybe read before you delete? François Robere (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Bishonen, am I correct in assuming this resolves your WP:POVFORK concerns and renders it a proper WP:SPINOFF (with some additions)? François Robere (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Either way, they're both clearly POV forks and judging by some comments you and Levivich are making here [29] (in particular, these personal attack on myself: [30] [31]) this does in fact look like yet another attempt to restart some of the same ol' same ol' controversy that I think everyone (other than obvious parties) has been happy to have put behind us. Volunteer Marek 02:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
François Robere, it does look more like a reasonable spinoff than a fork to me now. But I'm bowing out. The issue should probably be discussed on talk; either on the talkpage of Reliability of Wikipedia or on Talk:Political editing on Wikipedia, if that is reinstated. Volunteer Marek, I hope you will offer an argument for redirecting the article that's based on its content rather than on the quips on Levivich's page. They're not really relevant. Bishonen | tålk 08:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC).
PS, François, as for your change of the article name, I actually think the original name, "manipulation", is clearer as well as more likely to attract a reader's interest. Bishonen | tålk 08:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC).
I'll take it there. Thank you. François Robere (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Update: Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia clearly isn't very well watched. I've restored Political editing on Wikipedia as a separate article, both because I personally think it works as one, and to enable discussion of its existence on its talkpage. With any luck, some of the people who watch my page will chime in. Bishonen | tålk 07:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC).
Fwiw, we also have Wikipedia coverage of American politics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

A user is harrassing and making edit war with me

I have tagged you on Draupathi (2020 film) talk page, please ban the IP user who is constantly challenging my edits without giving any valid reason 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, 24thHusbandofDraupathi. There seems to be a disagreement about what the plot of the movie is. I'm afraid I can't resolve that; I don't know what happens in the movie. I suggest you take it to dispute resolution. A Third opinion request would be the simplest and IMO the best of the options suggested, since only two people are involved. Bishonen | tålk 09:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC).

Hi, I have two questions if that's OK?

Patricksblog has been inserting his blog into certain articles. He has been polite about the reverts I made and apologised for not knowing the rules. He is asking if it's OK to post his blog as he has a lot of 'how to' articles. I've just noticed he has added his blog to another article. Blog is https://patrickgod.com/

I have also noticed DP Reekers has created two articles. They appear to have gone straight to article space (if that's the correct term). I wasn't sure if this was the correct process or where to ask about it?

Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Jeez I'm useless at this user:Patricksblog and user:DP Reekers Knitsey (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, Knitsey, I'm glad you brought up these things. Inexperienced users are recommended to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead of creating an article straight into mainspace (or moving their sandbox into mainspace themselves). But it's not obligatory, so DP Reekers hasn't done anything wrong.
But the actions of new user Patricksblog are not acceptable, I'm afraid. Adding their own blog to articles (or anywhere else on Wikipedia), as they have been doing, is a no-no. Compare the warning experienced user MrOllie has now given them. It counts as self-promotion/spam no matter if the blog is used as source or added as a "See also", as they did at IP address blocking. The See also section is strictly for internal Wikipedia links only, nothing else. Feel free to tell the user this from me, but please also tell them that we do understand these things are complicated for new users and I'm sure they're trying to help. Bishonen | tålk 17:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC).
Thank you Bishonen, that's really helpful information. I will keep an eye out for the users posts. Thank you! Knitsey (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Nothere block?

Hey, Bishonen. Could you take a look at these edits [32] and [33]? Looks like an obvious NOTHERE user to me. Tayi Arajakate Talk 17:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, Tayi Arajakate. I've also indeffed the guy whose "barnstar" they commented on here - an obvious sock. What a lovely area it is. Bishonen | tålk 20:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC).
Right, I somehow didn't notice the other guy. Thanks for that, and yep this vitriol is par for the course in this area unfortunately. :/ Tayi Arajakate Talk 01:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
And this socking, right. It's a shame. Bishonen | tålk 07:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC).

A barnstar for you

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for your good work Andre🚐 19:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Am I being a party pooper?

Elibitt Gabby.Bitt nothing but deleted chat messages, 150 and 170 messages between them. Knitsey (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

pineapple wine has a rich history in the Hawaiian islands- starting formally in 1994 with a small farm on Maui- it was one of the first (if not the first) Hawaiian wineries to exist, and won them several awards! This is the only winery to exist outside of the mainland US (besides perhaps Alaska). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawaii_wine&oldid=1088262142

Pineapple wine isn’t for me, but I appreciate the history behind it nonetheless :)

While my husband is overseas with the military, we‘re just trying to make the best of the situation- we do love discussing global news, and debating what is actually concrete fact, and what is considered agenda-setting by the US government/media outlets- I’ve found that a lot of media does fall under the agenda-setting theory. I’ve found it difficult to find true, factual news in the American media- any recommendations on the most reliable news sources?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agenda-setting_theory&oldid=1117580797

Mahalo for keeping an open mind about us learning how to use Wikipedia’s discussion board :) Gabby.Bitt (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for getting in touch, Gabby. Are you saying you and Eli are a married couple? That's great, but please use one of all the services out there that are intended for keeping in touch — Wikipedia isn't one of them. It's a project for creating an encyclopedia, and the user talkpages (you have both been posting on Eli's user talkpage) are for discussing contributions to that purpose. Maybe the word "talkpage" misled you a little..? Btw, personally, I think pineapple wine sounds just fine. Bishonen | tålk 18:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC).

Copyvios by User:Het666

Can you, or any of your TPSers, take a look at the contribution history of Het666, which most recently involved addition of two copyrighted images to India (I have nominated them for speedy deletion from the commons)? The user has received several, previous copyright warnings (among other warnings, which I haven't looked at) but has clearly not got the message. I almost blocked them myself but desisted since I had reverted one of their edits for reasons in addition to them being a copyright violation. Abecedare (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Another copyvio image uploaded to commons and added to a wikipedia article. Abecedare (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Abe. There's something peculiar about many (not all) copyright violators; they seem incapable of understanding how seriously Wikipedia takes copyright, no matter how many times, or how sternly, they're warned. I've blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 18:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC).
Thanks. And yup. Most (though not all) of their uploads on the Commons openly declared where they were copying the copyrighted content from, which indicates a failure to even understand the concept. Given the number of warnings they have been given, I see little chance of this changing suddenly. In any case, the ball is in their court to demonstrate knowledge of the policies if they desire to be ever unblocked. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I nominated another for deletion, I suspect each image is going to have to be carefully reviewed and I haven't the time...Vanamonde (Talk) 19:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I gave up nominating the images individually and filed an AN report. Have reviewed all their uploads and mentioned my opinion on which all are copyvios here. Will wait for the common admins to handle the issue there in their own time but I went ahead and deleted the images from wikipedia articles (see my recent edit history for diffs); hopefully didn't miss any. Abecedare (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Abecedare: Thanks for doing that...With the proviso that this is way above my pay grade, doesn't India have freedom of panorama, and so the photos of sculptures might be okay (unless of course he didn't take those photos either)? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I believe those two recent uploads (which were uploaded after the filing of the AN report) are ok too for the reasons you cite. Mdaniels5757 has now reviewed all the files and deleted the copyvios. One error I had made was with regards to the cheetah images, which are acceptable since the underlying youtube video was released with a CC with attribution license; will add them back to the article. Abecedare (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah, those were the two most recent, missed that. Thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent POV push

Hey Bishonen, could you please take a look into the editing history of Yashdeep12? Warning them several times by multiple editors had been futile.Chanchaldm (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Chanchaldm. I suppose this may be one of those cases where the user has not found their own talkpage. I've blocked indefinitely, with a link to their page in the block log and a note that they can be unblocked provided the disruption stops. Bishonen | tålk 08:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC).
Yes, possibly. Thanks Bishonen for taking some of your time in this matter. Chanchaldm (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Capital of Singapore

Hi Bishonen,

I'm a fellow Wikipedia editor and would like to seek your help on the discussion currently on-going in the talk page of Singapore. I've encountered a few wikipedia editors removing information from the infobox of Singapore, regarding the capital city of the Republic of Singapore. To prevent an editing conflict, I've placed my thoughts and cited a reliable source from the United Nations Statistics Division placing the capital of Singapore, however one of the editors that entered the discussion removed the information without coming to a common consensus. The user mentioned has administrative rights, but he/she doesn't seem impartial and didn't reply to the discussion according to the questions I've posed before making the changes. I would like to seek a 3rd opinion on the matter, hope you could advise. Thank you. Deoma12(Talk) 15:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Deoma12. To complain about an administrator's actions, I would recommend the noticeboard WP:ANI. However, a read of the talkpage shows you are merely assuming, incorrectly, that Chipmunkdavis is an admin, which leaves this as purely a content dispute, which is not what the noticeboards are for. I'm frankly not sure why you're appealing to me in particular. It would be better to seek a third opinion in a neutral way by using the Wikipedia:Third opinion page. Bishonen | tålk 17:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC).
Hi, I approached you as I wasn't sure who to seek an 3rd opinion from, and I saw your username on one of the disputes on the Chinese Singaporeans article. Would definitely seek a 3rd opinion regarding the issue. Thank you. --Deoma12(Talk) 18:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Multiple edits with user's persistent POV

Hi Bishonen, I just spoke to you yesterday regarding the discussion on the capital of Singapore. Was just wondering if you can check Sgweirdo editing history. Seems like the user has been removing content on articles without providing a edit summary. Including the one regarding Singapore, where I have posed a discussion in the talk page. But the user did not participate. Other editors have tried to communicate with the user regarding edits on other articles, but his/her talk page is always blanked out afterwards. I've raised a dispute resolution notice regarding the issue I spoke to you about previously. Sorry for bothering you again. Thank you. Deoma12(Talk) 03:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

November vacation

November songs

I was away for vacation in the U.S., pictured, after we had an Ukrainian choir visiting, my first subject celebrated 60, and we heard Bach's ultimate statement about life and death (3 concerts in 3 days) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanksgiving in the U.S. - Bach said it in music for peace --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I report a suspected sockpuppet please?

User:RBE Radio Beckwith Evangelica in tutto il Piemonte & in Liguria (Imperia & Savona) who is blocked and User:VinnyHMI HopeMedia Italia RVS Radio Voce della Speranza di Villa Aurora FIRENZE.

Both editing articles JBN-TV, Luserna San Giovanni, Peter Waldo and John Charles Beckwith (British Army officer) Knitsey (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh and blocked user:RadioEvangeloPiemonte Via Leinì 54 TORINO FM 91,5 Biella Ivrea FM 88,6 Cuneo FM 94,3 Knitsey (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
It might be easier if you look at the edit history for JBN-TV as there are a few mote editing that page? Sorry if this is a waste of time. Knitsey (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Knitsey, fancy seeing you here right after I removed talkpage access for your mate Foxyalpha27. Let me see. Hmm. How about asking Cullen328, who blocked RBE Radio Beckwith Evangelica in tutto il Piemonte & in Liguria (Imperia & Savona) as a spam-only account? Also, can I ask: do you use Twinkle? Don't feel obliged to do so, or anything. But Twinkle makes it really convenient to file WP:SPI reports, and many other kinds of reports such as WP:AFD. Bishonen | tålk 22:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC).
Yup I will message Cullen328.
I do use Twinkle. I'm terrified of filling a report there as I keep messing things up such as curley brackets or square brackets : or |
I managed to mess up my first (and subsequent) messages at AIV. I think I managed to destroy the page (slight exaggeration maybe).
I will try reporting them as socks. The worse that can happen is I have to revert then go and sulk for a bit. Knitsey (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I considered blocking User:VinnyHMI HopeMedia Italia RVS Radio Voce della Speranza di Villa Aurora FIRENZE (whew) but I thought maybe the "Vinny" part made it something like "Joe at Widgets Inc." Plus, that whole situation was making my head spin. Cullen328 (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This isn't ideal for my first SPI report! Those names. I almost mixed them up at your talk page. Do you think its worth reporting them @Cullen328: Knitsey (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Why not give it a try, Knitsey? I do not claim to be a sockpuppet detective but this looks pretty obvious. Cullen328 (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I second that recommendation. With multiple blocked socks, a CU is justifiable IMO, and a CU may find other accounts or a range on which a hardblock may be applied (don't worry if all of that doesn't make sense, Knitsey; I'm just saying filing an SPI is a good thing). Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I never want to do that again. Please remind me to keep my nose out of things in future! I've done the SPI request but after reading your message Vanamonde I think I forgot to ask for a check user. I did read that I needed to change it to yes if I thought it needed one and I forgot after looking through all those names.
Thanks so much to you three. I appreciate the encouragement. Knitsey (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Good lord, you did it on mobile? That's brilliant, Knitsey. Bishonen | tålk 08:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC).
It was easier than I thought. Or maybe I'm getting used to the Wiki interface. I put a subsequent message in the wrong place but at least I didn't blow up the page this time. Knitsey (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Request page protection for Bari (caste)

Hi, Bishonen,

Bari are a scheduled caste, there are some persistent efforts by unknown IP to change the article into Rajput caste. Would request to please increase edit rights of page in an effort so as to these ip addresses cant edit it. Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi for three months. I can well imagine longer protection may be needed later, but this is (surprisingly) the first time the article has been protected at all. Thanks, Jethwarp, and please let me know if the disruption comes back when the protection runs out. Bishonen | tålk 04:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC).
Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Admin eye?

Hello Bish, hope you are well. Robert R. Reisz was at ANI [34] and BLPN [35] lately, and I just made this [36] revert. I see in the edithistory that there have been redactions in June and November. I don't think my revert needs redaction (or is that suppression?), the content probably just failed WP:BLP, but that's what I'd like you to take an admin-look at. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd better revision delete it. Thanks, Mr Fröding. Bishonen | tålk 10:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC).
Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for protecting the article on Dom (caste) from misinformation

Hi Bishonen, hope you are fine! Would request you to check the article once and especially the editor Dev0745 who has not only used redirect option to promote their agenda, but is going beyond sources and trying to incorporate misinformation through their unexplained edits (engaged in edit war as well) in spite of warnings & all on their talk page. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll look, Ekdalian, but please give them a formal edit warring warning right now. Bishonen | tålk 20:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC).
I see immediately that the user has added a claim that the Dom were "rulers", and that there were Dom kings. Of course that suggests caste promotion, but the source is in Hindi...you'll have to help me, Ekdalian. What kind of source is it, and does it say they were rulers/kings? Other talkpage stalkers are welcome to ameliorate my ignorance, too. Bishonen | tålk 20:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC).
Pity I wasn't around when you first posted here, Ekdalian. Perhaps you're not around now..! Anyway, I've no idea what the significance is of the move from Domba to Dom, but the business of rulers and kings, and the source from 1875 that I noticed, is certainly enough to give the user a warning. Done. Good night. Bishonen | tålk 21:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC).

Bishonen, according to the source, which is hindi news article about Palace of Dom kings of Jashpur which is in ruin condition. Dev0745 (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A news article is not a modern academic source. As I told you, it is important to use only the best sources for caste articles. Not to look for any sources that will tell you what you want to be the case about the Dom. Please listen to what Ekdalian tells you. Bishonen | tålk 08:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC).
Thank you so much, Bishonen! Yes, I was not around, sorry. You have already answered above what exactly I had told them (such news articles are not accepted in sensitive caste articles). Thanks again for your time. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Continued disruption

Bishonen did you have a look at the later discussion that happened here? Even after a series of lectures, Dev0745 is still engaging in disruptive editing on Nagpuria people by continuously adding irrelevant content like he just did here. The content about building temples in Ranchi has nothing to do with this subject "Nagpuria people".

You already told him not to add content on social group pages "without modern academic sources", however, he is still using news websites elsewhere too.[37]

Now if I revert him, then he will edit war and if I discuss him then he will be choosing to double down on his incompetence. Dympies (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh lord. I understand you have concerns, Dympies, but these caste matters are pretty obscure to me, I'm sorry. Vanamonde93, do you think you could take a look at Dympies's two diffs above, from 9 December, and decide whether a sanction, such as a T-ban from caste articles, is by now warranted? (I can place a ban if you believe it's justified.) Bishonen | tålk 09:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC).
The first diff doesn't bother me; it's tangential content, but so is everything before it, and I can't fault someone for adding sourced material expanding on what's already there. The second diff, though, adds content not supported by the sources (Dympies, news sources are okay in general, it's when they're making contentious claims that they're a problem; we can't ban their use altogether). Also, though, I just noticed this user has 22k edits, begging the question of what other articles they have stuffed full of original research. I wouldn't recommend a TBAN, Bish, I'm seeing some CIR issues here; I would suggest a shortish block for unsourced content, with the expectation that any subsequent block would be an indef. Someone should ideally check back through their work, and it sure as hell isn't going to be me. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Vanamonde; I don't think I'm the right admin to make the call here. I'm sorry, Dympies; it's above my paygrade, and Vanamonde is very busy (indeed, I suspect all the Indian admins are very busy). I can only refer you to WP:ANI. Bishonen | tålk 22:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC).
Reported him at WP:ARE now. Take a look. Thanks. Dympies (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this canvassing?

See the pings in this talk page section. Of these only, myself and TrangaBellam were involved in the dispute (i.e both of us had reverted their addition), the rest 4 looks like a partisan selection of people to me at least. They say they are "other users in the page's edit history" but of course there are way more editor who have been involved in the page's edit history in a significant capacity. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, Tayi Arajakate. I have warned the user, and explained about canvassing. Bishonen | tålk 10:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC).
Their talk page isn't encouraging and I see I've posted there. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Yep. And I blocked them for tendentious editing in July. Not promising, no. Bishonen | tålk 12:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC).

DS for IP?

December songs
happy new year

Thank you for the roses that greeted me coming in (while it looks like on the pic where I just was outside)! - DS for infoboxes, I remember that you had to do with them. After two mercifully uneventful years, we have now several RfCs and a thread on WP:AN. Could DS be used for an IP (or several, all saying they are a certain user) uncivil in these discussions. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It was roses? Now it's owls! Yes, DS can be used for IPs. And I note SchroCat has a note on his page saying he doesn't need a DS alert for infoboxes. You can take him to WP:AE. Bishonen | tålk 13:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
It's not without irony that an IP placed the warning on another user's talk. Greater irony. I won't take anybody to AE but will pass the information. - I was greeted by Monet now, and saw a lot of his works in Paris, - if interested click on songs and scroll up a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
more pics, enjoy the season, dreaming of peace --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
today, pictured, the soprano of our choral concert of the year. More in the context: User talk:Gerda Arendt#DYK for Talia Or, in case of interest. - Enjoy the season! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
That's great, Gerda. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 15:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC).
thanks, and then the 'zilla era!! - saw very small flowers today, pictured when you click on songs --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Olivier

Hi Bishonen, I hope you are keeping well. A few years ago you may remember you added a large edit notice on the Laurence Olivier article asking people not to add an infobox without getting consensus. As the page now has a consensus-driven box in place, could the notice be removed? I’m not sure how to remove it, or I would have done it myself. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No, indeed, I did not remember. Still there, is it? I've blanked it now; hopefully that removes it. Yes, it seems to. Nice to see you, Schrödinger's Cat. I hope the huge AN thing works out as well as possible. Man, who is going to close such a thing? (Definitely not me; I have opined.) Bishonen | tålk 17:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC).
That’s great, thanks. It’s not going to be a nice job for someone to go through such a vastly long thread - I really don’t envy them! SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

God Jul!

Hello Bishonen: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Fröding. I'm baffled by the guy whooshing down the slope on snowshoes, though. Was that a thing? Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC).
...konstnärlig frihet? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Det er ikke helt sikkert, at han flytter. Måske står han stille og kigger på de andre. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
OMG, he's Danish? Surely not. They don't have slopes there. Or snow. Bishonen | tålk 17:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC).
LOL! Not Danish, but lived there and speak fluently, yet imperfectly. Hills, not mountains, and some nice slopes. Some years there is a lot of snow for a short time. Ice winters are when the sea freezes and one can walk to Sweden, except for where the ice breakers have sailed. I learned rudimentary ice skating on lakes. Putting the kids on a sled and then letting our collie pull them at full gallop was lots of fun. Some winters one could drive on lakes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of Scandinavia, one of my favorite book series is Vilhelm Moberg's The Emigrants (novel series). Our Danish set burned in the Camp Fire (2018), so I worked hard to locate an excellent 4-volume English version published by Borealis Books. I wish they were hardcover. We also got the DVD adaptations. Two movies were released in the 1970s, starring Max Von Sydow and Liv Ullmann as Karl Oskar and Kristina. A remarkable story.

The last time I was in Denmark, I tracked down copies of books by Tove Ditlevsen, Johannes V. Jensen, Søren Kierkegaard, Tom Kristensen, Hans Kirk, and Isak Dinesen. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, Kierkegaard, a favorite. "Marry or marry not, you'll regret it in either case". Yep. As for slopes, Swedes like to say "Himmelbjerget" and laugh. That would be the more ignorant Swedes. Eh, Favonian? Bishonen | tålk 21:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC).
Favorite Kierkegaard quote: “Life can only be understood by looking backward; but it must be lived looking forward” O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I recall my first visit to that hill: "This is the highest point?" I didn't see any, but was warned that hugorm were in the area. Himmelbjerget overlooks a beautiful lake. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Cringe! Unfortunately, we are constrained by a dictum promulgated by one of Kierkegaard's contemporaries: "ved jorden at blive, det tjener os bedst". (Amateur translation: to stay on the ground, it serves us best.) Favonian (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, with time this American came to appreciate janteloven. In a sense it is paralleled in America's idea of equality. We are all equal before the law, have equal rights, and should treat each other as equals. Sadly it doesn't work that way. Denmark does it far better. Scandinavian countries are consistently rated in the top five happiest countries in the world. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Science has spoken on the topic of "Danish happiness". Supposedly, it's due to our finely honed skill at reducing expectations. Favonian (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
It's also a secret to a long and happy marriage. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Favonian, I believe the quote is from this song by N. F. S. Grundtvig. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Spot on, Valjean! Højskolesangbogen – ah, yes, that takes me back. Wore out three or four of them in my school days. Not because I was an avid singer, but its size and weight combined to make it an efficient weapon in close combat. Favonian (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


Have a great Christmas, and may 2023 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You too, SchroCat! Bishonen | tålk 08:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC).

Beep boop!

Beep boop!
Beep boop, beep beeep boop! ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 16:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Toot toot! Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC).

caste POV promotion in velir article

There is a constant attempt to promote caste POV in article velir. The Equation of modern day agricultural community of vellalar to ancient velir is a disputed topic. I have presented both theories. Can you please help fix the article to present both sides.

Velir equation with Vellalar

A constant attempt is being made to equate ancient velir group with modern day agricultural vellalar caste. Please help in making sure the article does not have vellalar in lead introductory section. This is clearly caste POV and caste puffery. if I am making a mistake, please correct me. I have present both sides

Scholars such as R. Champakalakshmi and Mahadevan equate the velir with the Vellalar(various agricultural castes)[1][2][3][4][5] but other historians such as Ramesh.C.Majumdar disagree with the equation of ancient velirs with modern day agricultural castes of vellalar. [6] [7][8] Scholarone1 (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Pruthi, R.; Sharma, B.R. (1995). Buddhism, Jainism and Women. Encyclopaedia of women society and culture series. Anmol Publications. p. 99. ISBN 978-81-7488-085-7.
  2. ^ Sivaratnam, C. (1964). An Outline of the Cultural History and Principles of Hinduism. Stangard Printers. p. 36. Retrieved 2022-12-12.
  3. ^ Chakravarti, A. (1953). Tirukkural (in Lithuanian). Diocesan Press. p. 25.
  4. ^ Orr, L.C. (2000). Donors, Devotees, and Daughters of God: Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu. South Asia Research. Oxford University Press. p. 209. ISBN 978-0-19-535672-4. Retrieved 2022-12-12.
  5. ^ Iyer, L.A.K. (1968). Social History of Kerala: The Dravidians. Monographs on man in India. Book Centre Publications. p. 4. Retrieved 2022-12-12.
  6. ^ Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Congress of Human Sciences in Asia and North Africa, Tokyo-Kyoto, 31st August-7th September 1983. Indiana University. 1984. p. 1015. Retrieved 2022-12-12.
  7. ^ Journal of Kerala Studies. University of Kerala. 1987. p. 6. Retrieved 2022-12-12.
  8. ^ Journal of Indian History. University of Allahabad. 1955. p. 333. Retrieved 2022-12-12.

Seeking (but not desperately) admin advice

Could you provide me with an admin's opinion/comment? I started an ANI section here because I thought the combined edits in question (here and here) should be revdel'ed, as they seem a violation of WP:BLP, WP:GAME, and, well, were clearly bad faith, unencyclopedic personal attacks against the article subject. The ANI section was fairly quickly closed with a statement that deleting such crap (my word, not the closer's) would not be within policy. That explanation comes as a surprise, as it seems defacto policy-based tolerance of a simple end-around mechanism for WP:NOTHERE types to add poor/lousy/stupid shit to an article's history. So...what boat am I missing here? Or in the future should I just avoid water travel altogether (i.e., stop posting such concerns to ANI)? Thank you for your help. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the holiday delay, JoJo Anthrax. I'm afraid your ANI link is no longer working but seems to lead to something unrelated. (You can read here about how to create permanent links to page sections.) But I see your diffs, of course, and I can find your original ANI post. I agree the text you mention shouldn't be left in the history, and have revdel'd it. I decided against warning the user, though, since these are their only edits, including from the rest of their /64 range, and are now two days old. IMO it's helpful to post such concerns to ANI, even though there will always be differences of opinion among admins about how, or whether, to deal with them. Bishonen | tålk 22:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC).
Thank you so much for your help. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry, merry, little user! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 22:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC).

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Right back at you, Donner60. Bishonen | tålk 08:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC).

DS awareness

One would also expect that an editor's actions would also show not only awareness but a spirit of adherence to them. That would mean a series of personal attacks, false allegations, and aspersions showing bad faith about/toward mainstream editors (even when unnamed, but easily identifiable to those in the know) would not appear anywhere, especially on their own talk page (some deleted).

Neither would fringe dissatisfaction with mainstream media and RS be evident. It is expected that editors have a positive learning curve and show greater sympathy with mainstream narratives from RS as time goes by.

Maintaining a crystal ball mentality, with reliance on the hope that one's favorite unreliable sources will be proven true, is irreconcilable with WP:CIR. We expect all editors to become suspicious and distrustful of bad sources. They should not harbor a secret or disguised reliance on them, and they should not defend their narratives. Just sayin' -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeh, you're right, Valjean. I was more just at that time giving the user a little technical help. The other things may come later. Bishonen | tålk 13:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC).
I've watched that user apparently, obsessively writing and rewriting a screed on their UTP over the last couple days. Thought I'd let it play out instead of mentioning it anywhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I'm watching too. (Not intently, so please let me know if there's something outrageous.) Very nice to see you around, Objective3000! Bishonen | tålk 15:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC).
Thanks, but I'm not here.:) BTW, rumor is there's some sort of holiday around now. So, happy, happy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The whole "fighting the good fight" vibe (a thread there) and wordings used are clearly fringe battlefield mentality, heaping upon heap of assumptions of bad faith, grabbing at straws to find something to attack, etc. This started (that is "this" time!) with my simple note that Soibangla was owed an apology. One often sees fake apologies ("I'm sorry, BUT...."), but this morphed into a huge self-justification fake apology that quickly diverted into a strong attack on me, starting with an assumption that I personally said something about Republican kamikazes and election deniers (which actually quotes Trey Gowdy, arch Republican politician and lawyer with a keen mind). Somehow I am to blame for quoting him. The overt ageism is also rather offensive to old geezers like me ("I suspect many of that cabal of hyper-liberal editors on Twitter Files are youthful"). So now dissing youthful editors is okay? I don't recall ever chastising the editor for being hyper-conservative, and in fact, WP:PA says this: "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions."

The whole vibe is akin to the constant drive-by IP attacks complaining about CIA-controlled left-wing editors, left-wing sources, and NPOV violations. These people really don't understand that NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content or neutral sources. The CIR issues are obvious. It's all very tiring and wastes so much time. NOTHERE and BATTLE seem to apply. More heat than light. This cannot be solved with short blocks. The myriad warnings have not worked. Only an AP2 topic ban will resolve this situation. That will take care of articles and talk pages. These kinds of fires should not be allowed to smolder. They're poisonous. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding block

As I apparently misunderstood the use of article tagging, I am willing to agree to cease using article tagging forthwith.

I don't understand how my edits to the red meat article constitute edit warring. As soon as it became clear that the consensus opposed an edit, I dropped the matter. Please explain what I have done wrong here. sbelknap (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

(I moved the above from your user page. -Hipal (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC))

Thanks, Hipal. Sbelknap, I was just going to try to explain this and some other things on your own page; I'll post there now. Bishonen | tålk 18:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC).

Happy New Year

Wishing you a year filled with prosperity, happiness, and good health. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy Kalends of January

Happy New Year!
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan editing

Please take a look at the recent editing history of Peter Gultuzan pertaining to the article PJ Media as he continues to frivolously remove Wikipedia approved source edits in the false claims section that have been made by PJ Media. The last editor who was removing approved source edits had a direct connection to the article, as he was a paid employee/writer with the article that he was editing and had been flagged at the top of the talk page (although much of the talk page has also been edited out as well). Not accusing Mr Gultuzan of having a direct connection, or if he has a personal political agenda, but it is strange he is suddenly targeting this article and removing wording that calls out the credibility of this political media website. The editor of PJ Media recently wrote a negative story of Wikipedia posted on their website[38] with Ms Bolyard calling for their readers if they know how to get around moderators and have some free time, then to "..do us a solid and get our page straightened out..." Since then, Peter Gultuzan has been feverishly editing out false claims (including a false claim made by Ms Bolyard herself, which made national news), which appears to be doing what that articles editor was requesting for someone to do. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.233.12.163 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, IP. I took a look, and "feverishly" seems a bit of an exaggeration. Anyway, I don't see anything that's for administrators to intervene in, but more of potential issues for normal editing. PG seems to always write explanatory edit summaries. Perhaps you'd like to edit the article yourself? If you have an account, please log in to edit. Bishonen | tålk 11:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC).

Happy New Year, Bishonen!

Happy New Year!

Bishonen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy new year

Best wishes.

I'm also dropping by with a question. I noticed a long-time editor was indeffed for a problematic edit, but I think the indef was disproportionate considering editor was warned and did not do the problematic thing again, AFAICT. In 15 years this editor had one 3RR block, several years ago. I know of several of these situations (so do you) but this one is relatively recent. I'm aware of the process for trying to reverse it. I'm wondering what you might think of the effort involved vs. likelihood of success in the current climate. (I'm intentionally being a little vague about the details.) Gimmetrow 23:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't form an opinion unless I know what the problematic edit was, and what the warning said. If you'd rather not specify these things in public, perhaps e-mail me? Bishonen | tålk 06:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC).

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_request. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, BK. Apparently all over now. Bishonen | tålk 22:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC).

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Talk:Take This Lollipop

Hi. I was wondering if you could protect the page in question. So far, IPs and newly registered users have been using the page for WP:NOTAFORUM posts and nonsense. There hasn’t been a single constructive discussion from any one of them. I chose to approach you personally because you used a similar rationale for protecting Talk:Mohammed bin Salman. Thank you in advance. SunilNevlaFan✨ 17:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Man, what a festival of crap. Semiprotected for a year. Thanks for letting me know, SunilNevlaFan. Bishonen | tålk 18:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC).

Peder Severin Krøyer paintings

I like your revolving artwork and love to see Krøyer's paintings. Marie Krøyer was a beautiful subject, reportedly the prettiest girl in Denmark at the time. The last time we visited Skagen, I bought a book about the Skagen Painters. It burned in the fire, but I just ordered a used copy thet should arrive soon.

Michael Ancher and his wife Anna Ancher were also very talented.

The lighting in Skagen really is special, and having two oceans meeting, crashing together, and battling around one's legs is quite the experience. Well worth the visit. My wife was born about two hours drive from there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The Krøyers are hard to resist aren't they. I have visited their home/museum in Skagen - an unassuming cottage full of art. Many of Marie's portraits of her daughter hang there, I really liked them. You'll hardly have seen the Swedish TV feature Selma, about Selma Lagerlöf, from 2008? Not likely... it doesn't even have an English Wikipedia article. I was just watching a rerun, though. Not bad at all, with Helena Bergström as Selma, a good deal more congenial than I've seen her in anything else. Anyway, in that, Marie Krøyer was played extremely well by the Danish actress Sonja Richter. And Göran Stangertz was a pretty useless Strindberg. Well, it was a useless part, with little to do except sneer at women writers and artists, individually and as a group. ("Mrs Krøyer, of course you realize you wouldn't be selling any paintings if it wasn't for your husband?") Realistic as far as it goes, that, for sure, but S had some more complex sides also.
The module [oh la la, she said "module"] that RexxS created for my revolving pics is at Module:Carousel/Shonen. Feel free to add more Skagen paintings to it if you like, Valjean. Bishonen | tålk 05:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC).

"Political hack"?

I'm not sure what you mean by "political hack" in this block summary. Is it part of a IP hack, or is it "hack" as in a minced oath? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, LilianaUwU. It's hack as in definition 1 and 2 of hack (noun) here, in Wordsmyth: a person who surrenders integrity in return for reward, a flunky. I'm getting this from the edit summary and text here (repeated here) — from the flavor of it. I'll allow that the IP could be just somebody who loves Modi with a passion and speaks from the heart, but, well, I find that hard to believe. Incidentally, the definitions of hack in Wiktionary seem quite incomplete — they focus on computing, whereas the sense I use it in is older, and surely at least equally well-known. I suppose that may be because Wiktionary is "the dictionary that Slashdot wrote". Bishonen | tålk 00:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC).
{ec} It's a standard expression and even has an article: Political hack. The truth of that assessment can be seen in just the edit summaries left by Special:Contributions/2409:40F3:25:FD00:0:0:0:0/64. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
@Johnuniq Oh yeah, I had no reason to doubt it was related to their unreasonable love for Modi. I wondered what exactly the term meant, and you two answered my question. Thanks! LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, @Johnuniq: I didn't know we had an article! Or that "political hack pack" was a thing, lol. Bishonen | tålk 18:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC).

Logdelling erroneous blocks

Hi Bishonen. Hope all is well. One minor task I do here is tidy up after erroneous blocks (which lead to incorrect warnings on m:User:Krinkle/Scripts/CVNSimpleOverlay unless I or someone else remove them). In that context I noticed these two actions. I totally get the motivation there, but there's actually a whole thing at WP:REVDEL prohibiting this (even if I personally think that rule's a bit too broad). Would you mind un-logdelling? Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Came to find out what "lodgelling" is. Got a F*** off your not an admin error. Sigh. - Roxy the dog 08:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Good catch, @Tamzin:. But I've thought about it, and I think I won't undo my revdel. The reason given at Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Log_redaction as to why log redaction is not permitted for "ordinary matters" (and I suppose a misclick is an ordinary matter) is that the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper (bold per original). The community does not in fact need to review WWGB's block; I can't imagine circumstances where that block would be of interest. I'm leaving it revdel'd per WP:IAR: it improves the encyclopedia to oblige WWGB when they request it, because it makes a constructive editor of 16 years' tenure happy, and does not reasonably disoblige anybody. As I told WWGB, I don't for my own part see a "clean" block log as something particularly positive, and am in fact proud of my own more colorful log (featured on my userpage). But clearly they don't feel the same way. Bishonen | tålk 13:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC).

Nope you're right

That's what I was talking about . Fixing it now Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

CUK

Hi Bish, just to let you know that while this has a certain rationality, it really does look like an OWN conflict with someone who has made less edits to both article and talk space than the individual who opened the thread. While CUK is an inexperienced editor and should be ‘realigned’ to ensure they could be a constructive editor, there was equal disruption from the OP which wasn’t really examined. My comment came in late in the day when it was probably too late, but the problems with the OP (who I have previously had to pull up for misrepresenting sources and adding incorrect information on a BLP) will continue on this and other articles. I don’t expect (or suggest) any change to what’s happened, but it’s worth keeping an eye on in future. Cheers SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat, your statement expressed skepticism of the value of edit counts in assessing disruption and then proceeded to only cite edit counts as evidence of misconduct on Shibbolethink's part. You appear to be repeating the allegation here with no more evidence. Edit counts are particularly unhelpful when it comes to Shibbolethink, who has a habit of repeatedly amending his own comments before others respond. I've told him before that I find the habit suboptimal, but it's doesn't make his editing equally disruptive to CUK's. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I think this is a fair criticism, that I also probably participated a lot in those discussions. I think when I see a user who is so clearly violating PAGs or furthering a POV, I don't hesitate to reply or comment trying to describe the right course of action. I don't think my replies amounted to bludgeoning, though, as multiple other users also commented and replied to the user, and many of my replies were to comments from CUK directly addressing me in section headings in violation of TPG. There are many threads where I did not reply, or replied once and left the rest up to other users.
I would add that a good portion of the 57 edits that SC describes are me actually fixing CUK's WP:TPG violations. I would say the "# of edits" is indeed a poor metric, given FFFs absolutely true comment that I repeatedly edit talk page comments after posting them. As far as I can tell, this does not go against anything in TPG, which indeed says this is totally kosher to do up until someone replies. And, besides, the complaint actually described "increasing prominence" of ones comments, the length of such comments, and "repeatedly making new discussions" as the issue, not the actual "volume" of responses. In total, I made 68 replies on the page, versus CUK's 82. (in reply or "comment" count, not edit count)
SchroCat has, as far as I can tell, no relationship to the page itself, or the talk. I certainly hope they are not participating here and at ArbE simply because I was involved in a long and drawn out AN thread about their conduct as an anonymous IP. I think, in general, they like to comment on conduct discussions, so I don't think this is HOUDNING or anything like that. But I also would say that our history probably precludes them from being "objective" in this matter. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Bish, I’ll leave my comment for you to discuss, without the misguided accusations of “HOUDNING” (sic), etc., but given the possible grief, feel free to ignore it all. Cheers (and sorry again). SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat, thanks for following up. I didn't partial-block for the number of CUK's edits, but for their character: I considered (many of) them promotional, while I believe Shibbolethink was playing a defensive game to keep the article neutral. I placed those p-blocks on my own authority, early on in the AE discussion, but left the section open for further input, and it turned out that the other two uninvolved admin who commented agreed with the blocks. (Pay no attention to the technical discussion of p-blocks vs p-bans; as Callanecc says, that's merely about the paperwork.) As for sealioning that you mention, it's explained in our article and I think it's fine word! And relevant here. It comes from this cartoon. Bishonen | tålk 07:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC).
Thanks for coming back to me; I’d query some of the nature of some of the edits made by all sides in this, and it looks like CUK is ‘sinned against as well as sinning’ here. It’s dispiriting to come across someone who reverts input without due concern (while I was editing as an IP, Shibbolethink did exactly that to me on Mark Rylance - going so far as to misrepresent sources on a BLP just to block out my edits, then stonewalling on the talk page and outright lying on what was the STATUS QUO). It seems this may be the case with some of the edits here. It’s easy for a couple of people to push a third party onto the talk page and tie them up in knots over STATUS QUO, while claiming to be keeping an article ‘neutral’. One OWNer’s ‘neutral’ is often not a reflection of the sources. CUK is obviously inexperienced, but needs help, not drama boards to get them to improve. There are some “games” - defensive or otherwise - we do not need see played out on BLPs, and there seems to be similarity with my experience at Rylance; I hope the pattern is not repeated elsewhere, although little surprises me on WP any more.
As a ps, you can ignore the snide insinuation that I have only raised the matter because of the failed AN thread - that's a straw man (and actually another red flag of a battleground 'player' trying to stack the odds in their favour): my concerns are based on the experience from the misrepresenting sources on the Rylance BLP violation, and the sub-standard approach I have seen elsewhere, including Moorgate tube crash. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

My talkpage stalkers...

... are amazing. When they revert vandalism, lightning stands still! It's appreciated, guys. Bishonen | tålk 21:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC).

Ha, this is great, but I've no idea what the stalkers did? Dont care actually, hehe. - Roxy the dog 23:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
... Polar bear in a quandry, in case you were wondering. - Roxy the dog 23:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
They did what they always do, Roxy: moved as silently as the jungle cat and reverted vandalism to this page faster than the Phantom. The guardian polar bear can't catch everything, I guess. Bishonen | tålk 08:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC).

Block Hammer

Hey do you mind protecting the Ukraine Greece page for persist sockpuppetry? Could use some behavioral based blocks too [[39]] Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

? I'm not aware of any page called "Ukraine Greece". Please provide the actual page name (preferably in link form) for requests like this. Bishonen | tålk 14:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC).
Maybe start following your own decisions? Seriously, I’m not the one who changed the article title to Odesa. -Correct spelling of cities in Ukraine (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry Bish, Greece–Ukraine relations Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Already protected by mr ScottishFinnishRadish. Bishonen | tålk 14:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC).
And the obvious sock/meatpuppet blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
You both are amazing. The SPI is undergoing a Checkuser now and there are more accounts. Whack-a-mole time for the SPI folks. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

They said they were going to appeal...

...I just didn't expect it to take 7 months before the attempt. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess they took my comment pretty literally. Already declined, I see. Bishonen | tålk 08:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC).
"There's no business like show business like no business I know
Everything about it is appealing, everything that traffic will allow"
Yur welcome. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, it look like they were pronounally challenged on DEWIKI -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I was a big fan of "I did nothing wrong" as an unblock rationale directly below You guys are so cool and powerful! why don't you just suck each other off and the one who does a better job gets to ban me. touch grass ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
eeewww -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I think I missed that. I do wonder where their "disagreements" with me took place, per the unblock request, as I have no memory of them. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC).
I think they were just lashing out at you because you were the blocking admin, and you asked who they were a sock of. I don't think you actually interacted directly with them anywhere else. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Exactly, that's what I was getting at: it's an example of how they speak at random. Not the only one. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC).

Your pal

Ajwadsabano sought renaming. I declined as it looks like attempted obfuscation. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Fritter. Can a blocked user even be renamed? How can they even seek it? Where? (Asking for a friend.) Bishonen | tålk 20:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC).
Global renaming requests on META. There are more ways than I can count. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Not this user. They were just blocked. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm a little reluctant to reveal the depth of my ignorance, but here goes. Why doesn't this global renaming request show up here? Or here? Bishonen | tålk 20:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC).
Because that's how it shows up. In contribs. Maddening -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"Absurd evidentiary diff"?

Not to make a federal case out of it, but I don't see the "absurdity" of my evidence relating to Wes sideman. The guy (I assume) goes around like a bull in a china shop, disparaging other editors and reverting their edits with little logic. In the diff I provided he was presented with a long list of sources, other than the Atlanta Constitution, which carried articles on the Shaun White "white Jesus" controversy, at least two of which Wikipedia specifically lists as reliable. He replied: "Again - one article, in the local Atlanta newspaper". That s the kind of thing which certainly gets politicians labeled as liars. Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

February songs

February songs
my daily stories

Fresh flowers for you, with thanks for petit fours served ;) - My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel (TFA by Amitchell235), and I made a suggestion for more peace, - what do you think? - On your great user page, the archive image is too bit for the new layout. I could work for a week to make my archives look halfway decent, sigh. I miss Doug. Just today and by chance, I found a great quote by him, put on my present user page for easy reference. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for celebrating Ukraine today, Gerda. Too big..? Yes, I suppose it is, but the Stockholm Public Library is pretty big. Better now? Bishonen | tålk 19:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC).
A bit better but ... - I wish Doug was here. I'm afraid that everybody sees things differently now, depending on which skin. For me, the pic escapes the frame on the right, still. I wonder if an upright definition would cure that? I keep using the frame design copied from Br'er Rabbit, without understanding which parameter makes what. Perhaps there's something saying: surround the pic no matter how big, to give the Stockholm archives proper space. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I tried now something with your pic that works for me, but how is it for you? - today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
It's unsymmetrical for me — was neater before — but only slightly. It'll do. Are you using something abhorrent like Vector? Bishonen | tålk 12:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC).
I use the abhorrent new style because I'm afraid most of our readers will see it that way. Feel free to return, or find a centering device perhaps? - For me, it sticks out of the frame on the right, but you should be pleased. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
We are talking about the appearance of the "A r c h i v e s" box at User:Bishonen. The image extends past the right-hand side of the box for me in both versions although in the new skin Gerda's version works. I would ask at WP:VPT about how to fix the wikitext but the fundamental problem appears to be an attempt to specify the width of the box as an absolute value while the image it contains is also a fixed width (I think). There would be some clever way of using proportions but changing the box from width:14em; to width:16em; works for me. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
With the bigger image,like this? Or you change it, please, John. Bishonen | tålk 03:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC).
That works for me provided I enable scripting which almost everyone will have enabled. It's likely some guru could improve the html but that might not be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
So... what's scripting? And you replied at 09:19, just after Gerda made another change, John. Is that the version you say works for you? Because I've reverted her last change. It's unattractive, sorry. Bishonen | tålk 10:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC).
We will have to accept that we see different things, depending on the skin, so can't see "it is ugly", but only "what I see looks ugly to me". I see a round-edged box and an image that's inside top left and bottom, but sonsiderably protruding right. I wouldn't cal it ugly but surprising, and wondered if intentionally so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
A much bigger box than the photo of Doug Taylor that it sits below is an unattractive element of the page layout. The library pic still protrudes in the new Vector skin? Let's see what John says about that. No, the protrusion is not supposed to be an artistic effect, lol. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC).
I was saying that Gerda's version from 09:15, 1 March 2023 works for me (if WP:JAVASCRIPT is enabled). For me, the Bishonen version from 10:08, 1 March 2023 is broken with the image significantly protruding from the right-hand side of the box even when the browser is maximized on a big screen. The following links should show the current user page in two different skins: monobook and Vector 2022. Both are currently broken for me. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Wow, the Vector 2022 looks absolutely terrible. But the Monobook looks fine — indeed, that's how it looks for me always, since I use Monobook. I don't understand how that can look broken for you, John. I give up. As for Javascript... well, I have a lot of Javascripts in my User:Bishonen/monobook.js and User:Bishonen/common.js (yes, I have both those, because I'm an idiot). Shouldn't that mean js is enabled? Perhaps I'd better just stop archiving. [Removes archive box.] Definitely better, even if I wish the "Bookmarks" thing would be on the right rather than in the middle, but I can't tell how to achieve that. OK, no archives. Bishonen | tålk 08:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC).

How is this (sorry, drastic change): The archives seem to be no archives of the user page, but of the talk page. Move the whole container to the talk page, with whatever big size of the impressive library? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Help!

Hi, Bishonen. I wonder if you will be willing to post the following in the ANI discussion about me:

Unfortunately, my computer has stopped working, and my phone can't cope with really long pages, such as ANI has recently been, making reading the page at times difficult and at times impossible, and making editing the page totally impossible, so I am asking Bishonen if she will help by posting this for me. All I have to say about this is that I've read it, and everything I might have said has already been said. JBW (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Done, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:JBW. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Johnuniq. 🙂 JBW (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Mureungdowon#Stop trying to crowbar anti-Korean sentiment into Antisemitism

You seem to like anime and manga in Japan. Therefore, you cannot have an NPOV perspective on my editing. If you didn't like anime and manga, I wouldn't say it could be blocked just because I talked about the similarities between "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Korean sentiment". In this topic, you should not restrict my editing, but other administrators should intervene. I think your intervention is not objective. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If you look at your name and user page, you cannot take an objective view because you are Japanese or have a friendly view of Japan even if you are not Japanese. You should never use administrator privileges in this matter. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of identity you have, but it's really upsetting to do a Japanese-style user page and tell me "blocked" about the topic. I believe that if you were an administrator unrelated to Japan, you wouldn't have threatened to "blocked" me with that editing. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
You had much better join the discussion of your edit that Zero0000 has started on Talk:Antisemitism than make foolish personal assumptions here on my page. I have little to no interest in Japanese (or Korean) topics. Bishonen | tålk 13:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC).

User talk:Zara yee and templated warnings

Yeah, they'd made two edits when I warned them. I don't go digging through templates for wording nitpicks; if it were significant enough (e.g., "You've made ten edits, and all of them have been based on your opinion") I would have added a separate comment to the end of the message. —C.Fred (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

C.Fred, I'm sorry I seem to have offended you. That was not my intention. Bishonen | tålk 15:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC).
No, you didn't, not at all. I'm sorry if it came across as if I were offended; I wrote that before I'd had my first coffee of the morning. :) —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, we're good. Bishonen | tålk 18:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC).

‎Sebastienostertag topic ban

Hello. I'm not sure if this is the proper way place to put this, so I apologize if its not, but I've noticed that User:‎Sebastienostertag has been making edits in violation of a topic ban. They have continued to edit abortion related articles in ways that mischaracterize the legal limits of U.S. state abortion law and remove trans-inclusive language. Edits to support such claims can be seen here, here, here, and here. RoundSquare (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Not mischaracterizing. That is the law as written in those states. Sebastienostertag (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
So what? You are banned from editing all pages and discussions related to abortion. The articles you have been editing actually all have the word abortion in the title, and I urged you to look up what "topic ban" means, so I can't see any room for misunderstanding. Blocked for a week. RoundSquare, thank you very much. Bishonen | tålk 18:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC).

Entschuldigen

Sprechen Sie Hindi? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Ha. Non, m'sieur. Bishonen | tålk 19:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC).

Your block of 82.132.184.0/22

Hi Bishonen. I noticed while processing a WP:ACC request that your block of User:82.132.184.0/22 had {{rangeblock|create=yes}} as the block reason, but account creation is still blocked. Could you please either allow account creation (if that was what was intended) or change the block reason to not have the |create=yes parameter? Best, — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Mdaniels5757. I'm sorry, and a little embarrassed, but I didn't know what rangeblock|create=yes means. I was merely parroting the partial 6-month block set by Tamzin, which had been running for 7 weeks, and which I wanted to modify into a sitewide block. (Or maybe I didn't even spot the phrase in her block — I can't say I remember the incident.) See the log. From your post, I understand more or less what it means, i. e. that account creation is allowed. So be it; I've fixed it. Thanks for getting in touch. Bishonen | tålk 20:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC).
I made this mistake on one of my own blocks recently. Perhaps there should be (or already is) a database report for such mismatches. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

request redirect not delete for Palm Towers AFD

Hi, I see you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palm Towers (2nd nomination) with "Delete", which is in fact consistent with all !votes but mine, which was for "Redirect". However, on the merits (including that we are obligated to consider and use alternatives to deletion, and there is a good alternative suggested), IMHO the outcome should be "Redirect". Could you possibly please reconsider, and if you can agree please restore the article and then redirect it, instead? I'm maybe sorry to be a bother, but IMHO this stuff matters (including for sake of preventing re-creations of the same articles again and again, because outsider-type editors can't see the edit history). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 09:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Before you decide, please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Mana Tower (2nd nomination) which ran simultaneously, where I copied in my statement from the Palm Towers AFD, and others agreed and it was closed Redirect by User:Ritchie333. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 09:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a look later, Doncram. I do note that Ritchie and I both closed our respective discussions per consensus, but the cases are undeniably similar. I'll think about it some more. Bishonen | tålk 10:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC).
As Bishonen said, we closed the AfDs with the consensus we were presented with, but it's interesting to see two fairly similar articles get different views at AfD. One possibility, I guess, is that the term "Palm Towers" is a bit more generic and vague, and therefore the participants at that AfD might have felt it to be an unsuitable redirect. Alternatively, as another way forward, we could re-open and re-list the AfD for a further week, asking specifically about the redirect, and if consensus comes back as either "yes, that'll be alright" or "no, we don't want a redirect either", then that's your answer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Do you mean re-open and re-list both of them, Ritchie333, or just "mine"? Either way, that sounds good to me. If it's not an imposition, do you think you could do it? I'm not really at home in the AFD world; I only know to click "Close", write a rationale, and sit back and watch Twinkle do the rest. Bishonen | tålk 18:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC).
I've re-opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palm Towers (2nd nomination) so it runs for another week. It's basically the same procedure as a deletion review closing as "relist", but with a bit less drama. I don't think anyone's objecting to the Al Mana Tower AfD, so I don't think that needs relisting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Great! Thanks very much. Bishonen | tålk 19:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC).

Offensive IP post on Talk Page

Hello Bishonen. Thank you for removing what sounds like a nasty post from my Talk Page. I am a bit curious what it was all about, but also maybe it is for the best that I don't know. All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't enjoy this one much, MrsSnoozyTurtle, but frankly, the time I handed in my tools, I really missed being able to read revdel'd posts. My curiosity was killing me. Bishonen | tålk 22:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC).
I know the feeling, I click on the "admins only" link, thinking "I'll just double check this" and every time come away thinking, "jeez, I wish I hadn't read that". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Yep -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for shielding me from it. Nice pun in the edit summary, Bishonen :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

One-way IBAN

I am feeling pretty harassed. They are following me around, since the Minaro123 AE thread where the result went against them:

  • Note that ER has never edited any article on Seljuq (or Turkmen) history unlike me. And, the thread is absolutely spurious.
  • Attempt to poison the well, again w/o pinging me. I spotted it quite late.
  • March 2023: Today's thread at Harry's t/p.

Do note that I have never interacted with ER since the Minaro123 episode since our editing interests do not align at all. So, I won't even care if it is a two-way IBAN. What say you? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi, TrangaBellam. Supposedly I can set I-bans at my sole admin discretion per the Contentious topics system, always assuming I'm able to wrestle the bureaucracy of it to the ground, and maybe I will. It had definitely better be a two-way I-ban, yes; I'm sure I'd get enough protests and indignation over that. As an introductory salvo, I have warned Elinruby (you forgot to ping them, TB!) and have asked Barkeep49 about some technicalities. Bishonen | tålk 14:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC).
    Thanks, Bish. I do not mind the occassional friction, esp. if in good faith, but this is something else, as you rightly recognized. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
    Really ought be a one way i-ban (with a IPA t-ban) or even an indef block, they are clearly following TB around, either just to complain about them or to get into arguments. This is plain hounding and it'd be completely unjustified to impose a sanction (through a two way i-ban) on the one being hounded as well.
    I say this especially after the recent comment on your talk page which is filled with assumptions of bad faith, lot of which boils down to accusations of racism (e.g, "rewrote it into a diatribe about ... and/or money-grubbing naive villagers", "made it into an ethnic slur", etc). I have been looking at the Aryan Valley and I don't see anything remotely resembling these incendiary accusations. This is accompanied by ownership behavior or rather frustration at a failure to own (e.g, requesting the article to be deleted and salted because it doesn't say what they want it to say?, then the comments, "She completely appropriated an article that got through AfD because I said I would work on it", "she should have ranted about Hindu nationalists in her own damn article instead of the one I said at AFD that I would foster and nurture")
    If Elinruby can't deal with content disputes or consensus being against them and resorts to this kind of behavior then they shouldn't be editing. I would absolutely not want to deal with someone who reacts like this. Tayi Arajakate Talk 01:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Cough. Don't mind me, Tayi ArajakateI, am just passing through getting diffs. Pretty sure you are missing a few things or not going far enough back in the talk page history, but cough, you are definitely saying things that aren't true about me, and really, what is your interest in this? You seem very very invested in disparaging me, and I know I:be never talked to you before. I ignored you earlier, but either desist, please, gather some evidence that I was trying to own an article (that I didn't write, lol) and get formal about your strange preconceptions. And I wish you luck with that. I advise the former, but of course this is totally up to you. I don't feel the need to spend more ink on this than I just did, but please watch out for what you don't understand but gossip about anyway. I despise the drama boards but pushed hard enough I *do* reconsider. It's just ridiculous to say that I own *any* freaking article, and I suggest you think carefully about ranting on an administrator talk page in this vein again. Bishonen, I have had reason to appreciate you and yesterday was one of those times, but please teach your talk page lurkers to ping! And better yet, not to carelessly cast aspersions. Apart from copyedits and translations, Tayi ArajakateI, all I *do* is work on big messy articles with several other editors. What I *don't* do is take an article to AfD because I myself already wrote an article on a related topic. Eye roll. Peace out, Bishonen, and thanks for all the lulz. I promise not to edit any typos in this little admonishment I just administered.Elinruby (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Elinruby, I can't much sense of what you are trying to say here but I did ping you and the evidence is there as well. When you say (Special:Diff/1145209696) things like "she should have ranted about Hindu nationalists in her own damn article instead of the one I said at AFD that I would foster and nurture", it shows an WP:OWN attitude (as well as it being pretty uncivil), no one is obligated to leave an article for you to "foster and nurture" and anyone is free to introduce content in it.
Bishonen, they already have two logged warnings (April 2022, January 2023) for similar behaviour, isn't it time to consider broader sanctions? Pinging Callanecc, who gave the latest logged warning, to see what they think. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't have time for this right now but you misunderstand completely. The guy who wrote had very poor English and I said I would coach him through it. If you did ping me it never hit my radar. I can look into that later if it's important Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Tayi Arajakate, I'm not well enough versed in the field (or fields) involved to consider broader sanctions at this time, but I certainly won't stand in the way if another admin wants to, or if you would like to take the matter to WP:ANI or WP:AE. I'm more just applying a tourniquet here, with a no-fault two-way I-ban that will hopefully stop the bleeding and take some of the pressure off both users. Elinruby, Tayi did ping you, in the sentence starting "If Elinruby can't deal with content disputes or consensus being against them..". Pings do fail occasionally, but that's not her fault. Bishonen | tålk 16:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC).
ok. If she spelled my name right then that is probably what happened though. I'll look at my history later but basically I have no interest in crying aspersions but what she said was close to libelous and I don't see how she can know anything about that situation at all. Not going to speculate on where she got her information because that would be bad. Now Barkeep asked me a question about the Collaboration with Axis powers article and I don't mean to be rude but I would like to finish that and go to sleep, k thanks. Elinruby (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I would love an interaction ban

Please see my answer on my talk page, and the link linked hijacked thread where she threatens me. However I am asking to add her as a party to the Arbcom case fyi so please do exempt that. She keeps begging me to take her to a board so I am gonna. I can't stand bullies is why. Elinruby (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Elinruby (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
sorry for some reason I thought we were on Trangabellam's page. I don't follow her anywhere though, for crying out loud. I watch RSN, and that is why I asked about adding her, and looked her up. And I also need to be able to discuss Aryan Valley, where she completely gutted an article after failing to AfD it because it was "unnecessary" because it was she had already written about some other aspect of the disputed ethnicities up there. Elinruby (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Apart from that I would be delighted to have her out of my life. Elinruby (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
as for "I have never interacted with Elinruby since Minaro123", ooo. That is *really* misleading.
Strictly speaking this is true, since it is always about that bit extreme newbie biting she did at AE, but I think the link I sent you disproves that. I was minding my own business commenting on an RfA, and WritKeeper was nice enough to fix a tag for me. Does that sound like provocation to you? Elinruby (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
To address her complaints above, yes, I wanted to add the Minaro case to the other one, but withdrew after realizing that that editor did seem to be somewhat at fault. My bad, I admit to impulse control as an issue. I am working on it. As for the HJ Mitchell page, that was with respect to only giving her a warning for these repeated behaviors of hers. He said that since she hadn't previously been warned it wouldn't make a difference what I added, and maybe she would amend her ways. It's possible I didn't ping her and if so my mistake. She didn't mention it at the time, just posted a diff where she accused me of distorting a source because I called a town on the line of control a village. I didn't mention a freaking source at all. I was complaining that she rewrote Aryan Valley as I protested in real time and was told that there were no editing restrictions on anything but the the India-Pakistan conflict, and I said that some of these villages are right on the front line. Ok, apparently Kargil is a town. It's also not in Aryan Valley.

But anyway. While you are working the logistics of that out could you be kind enough to remind me of the proper search term to find the editor interaction thingie? "Editor interaction tool" isn't working for me. I am sure someone is going to want to to see the diff where she made fun of an article I've never edited then of me for not knowing what the hell she was talking about. I got editor of the Week for *Operation Car Wash*. I happened to also have a barnstar on my page at the time for contributions to articles in the category of "African cinema" during an editing drive. Also, she is wrong about my edit history. I in fact regularly edit Central Asia, but my interest in that case was the similarity in tactics to what happened to Minaro123. Sorry for all the edits, I forgot To @TrangaBellam:. Done talking here now. Elinruby (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I was minding my own business commenting on an RfA, and WritKeeper was nice enough to fix a tag for me. Does that sound like provocation to you? - WHAT?
I started with, Hi, not creating a new thread ... Why do you make it seem like I had jumped on to some issue that concerned you and WritKeeper? I did not feel like opening a new thread and would have appended my short message to whatever damn thread was the last on your t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, what's this in relation to? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
[Bishzilla sticks the little Writ Keeper in her pocket.] Never mind, little user, not worth the ink! Have sherry on sofa in Victorian parlour. Decompress! [A little more sharply:] Stay! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 18:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC).

@Elinruby:, I can ban you both from interacting with each other, with an exemption for you to add evidence about TB to the current "History of Jews in Poland" arb case (especially since I see you have already started to), and for her to respond there if she wishes. But there will be no exemptions for Aryan Valley; a ban is not a Swiss cheese. Instead, see WP:IBAN for how to act if you should run into each other there: "The interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other". They're not allowed to reply to each other in discussions or undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means. If there is good faith, it's simple, really. All right? Bishonen | toålk 18:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC).

If it keeps her away from me that would be great. I don't think it will, but I have no choice but to AGF right? I'll do my best but I am trying to picture how the Aryan Valley part would work, and I am not seeing it. She took an article about a place and rewrote it into a diatribe about some alleged plot by Hindu nationalists and/or money-grubbing naive villagers. And the article already survived AFD.

I am not trying to give you a hard time, Bishonen, and I know you are thinking "but you are", but I really really need a path forward on that. Other than that, hmm, I want to say what if she keeps doing this but I guess at this point I can let other people take care of that. Is it possible to just delete and salt that article? Would that require another proceeding? I promised that kid it would get taken care of. You were there and corrected me about what is a topic ban, remember? As in not a page block? Apart from that one issue that would be fine. Fantastic even. Maybe if you take a look at the article you'll see my point. She completely appropriated an article that got through AfD because I said I would work on it and made it into an ethnic slur. it's the first day of spring here and I need to get some diffs in before I go plant tomatoes. Let me know. Thanks. PS: Writ Keeper I concur, you are only very very peripherally involved. Someone hid out in your thread is all. TL;DR as far you are concerned is that she should have loomed menacingly in her own damn thread, just like she should have ranted about Hindu nationalists in her own damn article instead of the one I said at AFD that I would foster and nurture. Yeah I'm still mad. She's was doing the same the to Marcelus *last night* after getting him a zero-revert sanction. And then came and told you some fairy story about how I am stalking her for god's sake. Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC) /me coughs, not of course that there is anything wrong with seeing fairies <g> many of my remote ancestors no doubt did that all the time. So as you think best, Bishonen, as you say this is a ridiculous amount of ink and at least she'll have to stop this stuff. Elinruby (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus took TrangaBellam to WP:AE, and you describe that as TrangaBellam getting Marcelus a zero-revert sanction, really? AFAICS, Marcelus got themselves that sanction. Anyway, OK, I've done as I think best. See your own page, and you see yours, TrangaBellam. Also, Elinruby I'm trying to be tolerant of your number of edits here, because I realize it's hard on mobile to keep them together and to avoid corrections, but you realize you have edited my page, and thus pinged me, something like 15 times in the space of 7 hours? Just putting it out there. Bishonen | tålk 22:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC).
I actually do realize that you got notified every time I did something and appreciate your good humor about it. How did Writ Keeper get pinged though? Confused about that. But yeah, fwiw I don't think any such allegations should have been on your talk page to begin with. I went to HJ Mitchell because it was his warning. But I do realize that you probably earned that barnstar below once the drama came over here. I still think you are looking at it wrong, or at least not the way I am. To the extent that he had prior edit-warring history, I agree with you. My point is that he wasn't edit-warring any more than I stalked anybody. So while I understand how the sanctions were arrived, that is what I am talking about. In that particular context. You can figure he would have edit-warred somewhere else and maybe you would be right. All *I* know is that I asked him to help me with that Collaboration with the Axis powers article, and he is doing a damn good job of not arguing with people there even though some of the other people at article right now have had big arguments with him before. We're not buds, you know. He knows more about the Baltics that I do is all. Peace. I reread several times and hopefully caught all the errors this time that I am not trying so hard to erm, not invoke the lightning bolts of indignation or something  ;)Elinruby (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I didn't get pinged; I watch Bish's talk page, and happened to pop in on this thread and saw my name mentioned twice. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
You don't have much sense of drama, Writ Keeper. You should have done as the great Raul654 used to when he got a question on those lines (not literally about pings, because they didn't exist yet); he would grandly declare "I see everything". I was a green user, and I sort of believed him. I thought he must have some secret tricks, and actually did see everything. Bishonen | tålk 23:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC).
Kautilya3 and Joshua Jonathan, fyi. The two of you, having edited the concerned page, might like to be looped in since I have sought a one/two-way IBan with ER and might not be able to contribute to the article or relevant discourse any further. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
You deserve this for your prompt and tireless efforts as an admin in order to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, the latest example being protecting the article on Mahishya! Ekdalian (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

AfD first-timers at WP:Articles for deletion/Krishna Charan Mukherjee

Hello Bishonen. As the AFD nominator, I need to be careful about WP:BLUGEONING... but I think there's something fishy about the accounts 24GT, 1OA9 and MarkJustice54. All three are less than a year old and it looks like this is their first AFD involvement.

Would you mind having a quick look and seeing what you think please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, MrsSnoozyTurtle; now that I finally get time to look, I see it's all over. With the result you preferred, so that's good. I'm not sure one could have done anything about the accounts, anyway. 10A9 and 24GT look shady, admittedly. They may have been contacted off site - both have wiki e-mail - or.. or... well, look at the similarity of the types of names, plus the fact that they were created just 26 hours apart, 7 months ago! Duck test material, for sure. The third account doesn't fit in, though. Bishonen | tålk 17:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC).
No need to apologise, there was no rush at all! These accounts seem like a concern, regardless of the outcome of the AFD. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about this. I have requested a sockpuppet investigation for 1OA9. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies

Bishonen, apologies for you not getting a ping. I did attempt to ping you in this edit but I forgot to sign it. And then when I did sign it didn't occur to me that I'd have failed to ping you. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

A related process question, isn't your removal of the exemption, Barkeep49, either subject to WP:CTOP#Appeals and amendments or a sanction independent of Bihonen's IBAN itself (so subject to WP:CTOP#Contentious topic restrictions)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Consultation with me wasn't an option, then, or even an I-hope-you-don't-mind note on my page, but only a ping? I accept your apology, Barkeep49, but I would still prefer it if ArbCom took over these I-bans. It would be awkward for me to try to enforce or follow them up, or discuss them with the users, when ArbCom is in the process of overruling my conditions, and may do so again. Would the simplest way be for me to lift my bans, and the committee can replace them with whatever they prefer? Or is this where I get told "ARCA's thataway"? Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC).
At the risk of talking out of turn, I'm rather surprised ArbCom chose to modify a CT sanction within days (hours?) of its imposition without consulting the admin imposing it. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
So I think we're an interesting area of "wikilaw" that I hadn't fully considered when I acted. ArbCom has a lot of latitude, by both precedent and procedure, for managing the conduct of participants with-in arb space. As a drafter I have specific authority around managing the case to enforce behavior norms. I arrived to the project, having multiple user talk messages from each and from an extended challenge of evidence already submitted. And the edits were continuing to come. So I felt a bit or urgency while also wanting to create time for a plan. The plan would decide how ArbCom wanted to handle and rather than allowing the two to go at each other, I felt I would build on the existing sanction to create space for the clerks and ArbCom to make a longer term decision with-in arb space. It was never intended to be a permanent change, only, from the start a temporary one, a nuance that I think got lost initially but also doesn't matter to the larger point being raised here about modifying a sanction.
Upon deeper reflection, I continue to think that a sanctioning admin can't bind the committee (or its authorized representatives, the drafters) from managing the behavior of editors at a case (or more broadly with-in arbcom space). So the exception can be made, without issue, and in fact is a positive exception But this is not at all clear cut and the opposite position - that it could only be modified through a formal vote - is a reasonable one. And as I admitted up front was not something I considered or focused on and, for what it's worth, was not something that anyone who weighed in on the email thread I started mentioned either. So ultimately I would really encourage you to go the ARCA route because I think there's a bigger piece here that needs clarity. This would also let the Committee formally take it over. But if you don't want to do that the simplest is you can make me the enforcing administrator. FWIW, on my list of things to do now are to implement the consensus lifting that suspension. Courtesy pings for @Vanamonde93 and @Callanecc. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I don't believe anyone here is questioning ARBCOM's authority to modify sanctions, only the need to do so without chatting with the sanctioning admin, or indeed even explaining the reason for the modification. If I'm understanding you correctly the two parties are interacting in such a way as to make the evidence phase harder for everyone; but even just saying so explicitly when making the modification would have avoided the need for this conversation, I think. I'll pipe down now, and I'm certainly not going to ARCA, but it seems to me ARBCOM shouldn't be doing things that discourage admins from taking discretionary actions in CT areas; it's hard enough as it is. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
If you partial block someone as a CT, explicitly saying that a full block isn't appropriate, and then disruption continues I then make it a full block am I overruling you? I would argue no. I think if my ping had gone through in the first place a lot of this agitation would have been lessened. But you're right that more communication should have happened here. And you're also right that supporting admins who do CT enforcement is very important to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe a sanctioning admin can't bind the committee, Barkeep49, but surely nothing can prevent the committee from exercising the ordinary niceties, in this case talking to me before modifying my sanction, at least at the same time as talking with the banned users. Leaving me to notice Kautilya's post here on my watchlist is not quite the same thing. Before you repeat that you tried to ping me, pinging is not enough.
Anyway. I'm not enamoured of the ARCA route. Clearing up wrinkles in the Contentious Topics rules, or in the ArbCom charter, isn't the kind of thing I would choose to spend my time doing at Wikipedia.
Are you sure an enforcing administrator is a thing? I don't actually think I have any particular responsibility for enforcing those bans just because they're "mine" in the sense that I set them. Any admin can enforce any I-ban. What I am, though, is the first port of call for the I-banned users if they want to have their bans modified, or lifted, or ask a question about how the ban applies in a particular situation. In the current situation, I don't much like to be that first port of call. This is what I'd like to do: if the users come to me with any of those questions, can I send them on to you, without any previous formalities? That would be more comfortable.
Finally, Barkeep, I do appreciate what a lot of thankless work a big arb case like the Polish Holocaust involves, especially for the drafters. As a Wikipedian, I appreciate you taking it on, and I absolutely do not want to make your life any harder. Bishonen | tålk 19:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC).
As I noted above to Vanamonde, more communication wouldn't have hurt and would have definitely helped. And yes in terms of "enforcing admin" maybe we dont' use that language any more but it's exactly what you were suggesting - who can change/remove the sanction without a consensus of admin/arbs. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your answer is to my question, Barkeep49. Could you please state explicitly whether it's agreeable to you that I send the users in question on to you if they come to me asking to have their bans modified or lifted, or asking about some specific application of the ban? Also, is the "agitation" you speak of your description of my posts in this matter? Perhaps also Vanamonde's? Or what does it refer to? Bishonen | tålk 23:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC).
Sorry for not being clear on that. It is agreeable but please update the log to note it. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Done. Are you not going to answer my other question, Barkeep49, about my (?) "agitation"? Sorry to be a nag, but I'd like to know what you mean by that kind of talk. Bishonen | tålk 16:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC).
I didn't answer because I was trying to move on from this and so continuing to dive into what has happened here didn't seem like the best use of my time and didn't seem like it was necessary for you since you wrote I absolutely do not want to make your life any harder. I was referring to how I've read your posts. "Upset" would have been a better word choice, but agitated was what I came up with in the moment. I have given this conversation a lot of effort, at the expense of the case itself. I have now spent the last hour working on this response rather than summarizing evidence as I intended (and still need to do), because I respect you Bish and because I have been trying to not let my own emotional state (puzzlement which has turned into extreme frustration) bleed into this conversation. And because of that respect for you I've attempted to own what I did wrong here. But I also haven't belabored that because you told me you accepted my apology. What I don't think I did wrong here, and so have not apologized for, was suspending the ability of the two people to participate in the arbcom case. I genuinely appreciate Callanecc's description below but I am also not going to apologize or say I should have done a better job with that because I did give that a lot of effort. If I ever have to do this again, I will use Callanecc's wording as my basis because I am constantly looking to better myself. But it's hard for me to say I should have done better because I get the sense that despite whatever appreciation you have for me, that appreciation has not been worth enough grace for you to consider my point of view: I was not undermining you but rather doing what I am one of 3 people authorized to do in trying to manage a difficult case that have emotions running high from a lot of people and which was continuing to spiral out of control even after you had left both parties a firm sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Please don't waste any more time here. I know you have a lot to do. Bishonen | tålk 17:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC).

It's distressing when people we respect are at odds. Barkeep, we think about 95% of this would have gone away if you'd simply said (or, if you say now) "I'm sorry, Bish, I should have talked to you, being an Arb is hard and I was inadvertently rude". We can easily imagine that the "mistakes were made" phrasing you're using (and which we don't remember you using in the past) can get under Bish's skin. As God Emperor of Wikipedia, we hereby assign responsibility for this i-ban to Barkeep. And note that only we, as God Emperor, get to use the royal we around here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

(Replying down here to make the threads above a little clearer). On reflection, I think a better was way to look at this, that I hadn't considered before, is that: Bish's sanction was under CT but Barkeep's wasn't under CT but was instead under the Committee's authority to manage Arbspace (à la this). While Barkeep's had the impact of modifying the IBAN sanction (as it was described) it is actually a completely separate restriction under separate authority. So, the exemption that Bish gave to communicate within Arbspace still exists but there is a separate sanction in place under the Committee's direct authority. So, if the parties have general questions about the IBANs or would like to appeal them they should contact Bish as the admin who imposed the restriction (previously called the 'enforcing administrator' under DS) and if they have questions about the Barkeep's Arbspace restriction, or would like to appeal it, they should contact Barkeep, another drafting arb or the Committee. Both sanctions are separate so a successful appeal of one doesn't change the other. I think this is what Barkeep was trying to get at above? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That is what I have been saying. Thanks Callanecc for stating more clearly what I have been trying to express. And the restriction I placed has been lifted. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

On pinging

Pretty sure I am not supposed to even look at the section above to diagnose this, but here is the promised follow-up: I have examined my notifications and I do not find one from the editor where this was in question. I am willing to accept that they *thought* they pinged me, and frankly was much more perturbed by the content of the discussion of which I was not notified. Since I said my piece about this at the time, I will not be escalating this further, although I will respond if anyone else does.

I consider that I have warned the editor about aspersions and am dropping this particular issue of the ping because life is short, unless somebody pushes me into doing otherwise. Elinruby (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You should have dropped it right away, or at least when I informed you that I'd checked and yes, they did ping you. As I told you at the time, pings occasionally don't work even if executed correctly. If you go on about that ping any more, I'll consider it bludgeoning. Bishonen | tålk 23:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC).

The Bishonen talkpage archives

Hello! I saw a thing at BLPN and wondered "Didn't I ask Bish about this guy once?" Turns out I didn't, that was another guy. But your old talk-stuff is a little inaccessible, though being both listig och stark I managed to find it. You don't use the usual searchable archive-thing on this page, and though I think there used to be something on your userpage (with a hummingbird?), that seems to be gone too.

So, if you'd like to consider some archive-something as a service to your fans and WP-archeologists, please do. Or maybe it's there and I just don't see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bishonen archives are a mighty treasurehouse, so I can understand your request for searchability, but I don't know how to achieve it. The bird image and various other images were always just decoration. If you'd like to put in the usual searchable archive-thing for me, feel free, Gråberg. Bishonen | tålk 10:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC).
I've used Help:Archiving (plain and simple) sometimes, like at my own talkpage, when several people told me they were tired of scrolling, but I don't think that would work with stuff already archived. So I'll pass this buck in the hope one of your other stalkers will be able to do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I did some of it, but then ran into protection on the older archives. --130.111.39.47 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Well done! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, kind IP. Oh lord, the older ones are protected... yeah, I guess so. I think I rashly protected my entire userspace some years ago, using a script. It was so easy! But how to undo it, short of hand-crocheting their protection status one by one? I've inquired of the creator of the script, Writ Keeper. Now we shall see. Bishonen | tålk 17:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC).
Meanwhile, might it be possible to change the color of the yellow archive box? For instance to #e8e6fe. Bishonen | tålk 18:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC).
Nope, sorry, no can do. --130.111.39.47 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Pretty! Apparently the contradiction in your edit misled a talkpage watcher into reverting you, but all is well now. Bishonen | tålk 21:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC).
I see there's a minor problem with the aan templates - since you have the archives as subpages of User:Bish instead of User talk:Bish, the link to "current talk page" goes to the wrong place. Ah, well, not a huge issue... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Would Sarek or somebody else like to explain to me if that is a problem, not a problem, or a minor problem? Do I need to do something about it? Will it become a problem next time I create a new archive? Bishonen | tålk 16:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC).
I'll think about that and the fact that the IP was unable to add aan to each archive. I'll take a couple of days and would welcome thoughts. Would you want the protected archives unprotected and aan added, or just add aan? It might be better to move all the User:xxx archives to User_talk:xxx now rather than put it off. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be different from the crowd. Yikes, but if they are moved, should the redirects be kept? That's more to think about. Johnuniq (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
You guys are talking to me like I was a grownup. What's aan? I've unprotected all the archives now (and have told the IP so on their page); the ever helpful Writ Keeper modified his protection script for me so that I could do it with one touch of a button - just look at my contribs! Move them..? Ooooh noooo. [Howls like a wolf.] Do I have to? I don't want to put it off. I want to not do it at all. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC).
{{aan}} is put at at the top of archives. It is a redirect that calls Template:Automatic archive navigator. That puts clever links to other archives at the top. Re moving to User_talk: let's separate the desirability of that from the pain. The howling is making so much noise that I can't tell if you want to keep User:xxx or whether you don't want the hassle of moving them. Someone like me can do the busywork. Johnuniq (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, we can solve this one way or the other. I believe {{aan}} takes a parameter with a new message, so if you don't want to move the archives (or have them moved for you), we can just overwrite the default with something that actually works. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
LOL, John. I'm glad the howling carries across the ocean. As for whether I want to keep them as user:xxx or just want to avoid the hassle of moving them, it's a bit of both, really. I'm a little sentimental about the ancient klutzy names for that ancient material. If we leave them as user:xxx, the way Sarek describes, would that lead to persistent misunderstandings down the line, for instance next time I create an archive? If the answer is yes, well then, of course I do want them moved. I'm a little ashamed of letting other people do my busywork, but I won't pretend I wouldn't love it if somebody did. Oh, and John, what you tried on my userpage looks lovely for me, but is it all right in vector? And can the archives be searchable like that? Perhaps we'd better go with the now prettily pale-purple box on this talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 18:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC).
You can see how the new Vector skin looks here or by starting a private (incognito) session in your browser and pasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen for the address. How it looks depends on how wide the browser window is. If you have a wide screen and maximize the browser, everything looks good to me. However, if you make the browser window a more natural size, the three columns will interfere with each other. If you slowly move the right-hand edge of the window from very wide to very small, you will see how the three columns move around in response to the narrow width. I think you should keep the archive box at the top of this talk page with its search bar. Therefore, you might want the archives box removed from your user page. The three columns might be replaced with two and some different arrangement of the items, with or without the archives. If you want me to play with it, say what you think you might like (three or two columns, with or without archives). Or, experiment yourself and ask for opinions if needed.
Re the archive pages, I infer you want to keep User:xxx. That's fine. In due course I will adjust the message at the top of each archive so the links work. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Please observe that User:Bishonen/Archive_25 now shows the correct link in "on the current talk page". It occurs to me that a more punchy message might be expected. Please edit that archive to taste. When you're happy, I'll put the same message in each archive. For example, it might say:

Do not edit this archive! Instead, put a new message on the current talk page.

The example above finishes with bold text but on the archive page it would be a plain link to this page. Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Always wide screen and maximize browser! Zilla's monitor size of Texas! [Shirtily:] Is plenty natural size! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 09:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC).
Oh, shut up, Bishzilla. Yes, removing the archive box from the userpage would be fine, and presumably give more options for placing other stuff. (Did you notice the IP has put the Stockholm city library pic in the box with the search bar on this page? Nice!) Please do play around with it, John. If you're saying three columns will only work well on a big screen, then please use two. And the more punchy message, yes, please. Perhaps "Instead, post a new message". Oh, and I should have realized the simple way to see new vector would be to open a private window; I do know about them; just didn't think of it. Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC).
IP, incidentally, is a known user whose manager knows their username who should probably not be editing during the day, but it's so much easier than on their dinky home laptop... --130.111.39.47 (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
That may be the best excuse for editing without logging in I've ever heard! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The library image is very nice. I'll fix the archive messages in a couple of days. I updated User:Bishonen/Archive_25 to show how it will look. Then I'll play with the user page if you haven't done it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
John! Help, I just had a thought! If I put something into the "Search" field in the archive box above, it will be searched for in the entire User:Bishonen space, which is big and full of nonsense, incomplete notes, what have you. Much better if it searches only the archives, which I believe comprise the entire User talk:Bishonen space. Right? Isn't that how it'll work? Then clearly it's better to move the archives to user talk, and spare the people looking for them the big swamp of User:Bishonen. I'm sorry to be so back-and-forth, but this disadvantage to having them in User:Bishonen space only just occurred to me. Bishonen | tålk 09:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC).
Wow, this thread took off, didn't it. Please ping me if there's an RFC or something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
So nice I had to steal it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll move the archives from User:xxx to User_talk:xxx. Unfortunately the redirects should probably be kept because there are a handful of links from other places to some of the archives. Or, we could tough it out and move everything with no redirect and fix anything needed later. Most of the incoming links are inconsequential and none of them would be missed. Sorry, but that is another decision you need to make: keeping the redirects clutters your user space. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Old links to my archives don't deserve much reverence, surely. I'd like to tough it out without redirects. Bishonen | tålk 02:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC).
OK, I have moved all the archive pages to User_talk:xxx and made a few adjustments. I also removed the archives box from your user page and in due course will think about what else needs to be done re formatting that page. A few of the archives have links to other of your archive pages and I'll also fix them. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
John, you're a very handsome man! Bishonen | tålk 09:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC).
How could I ever contradict you B? There are now only a handful of links to the old archive pages (User:xxx) and they all appear to be historical and redundant. Soon we can see what else is needed on your user page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Heads-up

I reverted an edit-warring user at Neo-Confederates whose removals of content are contested by at least 2 editors, as they have not responded to my last attempt to discuss on the talk page, and instead just went with edit-warring again. When I went to their talk page to post a template about the edit-warring, I noticed I had seen them before, but I'd forgotten the name and incident, as it was a month ago. As you were involved in that sanctioning of their previous behavior, I thought you might take a look at OgamD218 (talk) and their recent contributions. Wes sideman (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Wes. I don't see that Ogam's removal of See also's has been reverted by multiple users - certainly not recently. It's just you and them, edit warring back and forth in equal measure. You, or Ogam, might try to solve the conflict via WP:3O, which is a simple form of dispute resolution when only two users are involved, or by WP:DRN. As for disruption, I'm more concerned about Ogam's repeated insertion of this text, and have warned them about it. Bishonen | tålk 17:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC).
That's my bad, I mistook the reversions by Neutrality and Darknipples as being on the same material, and I didn't look closely enough; honest mistake. Still, what do I do next? There was no response to your or my posts on his user talk page. I don't want to revert him again because that just continues the edit war, but because he made the last revert, his deletions stand and he has no motivation to discuss anything. Doesn't WP:BRD mean anything in this case? Wes sideman (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, if you don't like my suggestion of WP:3O or WP:DRN, I'm not sure what to advise, Wes sideman. WP:BRD is always voluntary. Also, why exactly do you think it's bad to trim a bloated "See also" section? If you explain that more concretely on talk, you might get other users to agree with you. For instance, do you believe particular "See also"'s have been removed tendentiously? That kind of thing would carry more weight than insisting on BRD. Bishonen | tålk 08:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC).
I appreciate the response; I was under the impression it was a policy, and didn't know it's voluntary. And yes, I believe the See Also's, in this case, are being removed tendentiously. I haven't had time to make a case for each and every single one, but I did agree with one removal. The rest of the removals are just designed to distance neo-confederates from similar movements/organizations, such as List of Ku Klux Klan organizations, List of white nationalist organizations, Trumpism, etc. Wes sideman (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what else to do at this point. The long-standing version of the See Also section at Neo-Confederates is constantly being whitewashed by OgamD218 unilaterally. I have tried not to edit-war with him, preferring discussion on the talk page. I've provided multiple reliable sources that establish firm links between the article subjects and the subjects in the See Also. You protected the article in order to encourage discussion. In the absence of any consensus, OgamD218 waited for the protection to expire, and promptly installed his favored version of the article again. I can't honestly believe that his method is the one that works for Wikipedia - ie, just keep arguing and reverting in hopes that no one challenges his removals, and if any does, just keep arguing and reverting again. Wes sideman (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for necessary action on the article, Muslim Kayasths

Hello Bishonen, hope you are fine! I had requested for the protection of the article at WP:RPP, but the same has been turned down! Would like to request you or any other admin active here to remove the latest edit summary by the user, Mr Anonymous 699, which is grossly insulting and degrading (abusing another user in raw Hindi)! You may take necessary action for the same; doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess these people think it's a "secret" if it's not in English. But nothing's a secret to Google Translate. Blocked for a couple of days and the edit summary revision deleted. And thank you, Ekdalian. Bishonen | tålk 20:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC).
Yes, absolutely! Thank you so much! Ekdalian (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Heads up: I revdelled a few more edit-summaries by the user and redacted a similarly problematic exchange with an IP user on their talkpage. IMO an indef would be justified if the 48h block doesn't get the message across.
@Ekdalian: could you please review the editor's mainspace edits? I haven't done so myself but given the nature of their abuses, I have concerns about them being able to edit neutrally in gender and religion-related topics. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Abecedare! I have tried to review their edits, and reverted some of them. It seems that the user is anti-Muslim and most of their edits are disruptive ones! I also believe that they can't edit neutrally. Thanks, again! Ekdalian (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure the indef is justified already, Abecedare; my thinking with the 48 h was more that the socking might not start quite so soon. Sigh. Bishonen | tålk 08:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC).
Thanks, Ekdalian. And yup, Bish, always a game of whack-a-mole with such editors. Abecedare (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for necessary action on Vishwabrahman52

Hello Bishonen, this particular user Vishwabrahman52 seems to be really problematic! The username itself is meant for promoting the Vishwakarma (caste). Sitush had carefully added the statement that they have nothing to do with Brahmins in the lead itself in order to prevent caste glorification! Now, this user is engaged in edit war (please have a look at the article on Rathakara) in spite of warning them and explaining that primary sources like Rigveda cannot be used. Would request your intervention! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Ekdalian. When the user was first active, years ago, they edited caste pages, but now it's more articles about hindu deities. That makes it harder for me to address them for caste promotion, even if, as you suggest, such promotion is the intention. I'm not well enough versed in the connection between the two to address it. Knowledgeable admins, please? Abecedare, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93? Bishonen | tålk 19:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC).
Vishwabrahman52's recent edit-warring at Rathakara appears to be a continuation of their effort to portray the related caste of Vishwakarma as Brahmins. See for example the selective deletion of sections that gave alternate theories of the origins of the Rathakara caste/community. And the "stable" version they are reverting to is itself problematic with its over-reliance on primary sources and selective-citation of secondary sources (for example, it cites Radhakumud Mookerji's Ancient Indian Education: Brahmanical and Buddhist for Rathakara's participation in some religious rituals but skips the fact that that is in context of discussion of education of vaishyas and shudras (pp 154-155); or that later (p. 174) Mookerji discusses the Rathakaras as a rare example of Sudras that some vedic texts permitted to participate in Śrauta-rituals).
(TL;DR)  I don't know enough of the subject to say if the Ekladian version of the article is preferable to the older one in toto, but Vishwabrahman52's editing doesn't seem to be geared towards resolving that possibly legitimate question. Rather their aim closer to caste promotion and some sanction may be justified. Since I have edited Vishvakarma and some related article in years past, it would be better for B or some of the other admins who were pinged to take the page/editor-level action. Abecedare (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Abe. There is one sanction I have no hesitation about: a page block from Rathakara. Done. Something wider may be needed soon. Bishonen | tålk 21:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC).
Thanks Abecedare for your inputs. Thank you so much, Bishonen! Ekdalian (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

editing pattern

Hm on making logged-in edits to Indian companies/people and logged out to various Vietnamese geographic locations. Valereee (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Odd that, Valereee. Hm hm. I've asked. I hope they don't think the IP gets to edit article space now that you've partial-blocked the account from it. Bishonen | tålk 17:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC).
Yeah, I didn't feel comfortable blocking the IP, but it's a fair point. Valereee (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I've told them explicitly they don't get to edit articles from the IP either. Bishonen | tålk 17:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC).
Oh god. Valereee, I'm doing my best to avoid writing to them on both the talkpages, but it's hard going. You're probably right they're an UPE, but honestly WP:CIR seems to be the bigger problem. Anyway, they are denying ever editing logged out. Ho hum. Bishonen | tålk 19:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC).
Yeah, bro. Valereee (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, we all bros here. Bishonen | tålk 20:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC).
Bro, sure enough they have gone on to edit articles from the IP. I have consequently blocked both the account and the IP sitewide for two weeks. This kills your partial block - that can't be helped, and Bugzilla is aware - but then I don't much think it'll matter. They started with a very complicated way of editing, and can't understand what's wrong with it, and also are not telling the truth. I expect this'll end in an indef. Bishonen | tålk 12:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC).
Dude, no worries. I actually considered a full, the only reason I didn't was that the disruption hadn't risen to the level of talk pages. Valereee (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

April songs

April songs
my story today

Thank you for the edit summary above, among many others! My story today is about the Alchymic Quartet, - I went away from DYK but it's the last one from last year. - The songs go to vacation pics. - Would you agree that the "contentious topic" warnings for infoboxes make little sense now that Stanley Kubrick (pictured on the Main page) and Mozart have boxes? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gerda! Yet another bro! I don't want to talk about infoboxes. Thank you for the Hyazinthe im Schnee, hope Bishzilla (another bro) doesn't eat them. Bishonen | tålk 21:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC).
I made an exception from my DYK abstinence for Good Friday, - see my story today. Interesting to compare a hook 2023 style to one in 2012 (see my story today). - I sang, including chorales from Bach's greatest Passion. I recently listened to one by Homilius: a discovery! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda! Bishonen | tålk 16:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I loved to see Marian Anderson and her story of protest against discrimination by singing on Easter Sunday 9 April 1939 on the Main page yesterday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
My story today, Messiah (Handel), was my first dip into the FA ocean, thanks to great colleagues. - a few pics added, one day missing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I added, finally ;) - today's stories are about Johanna Geisler and Huub Oosterhuis, a singer and a songwriter. More here if you have time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Today is the 80th birthday of John Eliot Gardiner, and you served Petit Four. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Advice request

Bish and The Jaguars - My Spider Sense is tingling with respect to a new-ish editor who, in the past few weeks, has burst onto the scene with lots of PAG-oriented commentary, and seemingly all over the place, including FTN (a focal point), ANI, and NPOV. Their Talk page is heavily populated with discussions about problematic edits and participation in contentious topics, and they have even started several PAG-related essays (!) It all seems consistent with someone with NOTHERE axes to grind, but none of it seems likely for an editor of their apparently limited experience. I do not explicitly identify them here, or provide diffs, lest I be accused of biting a newbie, trying to suppress an "opponent," and/or boneheadedly initiating a steamy pile of drama. I can certainly email diffs to you. In a situation like this do you suggest that I shut the hell up and leave the matter - if there even is one - to passing admins, go straight to SPI with my concerns (although I have no idea who the 'master' might be), or something else? Thanks in advance. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, JoJo. I don't think there's much point in an SPI without a suggested master. ("Checkuser is not for fishing".) Feel free to send me diffs. Any Jaguars with an opinion out there? Bishonen | tålk 21:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC).
JoJo Anthrax, (talk page stalker) it's not fishing to check an account that's fishy (ha) even if you don't know who the master may be. WP:NOTFISHING even says "it is not fishing to check an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, and a suspected sockpuppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded". In these cases, you can report the account to a competent CU – so, that rules me out – you are familiar with, with evidence for a quick check. —  Salvio giuliano 21:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Bish and Salvio. Later today I will send an email to you, Bish, that includes links/diffs describing my concerns. Thank you in advance for that, and remember, telling me to shut the hell up will be a perfectly valid response. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Super Mario effect

Re [40] I am fine with it remaining or with it being removed, but I would like to explain the reason for it.

Perhaps you can salvage the basic idea with better wording; the fact that one person didn't get my meaning is strong evidence that I was unclear.

The basic idea:

Sometimes (don't know how often, but it feels more common) an Admin who does something that would get anyone else who did it blocked instead ends up desysopped and then has to do something else bad to get blocked.

Sometimes (don't know how often, but it feels less common) an Admin who does something that would get anyone else who did it blocked doesn't get desysopped or blocked because while many people think that they should be desysopped for it nobody is willing to go through the hell of complaining and being involved in an arbcom case, yet there remains this strange reluctance to block instead. So the Admin is neither desysopped or blocked and then has to do something else bad to get desysopped or blocked.

In both cases the basic error is not deciding to block or not block someone for what they do, but instead making that decision based on who they are. In my opinion, everyone should be treated the same and we should see an occasional desysopping based upon multiple previous blocks, and an occasional Admin who stops the bad behavior after being blocked for it.

Of course anyone who abuses the tools will naturally be treated differently from someone who never had the tools and had no opportunity to abuse them.

Again I will leave it up to you to decide whether the basic idea above is worth mentioning and if so how to word it to make it clear.

Thanks for linking to my name in the edit comment so I would get notified. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Unclear? No, I don't think you were unclear, Guy Macon. The alternative case you have described is simply not an example of the Super Mario effect; not the way you put it in the article and not the way you have put it here. (For the curious Jaguars: this is about my edit here.) Bishonen | tålk 03:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC).
Fair enough. Unwatching this page now so I have more time to write a video game as sucessful as the Mario franchise (smile). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

A question

What was the Great Pickling of 2022? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

An uncanny Wikipedia orgy instigated by User:Praxidicae. Bishonen | tålk 00:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC).
Hope it went well. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

contentious topic restriction

fwiw, standards about how one interacts with other editors seem to me to be of fairly little consequence in the grand scheme of things, but standards about actual article content matter inasmuch as the value of the reference work matters (and my estimation of that value is something I'm reevaluating), so I'm going to engage with you on your talkpage about that...

regarding: Appeals and amendments - All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may (Stage One) Ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision

You wrote - You have been sanctioned for: article editing and talkpage manner

A) I want to address the second part first. How is talkpage manner something that causes content restriction? Aren't content restrictions intended to solve problems with people altering articles? I assume one can restrict editors' abilities to alter talkpages. Why isn't that what a moderator should do if there's an issue there rather than articles? These are different issues/problems and a sanction that is for fixing one problem being used in instances of different sort of problem just creates a new additional problem.

B) As to the first part, what precisely is the standard you have used to judge how disruptive I was with regard to the actual article? Is there a number of edits or a amount of time specified?

Without getting into detail about my edits, I want to point make a point about timing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OckRaz#Trump_photo_op
That's the warning about editing the article.

There's one edit following that and I don't even recall seeing the warning until after it, although I can't swear to the order: edit then read warning or vice versa. It depends on how focused I was on stuff irrelevant to Wikipedia at the time and how many tabs I had open, etc. Let's assume the worst scenario for my case. It's one edit. Does that satisfy the standard for topic restrictions? Is there a knowable standard, or is it subjective to the judgment of the moderator? Does that suggest "B" was possibly insufficient, so that "A" was seen as necessary to supplement it (and of course I contend is a separate matter)?

OckRaz talk 17:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

PS: Unrelated to above. Do you know a reason I would see the silhouette of a woman's body with a halo in the lower left corner? So far at least, it's just a thing I've seen on your talkpage. OckRaz talk 17:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
That's the notification Bishonen's a minor goddess. Valereee (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
OR, you were warned several months previous and by more than a single editor, yet you failed to engage on the talk pages. And your repeated bald assertions of a dichotomy between content and collaboration/consensus shows you are not in good shape to participate here. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, OckRaz. I'm sorry my topic ban rationale wasn't clear enough, as is apparent from your comment above, where you quote me as saying "You have been sanctioned for article editing and talkpage manner" and you ask "How is talkpage manner something that causes content restriction?". I actually intended you to read the entire sentence together: You have been sanctioned for article editing and talkpage manner that are disruptive and characterized by a battleground approach. I'm calling both your article editing and your talkpage manner disruptive and battleground-y. And that's the reason I restrict you from both articles ("content restriction") and discussions, in other words from the entire "topic" of American politics. As SPECIFICO points out below, there is a connection between content and discussion; they are not "separate matters". If your attempts to push this (which remains ridiculous) into an article had been all, I would have warned rather than banned you. But your full battleground demeanor with regard to this article was developed in your closely connected edits to user talkpages, which I linked to in my rationale. To explain one example more fully, this is absurd, because "pester" is not a blank, neutral word that you can ascribe any meaning to that suits you. It means " To bother, harass, or annoy persistently". There are many dictionaries on the internet; look it up. Drmies's one (quite civil) post on your page can't be said to have persistently harassed you.
I'm afraid I don't understand your comment about timing. A warning from SPECIFICO (which I didn't even necessarily rely on) was posted at 20:50 8 April, UTC, and you replied to it six minutes later. Nearly 24 hours after that, I T-banned you. I don't know how you could have not seen a warning that you promptly replied to.
Are your comments above intended as an appeal of the Tban? If so, I'm afraid I'm declining it. As it says at WP:UNBAN, your next option is to appeal the ban at WP:AE or WP:AN or WP:ARCA. I can't recommend ARCA, both because it tends to be glacially slow, and because once you've used ARCA, you can't use any of the others. The difference between AE and AN is that at AE the appeal will be evaluated by uninvolved admins, at AN by the community. You should think about which of these options you believe will serve you better.
Finally, in case you have more to say here, please try to avoid making a single post in so many increments. You realize if you post 9 times, I get 9 pings, and the page history gets all bloated? That's a bit inconvenient for me. Bishonen | tålk 20:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC).
re: I'm afraid I don't understand your comment about timing... I don't know how you could have not seen a warning that you promptly replied to. - My point was that it's most likely that my last edited to the page came after being warned due to my seeing the warning too late. Obviously, my responding six minutes after his warning indicates that I saw it, but the edit to the page was one minute earlier. I'm certain I responded immediately, and that I didn't pause first to make an edit then come back to respond afterwards. The reason I feel certain is that until I checked the timestamps I assumed I'd stopped all activity on the page once I'd gotten the warning.

i think you're saying that the topic ban isn't just something that applies to the encyclopedia itself but to any comments anywhere. i find that surprising because i'd thought there were people who just used talk pages for conversation and to socialize with online friends. i don't do that myself, but i thought some did. it strikes me as odd that you'd tell people they're not allowed to broach a topic in that context. after all, while you're right to say there is a connection between content and discussion it's just silly to say they are not separate matters.

what i wrote yesterday was just a procedural argument for not getting a ban. it seemed to me it might be useful to dispense with a topic ban first before addressing the crux of the issue, but i was going to get to that sooner or later anyway. my substantive defense is that the ban is wrongful because the reversions of my edits are unjustifiable. consistently reverting legitimate edits should be seen as disruptive. the edits being wrongly reverted should not. moreover, people consistently making the wrong determination about who's disruptive creates a battleground context where it's correct for one to behave in a "battleground-y." manner.

for example, let's look past the snark about dictionaries and treat your point about the word "pester" seriously. suppose you're told that well sourced evidence of allegations creates a burden to prove innocence (or if you prefer consensus against a judgment of guilt - the functional equivalent). moreover, you're told this burden of proof must be met before you can alter a status quo that treats guilt as a factual truth in a reference work. certainly, these people saying such things are wrong, but if they're persistent in chiding you about it, then they're pestering you. it's true that to be pestered would typically entail multiple acts, but you're wrong to assume that in order to qualify, they must all come from a single source.

re: "your attempts to push push this (which remains ridiculous)" - there's some ambiguity there, and i don't want to be unfair. the wording is rather ridiculous. the problem is that if people object to the word "alleged" you're going to have a hard time finding a concise way to make plain that an assertion is an unproven allegation. you can try to come from the other end and say there's an accusation of attacking people who are peaceful, which is technically correct but an even worse choice of words. it suggests the crowd being peaceful is a fact, but whether they were set upon is uncertain - which is backwards.

It's likely that what you meant was that regardless of wording, even if it just said "allegedly peaceful," it's your judgment that the introduction of the word "allegedly" would be ridiculous. I hope that isn't what you meant. That would be a ridiculous judgment for you to make. as i just said, it's a guilty until proven innocent standard to say one needs to build a consensus to change something from stating assuming guilt to a neutral statement neither claiming guilt nor innocence. i don't want to single you out for criticism. if indeed that's your view, then making that judgment seems to be the dominant perspective amongst wikipedians. that doesn't make it right, just popular.

i cannot believe that articles containing accusations of wrongdoing against living persons only need to meet a standard of consensus from interested editors. i would assume (please let me know for certain) that the standard is to say alleged unless someone was found guilty in court or maybe if they confessed to the wrongdoing, or if there was indisputable proof of guilt. It's obvious that the first don't apply. Does the third?

not only doesn't the third apply, but i believe this is an instance where it couldn't possibly apply. The side saying that the police behaved criminally says the crowd was peaceful, whereas the police claim to have been provoked by being pelted with "bricks, frozen water bottles, and caustic liquids." defenders of the crowd argue they didn't see bricks and caustic liquids. even if it could be said that they saw none of the three, that wouldn't be a dispositive fact. as everyone knows,: absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. hypothetically, if there were blanket CCTV coverage of the crowd, maybe we could have relied on that. in reality we have accounts of bottle throwing. that leaves no possible way to prove who's right.

however, in a sense, that detail doesn't matter. i'm not arguing that the specific facts are what matter here. i'm saying that surely wikipedia has a policy regarding articles which allege wrongdoing and that it should establish that articles say "allegedly" whether or not a majority of those who weigh in like the idea. perhaps i'm wrong. maybe you can write articles about living people committing criminal acts which assume guilt that hasn't been proven. maybe as one editor said you always need consensus - with no exceptions. if that's the case then it means i really did transgress against your rules, but that also means they are really bad rules, and they ought to be broken. OckRaz talk 12:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi again OckRaz. Please note that conversations become easier to read if you use correct indentation. (In this case, I used two colons; you should have used three.) OK, I tried to answer you clearly and helpfully. Altogether I feel I've fulfilled my admin duty to respond to you; you can't expect me to engage with fine-drawn suppositions about what you believe my opinions to be, like "It's likely that what you meant was that regardless of wording, even if it just said 'allegedly peaceful', it's your judgment that the introduction of the word 'allegedly' would be ridiculous". You're done here; I reject your appeal; time to move on to WP:AE or WP:AN, and thereby to get uninvolved people looking at the issue with fresh eyes. I'll give you a little advice for when you do: people won't read your appeal unless you make it a good deal shorter than you comments here on my page. That may sound brutal, but this is a volunteer project, and people do what they like and what they enjoy; that means they avoid long reads. What would help keep it shorter would be to avoid all comments on Wikipedia's general rules. You may be very reasonably interested in commenting on these rules, but you need to save that for another time, because it won't help get your ban lifted. For instance, it's no use complaining about topic bans applying to all pages ("any comments anywhere"). Talkpages are for discussing improvements to the connected article, not "for conversation and to socialize with online friends", and it's quite possible to be disruptive and to waste other people's time on talkpages and on noticeboards. Therefore topic bans apply to these pages as well. This is a principle that has been worked out by many people, and it won't be changed because you complain about it in your topic ban appeal; that's beginning at the wrong end. Stick to your substantive defense, and keep that as concise as possible. Good luck. Bishonen | tålk 16:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC).

Some stroopwafels for you!

It's springtime, so that means it's time for stroopwafels. Andre🚐 00:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked account's IP to be aware of

You blocked Harry Sibelius for three months today. He pinged me on a talk page which I reverted since he isn't here to build on Wikipedia. This IP, 70.54.43.112, belongs to him since he had the same pattern of editing as with other articles on his main account with the same types of edit summaries. And he defended the IP edit that I reversed since it was an NPOV violation. Just letting you know in case you or I see the IP become active again. Thanks. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, WikiCleanerMan, and thank you. That looks pretty familiar, yeah. But I'd better not discuss connections between IPs and accounts in public, for privacy reasons. Please consider using Wikipedia e-mail for this kind of thing. Bishonen | tålk 14:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC).
We're getting nowhere with this user at the SPI nor at his nonsense at ANI. He is continuing to defame me. I'd say you need to close both reports and this time reblock for good. It's been a week and he hasn't proven anything contrary to the evidence. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
HS would do themselves a favor if they stopped the bludgeoning at the SPI, WikiCleanerMan. But their point that they can't be expected to prove a negative is a good one, so I would recommend you to stop insisting that they need to disprove the allegations. Bishonen | tålk 09:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC).
Then please assert your authority. We've had this opened for a week and he hasn't been able to prove anything in his favor. So please close both reports. He's not here to improve Wikipedia. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Case is closed. Thanks anyways. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Sensing that you'll need the caffeine. Goes well with the stroopwafel. :) Abecedare (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it does, Abe; kind people are building up quite the picnic for me. Bishonen | tålk 16:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC).

Why are you blocking me from editing everytime

Why are you blocking me from editing everytime, of there is some problem you could have asked a clarification ot deletion of that edit but you have been constantly blocking me What's the problem with you man Putinstalin (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You should realize you aren't talking to a man. Valereee (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Putinstalin, I've explained it in the block log. I haven't given you a new block. Valereee originally blocked you indefinitely from editing articles. Then you evaded that block by editing logged out, from your IP. For that, I blocked you and also your IP from editing anything at all, for two weeks. My site-wide two-week block broke Valereee's block, so that it disappeared. (This is a technical problem.) But it wasn't meant to disappear, it was meant to be indefinite, and therefore I've put it back now. I know you don't understand, I'm sorry for that. It's a little complicated, but I've explained it as best I can. Note that you have never appealed Valereee's block of you from creating articles. I suggest you do that. Valereee's block notice tells you how: add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} (giving your actual reason where it says "your reason here"). Then an uninvolved admin will come to your page and decide if you should be unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 15:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC).

User:Karsan Chanda adding false information misattributed to scholarly sources they haven't seen

Bish, could you review the editing of Karsan Chanda to see if they should be topic-banned from Indian history and/or caste/community-related topic areas?

Background: I came across the editor two weeks back at this AFD, which I !voted to keep even though the fundamental notability claim Karsan had included for the subject, was false (other AFD participants did a great job establishing notability and cleaning up the article). Since then I've noticed that the editor is heavily involved in creating history/biography articles related to the Meena community and the related "Chanda dynasty". The problem is that in their apparent zeal to promote the community, the editor adds false information to articles and cites sources that do they do not have access to and that do not (on checking) support the claims!

See for example, this tag I added, or this one, or the warning I left on their talk page. Instead of showing any improvement, today the editor added "a quote" to the Alan Singh article they had created, which is at AFD. The article is about a 10th-11th c Chanda ruler (of dubious historicity) in Western India, while the source added was a scholarly book about Southern Indian princely states in mid-20th c. Not surprisingly the quote doesn't appear on the book (I checked) and thanks to RegentsPark's input I traced it to a comment left at this blogpost. Here is Karsan's explanation for how they found the "quote".

(TL;DR)  I believe that the editor's continued editing in this topic-area, in which they are very active, risks adding more false information and source-misrepresentation to wikipedia. See also the messages left by Banks Irk on the editor's talkpage for related competence concerns. Could you, or any of the admins watching this page, take a look? Abecedare (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

[Bishonen gingerly approaches her computer in her sleep.] I'll...look tomorrow, Abe. Zzzzzzzzz. Bishonen | tålk 01:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC).
Hey, didn't expect any reply from you till well after I was catching the z's. Nothing "urgent" here that can't wait even a few days. G'night. Abecedare (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@Abecedare: It is valid to raise your question, when a new editor comes, he makes mistakes because he does not know the legal claims of Wikipedia, you have tried to see almost all my mistakes, thank you very much for that, but your opinion about me Is wrong because I try to correct back the mistakes made by me too so you don't have to worry you can trust me without worrying. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid I think we do have to worry, Karsan Chanda. I will explain why on your own page. Bishonen | tålk 09:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Would you mind telling me which is the page for which my account is blocked. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I am a little sad but not surprised to see this. I got a bit exhausted by this editor's inability to understand advice and information some months ago, and removed their user talk page from my watchlist... I seem to have posted to it about 30 times. Talk:Alan Singh is another page that shows how much help KC has been getting, from RegentsPark and others, without being able to apply almost any of it. "Don't use sources you haven't got access to" is something multiple people have been trying to tell them for many months. It's unfortunate because there's definitely no bad-faith editing there, but the time sink is just... exhausting.--bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Like Bonadea, I've generally given up on Karsan Chanda, nothing seems to stick. On the one hand, KC is polite but on the other hand, they are focused solely on raising the profile of the Meena clan (take a look at Draft:Chanda dynasty). I figured that as long as they're working on draft space it wasn't a problem but User:DrhSR saw fit to move the page from Draft to main space despite the long section of negative comments about its suitability, and so, here we are. I support a topic ban but, imo, the appropriate label for KC is WP:CIR.RegentsPark (comment) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bonadea and RegentsPark: I just now took a look at Talk:Alan Singh and your efforts to help the editor are really above and beyond! It is a pity it had come to this, esp. since while the editor's editing is harmful to wikipedia's content and a drain on its editorial resources, (as you say) they are not ill-intentioned.<sigh>
Aside: I found this quote RP dug up very interesting since that was exactly the impression I was left with after reading Hooja, Meena Madan etc but hadn't seen it spelled out so explicitly. Perhaps some of this can be added somewhere on wikipedia (Meena article?). Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Speaking of Meena, at Talk:Meena#Source, Karsan Chanda explained last year that he doesn't understand English, and uses translation software to identify sources (which he can't read) and write articles. And that's definitely a WP:CIR problem. --bonadea contributions talk 17:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
OMG. It's one thing having editors use Google translate to copy material written in languages they don't speak or read from other language Wikipedia pages...which is problem enough. Trying to write articles in a language you don't know at all, that's just ridiculous. He's wasted a lot of other editors' time.  Banks Irk (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
It's been awhile since they replied to me. They may have given up, and possibly even realized the Hindi Wikipedia will suit them better. I hope so. Bishonen | tålk 21:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC).
Given the limited scope of articles he was editing, the topic ban probably ended his interest and purpose at en.wiki Banks Irk (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bishonen: I did not try to link that source but tried to understand it when I could not open that book then for the purpose of seeking help from other editors I added it on the page of Alan Singh and Chanda dynasty when help was not found there also I added it to the article place of debate and then got the explanation. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bishonen: You said that I used "fixed typo" but I want to tell that I edit on Wikipedia from Wikipedia website but due to technical problem I could not edit so I tried to edit using Wikipedia app So I got three options available there out of which I chose "fixed typo" option and there was no problem. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bishonen: Yesterday I didn't have time to answer, so I didn't answer, and even today I have very little time, still I am trying to answer, you said that I am disappointed and leaving English Wikipedia, so you are in wrong idea i like to add historical information on english wikipedia and create historical page even though i don't know english language but you blocked me it is disappointing that some editors say that i am all Wasting the editors' time. I think that building Wikipedia through debate is what makes it credible and important. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bonadea: Your access means access to the content that you want to add but my access means to see the content in detail in the source so don't create confusion in thoughts. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Karsan Chanda, I'm afraid these objections don't help you. If they are meant as an appeal of your topic ban, I have to decline that appeal. What remains for you is to appeal the ban at either WP:AN or WP:AE, to let the community decide. However, my own advice is for you to not appeal the ban at one of these noticeboards yet, because you won't have much chance of getting it lifted at this time. Instead, if you're determined to edit the English Wikipedia, I suggest you edit other areas of it for six months. Then appeal, once you have shown you are capable of editing neutrally and competently here. That's my advice. (And jeez, do you have to keep saying I blocked you, after I explained I did not? If you were blocked, you would not be able to edit this page.) Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC).
    My guess is that part of the confusion here is due to Google Translate not being aware of the Wikipedia-specific distinction between ban and block. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Yup. Karsan Chanda is using translation software to contribute to a project where they don't understand the language. [41] This alone should be sufficient grounds to block indefinitely. Good intentions can't overcome a core lack of relevant competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bishonen: During the reigns of his successors the Minas continued to give trouble , as they were anxious to regain possession of their lost strongholds(p.175 by Indian States

A Biographical, Historical, and Administrative Survey 2006).; Minas , Chauhans , and Bargujars of the region all seem to have been in a position of vague subordination to the Chauhan (p.35 by Rethinking Early Modern India 2002) Karsan Chanda (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Tweak of quote

Thanks for quoting me, but a couple words crept in which I didn't say, so I fixed it. Now those words may need to be restored, just not within my quote. Those words make a good parallel point and are worth including as your own point. Fox tells the truth by mistake and then corrects their "error" by lying. See -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry about that. I got interrupted and lost sight of the square brackets I'd meant to put in. Nm, it'll do as it is now. Bishonen | tålk 18:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC).

Problematic user persistently adding unsourced content in the article on Kalwar (caste)

Hello Bish.. after a long time! Hope you are doing great. Can you or any other admin active on this page please check the article on Kalwar (caste), I mean the revision history. The user Tamil321 seems to be really problematic and trying to push unsourced POV in the article in spite of all possible warnings on their talk page! In fact, they are trying to justify their POV in response to the warning or the discretionary sanctions alert. Please help. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Ekdalian. That was not exactly a difficult call..! Page-blocked from the article. Mind you, I'm not sure they're competent to edit other articles in the area either. Let's see how that turns out. Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC).
Thank you so much, Bishonen! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh, my goodness! Seems that the user Tamil321 is just a sock; user Karsan Chanda had requested you on Tamil321's talk page to remove the block and then deleted the message. Finally the user has come to your talk page!! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Well.. not necessarily, Ekdalian. I think KC could easily have seen this conversation of ours, gone to Tamil321's page out of curiosity, and then not realized what page they were on when it came to appealing to me about their topic ban. Both accounts are now prevented from doing much harm, anyway, so it doesn't much matter if they're socks. I'll AGF. Bishonen | tålk 17:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC).
I completely agree that these accounts may not be able to do much harm now, thanks to your intervention! Thanks, again! Ekdalian (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey Bishonen, an obvious sock having an identical name (User Tamil876) has now come up. Can you please protect the article on Kalwar (caste)! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Regentspark has blocked the sock, Ekdalian. Feel free to blank its contributions to the talkpage if you think it's worth the trouble. The sad thing is it doesn't look like Tamil321 even understood my comment that they were allowed to edit Talk:Kalwar (caste), but created a sock to do so. Sigh. But competence is required. I've blocked Tamil321 indefinitely sitewide. And yes, I agree it's best to semi Kalwar (caste) for a while. Bishonen | tålk 21:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC).
Thank you so much, RegentsPark & obviously Bishonen for your prompt action! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Request you to change your opinion on my ban

@Bishonen: What do I have to do to change your opinion? Please help me to get my ban removed. Karsan Chanda (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

If I could reply here, what you are asking Bishonen to do simply isn't appropriate. You were topic banned because of your poor editing. Your poor editing is clearly due to your poor understanding of the English language. You appear to be using translation software to edit Wikipedia, which is unacceptable. If you wish to usefully contribute to the English-language Wikipedia, you will have to improve your skills in the language to the extent that you can participate without using translation software, and show that you can read, comprehend, and write in English in a manner that isn't damaging to the project. Bishonen isn't going to teach you English. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
What Andy said. Bishonen | tålk 17:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC).

Junkyard tornado

Hi there, Can you explain why I've been banned from editing the article Junkyard tornado for a month please?

Your boilerplate says I should:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; andrefrain from gaming the system.

Where have I breached these guidelines? AtFirstLight (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I have replied on your page. Bishonen | tålk 09:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC).

User:‎Erric679

Hello Bishonen. Could I please take up your offer of looking into a potential spam situation? Erric679 seems to be a SPA for State Disaster Response Force, Assam article, and they have not responded to a COI request on their Talk page: User talk:Erric679.

Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Quite tricky, Mrs S. I'm not sure what to do about such a case. Also, if you look further back in the history of the article, you will see the two accounts Akas2000yyy, who created the article, and Albana56795, who expanded it. I see you have warned Akas2000yyy. A major difference between Erric679 and the other two is that Erric679 only edits State Disaster Response Force, Assam, while the other two, when they were active, also edited several sister articles such as State Disaster Response Force Uttar Pradesh. Taken together, the creation of articles such as this is quite industrial. Anyway. Do these accounts have a COI, and are they socks of each other? I rather think they're socks, because look (UTC timestamps):
  • Akas2000yyy last edited 17:16 23 Jan 2023.
  • Albana56795 was created 01:31 24 January 2023, and last edited 18:11, 2 March 2023
  • Erric679 was created 14:31, 12 March 2023
That's what I call a pattern, especially the short time between Akas2000yyy's last edit and Albana56795's creation. 7 hours! I'm not sure if it's possible to CU them - it's a borderline case. But I'll ask a CU. So what if they're socks, does it matter? They've never edited simultaneously. No. But what reason could there possibly be for creating new accounts every now and then, if not to obfuscate their SPA-ness and their COI? It makes me disinclined to believe their COI denial (at this AFD).
I have posted on Ericc's page and insisted he reply about the COI issue before editing again. Though pressure may of course only lead to the appearance of a fourth account... Bishonen | tålk 18:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC).
Thank you for doing all these checks on this confusing situation. I hadn't thought of the possibility of sockpuppetry! If it could help, I'm happy to file an SPA report?
PS Just curious who Bishzilla is... some kind of grammatical alter-ego? :) Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I've had a word with a CU, who says "likely but not confirmed"; an SPI report can't really do more. I've pushed Erric a little, so I'm not sure we'll see them again. If we do, I may block. Bishonen | tålk 07:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC).
Bishzilla? That would be User:Bishzilla! Grammar one of many, many Bishzilla strengths, yes. Welcome visit in Bishzilla pocket, little turtle! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 07:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC).
Oh my goodness, I am highly amused... and confused! Not sure whether to request a pocketing or a self-block right now :)
Also, thank you for your help re Erric. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

May songs
my story today

Congratulations! - I had a good story on coronation day: a Te Deum we sang that day. And the following day we sang it for the composer ;) - And today we remember a composer who created music especially for us! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

and now May scenery pictured when you click on songs --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Sebastienostertag again

Hello. Previously, you had given User:Sebastienostertag a topic ban on the subject of abortion. They were temporarily blocked for violating the topic ban. The topic ban was never lifted (as they never went through the proper appeals process, or really seemed to understand it), and now that their block is up, they have again edited an unambiguously abortion related article. RoundSquare (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your vigilance, RoundSquare. It's a little sad, because I guess the user doesn't understand, but it's not for want of explanation. Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC).

Hello!

Hello—Just wanted to point out that I had missed Objective's request until I saw your edit (at which point I figured I probably shouldn't go back and delete my comment, lest I actually do what he accused me of doing!).

I do see that I mixed up the update with the previous text in my edit that you highlighted—I did actually add a new timestamp, but with that mix up, it was too easy to overlook, so I see why you missed it. A faux pas on my part, sure, but given that I pinged Objective in that edit to alert him to the update and inviting him to have the last word, I think I was pretty safely in "no harm no foul" territory. My only point—which remains—was that Objective has falsely accused me of deleting a comment after he had responded to it. On his talk page, and later on the page itself, he clarified that he meant that I had edited the comment after he responded and caused an edit conflict. To be sure, frustrating, but still not what he accused me of. Either way, I'm letting Objective have the last word on the Trump talk page (also fine if he wants to comment here; I won't tag him, but I'm happy if you'd like to), and hopefully we can get back to using that talk page to discuss the Donald Trump page soon.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You just edited an RPA into my edit and added another saying I conceded, which accuses me of a PA after you realized it was your mix up. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi! To clarify: no, as I just said my point "remains"—you accused me of doing something I didn't do. Also, I just want to flag: when you deleted the RPA tag, you didn't add back in your claim—which if you want to add it again was, "Stop deleting your posts after they have received responses." see here. Sorry, sorry, I know I said you could have the last word—if it weren't for that latter issue I wouldn't have said anything, but please don't imply that I somehow agree that what you said, which was demonstrably false, was truthful. It's sort of like me being like "okay last word—you admitted that I was right!" You see? Anyways, barring that, feel free. Thanks!--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
In general, please tone down your language, occasional snarkiness, and what often comes across as purposeful misinterpretation of other editors' posts, whether or not that is the case. Spend a couple minutes to look at the wording of an edit and see if there might be a point you have missed without trying to dismiss the point on an argument possibly not made. Don't respond too quickly. All of us have done this and it rarely works out well. Some articles are extremely difficult and require editors to assume good faith without strong evidence otherwise. Political articles have a low editor survival rate. Most of those that remain have learned that good debate, assuming good faith, is not just valuable, but satisfying and results in better articles. We must be collaborators adding what points we may have, as opposed to enemies. I might add some more, but just had a bottle of wine with my fish.:) O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
User:Jerome Frank Disciple, I don't see a ping, where is it? You dated the post you simultaneously added below O's (no, I didn't overlook it) — yes, so what? Did you date the update? No. And then you added yet more words, in which I still don't see a ping, above your original, obsolete, timestamp and above O's original reply with its later timestamp. Are you sure you know what pinging means? See WP:PING. However, please note also that Objective is not the only person who will have read your post on the highly watched Talk:Donald Trump. Pinging O, if you had done it, does nothing for other readers' confusion. Much better to not modify old posts at all.
I have to agree with Objective that this, and this with the aggravating header, is battleground behaviour. Remember how you're not supposed to confuse people reading the discussion, and not supposed to wrong-foot another editor by changes to text? This silly removal of nine words by O does both; O's remaining post becomes incoherent. ("You can strike" what?) Altogether, I'd stop trying to defend my actions here, if I were you, JFD. Have a read of Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. That said, O, I don't think JFD's decision to collapse some of the off-topic quarrelling was bad per se (just the annoying header they used was bad). You might have left it collapsed. But thank you for your mellow final post above. Bishonen | tålk 08:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC).
Oh sure, collapsing in some manner makes sense. Just couldn't leave it as it was and figured someone would collapse correctly. Actually, WP:TNT might come in handy for the entire discussion.:) Hope all is well in Jurassic Park. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Here you go—this was literally my last edit before O's false accusation, which he never managed to acknowledge as false, but alas. Listen, I'm glad you two are friends—I hope all is well in Jurassic Park, too—but this has been over litigated. Frankly, if O had acknowledged "oh yeah, you didn't do that, but you did do this that made me frustrated," I would have apologized. But, alas ... now we've spent an absurd number of words on the topic, O has never acknowledged that he said anything wrong (and, when confronted, just pivots to "well but you DID do this other thing"), and it just doesn't feel productive. Let's just get back to the actual article.—--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry just noticed you already linked to that diff. There's not shortcut, but see the option below WP:PINGIP: "Mentions in edit summaries"—give the user you link an alert if you link their name (without a preceding colon) in an edit summary.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
"I'm glad you two are friends", Jerome Frank Disciple? I'm not on close terms with Objective3000. Before yesterday, I find I have posted one discussion on their talkpage since 2007. That was in 2020, in order to reproach them for restoring a removed user talkpage post. Bishzilla, she of the Jurassic era, is everybody's friend, but I'll admit I don't have her patience, so I will formally ask you to take your hints and sneers elsewhere. Don't post here unless you have a request or complaint per WP:ADMINACCT. Bishonen | tålk 17:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC).

Suspected sock, again: User: Nobita456

Hi Bishonen.. considering the editing pattern (user page, talk page quote, etc.) as well as edit warring in the article on Kulinism by the new user Loudsheer, I am pretty much sure that they do not seem to be a new user at all, rather a sock of Nobita456, who has been here with their n number of socks in order to promote the Baidya caste. If you look at this edit by Nobita, it would be clear why they are edit warring. Just in order to brief you, basically, in Bengal, there are Kulin Brahmin & Kulin Kayastha among the upper castes, nothing like Kulin Baidya! Nobita must have earlier searched all possible sources & somehow managed to grab one where Baidya is mentioned! They cited that particular source ignoring WP:NPOV & WP:UNDUE in order to glorify the Baidya caste! Now, when I assumed good faith, and added the alternate rather majority view citing a high quality source, they are back to their old form and edit warring as usual like Nobita did for anything related to Baidya!

In case you are not sure, we can request Abecedare to review my edits on Kulinism, or else initiate an SPI. Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think an SPI can do much, Ekdalian, as Nobita and all their known socks are long since stale, so a CU can't help. I agree this source isn't much cop — it can surely only have a passing mention, and I don't much feel like spending $50 to find out. Abe? Bishonen | tålk 10:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC).
Adding: Hmm. Loudsheer is referring to a weak source offered by Nobita here, I see. That'll do me. I'm prepared to either topic ban for persistent caste promotion or block for sock/meatpuppetry, but I'll wait for Abecedare, now that we have pinged them. Bishonen | tålk 10:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC).
I didn't add that source, I just reverted the vandalization of the ip user. I am surprised Ekdalian didn't give me any mention here. I added a new source, there are even more sources available that say Baidyas also had kulinism just like Brahmins and Kayasthas. One last question in this edit where Ekdalian claimed Kulina worship existed only among the Bengali Brahmins and Kayasthas citing Inden is not POV pushing? I mean I asked for the quote from Ekdalian but straight after that he/she complained about me here.Loudsheer (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Loudsheer, I have already warned you multiple times on your talk page and asked you to avoid edit warring. You don't seem to be a new user, isn't it! And this section is regarding suspected sock, not just your edits! If there are genuine sources which mention Baidya as Kulin, why doesn't an article on Kulin Baidya exist? POV pushers could create articles like Vaidya Brahmin citing primary sources like Puranas & Mahabharata, why not Kulin Baidya. Also, non-Kulins have a name; for example non-Kulin Kayasthas are known as Maulikas, similarly non-Kulin Brahmins have been designated as detailed by Inden (text cited, removed by you without discussion); can you answer a simple question: what are non-Kulin Baidyas known as? No, you can't, since there's no such sub-caste as Kulin Baidya! Kulinism among Baidyas does not exist (you know) as per 99℅ sources, the rest 1℅ represents WP:FRINGE. Sorry, Bishonen for using your talk page for such a lengthy explanation! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
For your primary information I would say Baidya it self is a very small community unlike Kayasthas and Brahmins. So separating a very small section from a small community would be not so easy, but that doesn't mean kulin Baidyas does not exist, at least there is no source that mention it, but we have sources that say Kulin Baidyas does exist. Rest can be discussed on relevant article's talk page. Loudsheer (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Not sure of sock-puppetry here since unless I am missing something Loudsheer was simply reverting an IP's deletion of sourced content (not arguing that the source is correct or adequate but that an argument needed to be made by the IP beyond the "Baidya as they are not part of Kulin system" personal opinion). Also this edit by Loudsheer too is logically defensible, since what Inden says on page 1 (I haven't read beyond that) is that his study focused on a sub-caste each of Brahmins and Kayashtas and than certain clans among those subcastes were regarded as Kulina. From this alone it would not obviously follow that other Brahmin/Kayashta sub-castes or other castes didn't follow the Kulina practice but the wikipedia article language stated the latter based on this source. Again, not saying that that the inferred claim is true or false (I don't know). Only that this issue of content and sources is best hashed out on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare, you have mentioned that "Loudsheer was simply reverting an IP's deletion of sourced content"! Sorry, I simply can't agree; as a new user, how's Loudsheer supposed to know the content of the source which is a fringe one added by Nobita! This is only possible in case they are a part of the sockfarm or else they must be a great editor who (even though new) takes the trouble of going through the fringe source in details. Moreover, the IP editor at least mentioned their explanation in the edit summary, but this apparently new user doesn't bother to give a reason while undoing the edits though they seem to know more than the basics of Wikipedia! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ekdalian: I just posted on the article talkpage. Should we discuss the content issue there? Will leave it to Bish to deal with the conduct/socking. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, Abecedare.... would like to keep you informed that Loudsheer has finally been blocked as a confirmed sock! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Great, Ekdalian! I'm very glad to hear it. Bishonen | tålk 16:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC).
Oh no! My faith in editors editing in the caste-area is so shaken. ;-)
Apologies Ekdalian for the extra hoops you had to run through due to my uncertainty about the user being Nobita. Still hope to use the renewed attention to help expand/improve the Kulinism article later this week. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Bishonen. I knew you would be glad; we always encourage genuine new users, but we had rather bitter experiences (especially in the caste related articles) with such aggressive caste promotion accounts like Nobita! I must thank you for your support all through!
No worries, Abecedare. We shall definitely work on the article & improve the same; thanks for your active involvement! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe

inside every SPAMU editor is a constructive editor trying to get out. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Does you experience bear that out? Mine suggests the majority are sockmasters trying to close in. Bishonen | tålk 21:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC).
I live in hope that I can bring forth the constructive editor trapped within that cynical, self-aggrandizing shell. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I hope you're right. Also, have you read Kingsley Amis at all? I was attempting a riff on his "Outside every fat man there's an even fatter man trying to close in." In One Fat Englishman. Bishonen | tålk 21:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC).
too true -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
In the long run, it only costs me a mouse click I am happy to make and if helps one become constructive, it's worth it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Uncommunicative editor

Bish, can you look at the comments and warning I had left for Kkggzz and heir subsequent edits? No rush though. Abecedare (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked with an informative note in the log, on the AGF assumption that they're not aware of their talkpage. Clearly, we'll also have to deal with the logged-out editing once contact has been established. Bishonen | tålk 07:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC).
Thanks Bish. Lets see if they now use their talkpage, disappear or sock. Hoping for the first. Abecedare (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Bish, got another one for you: Sulayman123 (talk · contribs). See my warning on their talkpage about edit-warring to add fictional content to historical articles and their subsequent edit adding back Fictional flag of the Mughal Empire to Mughal Empire. Abecedare (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. This one I simply blocked. People with that kind of POV don't rate the "please respond on your talkpage" song and dance, IMO. Bishonen | tålk 13:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC).
Thanks. And agreed. It would be stretching AGF to believe that an editor repeatedly adding a flag clearly (and correctly) named "Fictional flag" is acting competently and in good faith. Abecedare (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Liliana Verdiana Levy sock puppet

Looks like they are back again: under the name Georgina Amrita Sousa: Special:Contributions/Georgina Amrita D'Sousa

It's weird how they cheerfully use all the tells. Thank you, Sciencefish. I've done the SPI and so on. Bishonen | tålk 18:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC).
Is this where I make a wacky comment due to me sharing the same first name as the sockmaster? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 19:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
No, that would be here. Bishonen | tålk 20:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC).

User:Kanewiki01

Bishonen's dessert after Abecedare visited

Kanewiki01 seems not to have heeded your advice. [42] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a trainwreck waiting to happen. It seems Abecedare lost patience while I was having dinner. Thanks, Andy. Hey, I wonder if my username shows I'm biased in favour of Shintoism? Bishonen | tålk 20:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC).
I chose my username to show I'm biased against everything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for stealing the dessert from under your nose, Bish! :) Abecedare (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

{{subst:arbcom notice|Threatened to be blocked and my disabilities, faith and authenticity have been thrown into the shade.}}.

I think you and others responses were unfair, accusatory and felt like bullying so I have to try and keep my ac open as wiki is very important to me with regards to my illnesses and the fact I cannot work because of them.

regards

Bijou1995 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Right. Please don't use nowiki at random. Its purpose is explained here. If you have trouble understanding it, you're generally better off not using it. Bishonen | tålk 17:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC).
To be fair... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The request has been removed as clearly premature; further information can be found at the bottom of Special:Permalink/1157756220. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I wish it hadn't come to this, but the user is now shouting and has issued me with a pretty textbook legal threat on their talk page (Special:Diff/1157914129). Help, please? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Look, it's Bishzilla's musical friend! I've blocked, not so much for the legal threat (it's rather too easy to get out from under those blocks), but as not being here to build an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 20:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC).
Thank you in any case, I always get a bit worried when a simple CSD gets out of hand. Send 'zilla my regards! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Um, they now appear to be threatening to commit suicide. Might want to check again. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid my first thought was "drama queen strikes again", but of course you're right, I need to refer it to emergency@wikimedia.org. Done. Bishonen | tålk 11:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC).
Well, that came a cropper.[43] Sigh. Bishonen | tålk 16:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC).

You've been researched on

See [44], check "Supplementary materials" tab, the appendix 2 document, references. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Ha! Excellent! Bishzilla is so jealous! Seriously, she's down in the dumps.. I suppose they haven't mentioned her somewhere? She was admonished by ArbCom once, you know! High point of her career. Bishonen | tålk 16:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC).
I was admonished by arbcom once, and thought that it was a low point in arbcom's career ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Hopefully all those arbs have now been fired ;) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I just skimmed through that epic hullabaloo, don't think I've heard of it before. At the time I was about two months old on WP, and quite unaware of such doings. Still, it has parallels with the recent Jimbo/Bradv thing. Jimbo does something and the atmosphere catches fire, because he is Jimbo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, Jimbo clearly likes the adulation, and nowadays the fire comes with it, I'm glad to say. In 2009 it didn't so much. The fog of adulation was quite choking. Bishonen | tålk 18:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC).

CU needed

User:Tranja Bellam ate dog hair - Spamming thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and blocked the troll account. Will leave the heavy-lifting of identifying the trollmsater to Bishonen or any of her CU page-watchers. Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam A check revealed another abusive username, which has now been suppressed by a steward. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Wow - thanks, Bishonen, Moneytrees, and Abecedare. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

IP edit

Please don't see it as I do not respect my block, I do. I simply did it to get clear lines when the more controvercial parts are to be settled and so that I can focus on what's important when writing my considarations tomorrow. I will not make any other edits on that page until my block is no more.--Marginataen (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I see you removed them again. Understandable. Hope you'll read through them and insert what you finds useful. Just see it as a proposals that I should have made on the talk page. Marginataen (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You logged out and edited the article you're blocked from via your IP? I'm amazed, Marginataen, and I do see it as you not respecting your block. However, I can tell you didn't realize such block evasion is a big deal. By rights I should now give you a siteblock for at least a few days. But I'll buy that you didn't understand, and, since you have been so frank, I have merely reverted your IP edits. The reason I left the talkpage open for you was so that you could ask for uncontroversial edits to be made to the article. That, IMO, leaves you little excuse for editing the actual article you were blocked from. If you do it again, you will be siteblocked. Bishonen | tålk 22:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC).
That's a deal. Didn't want to be accused of deception so was just honest about it. I'm kinda desperate to get this solved quickly. Tomorrow, I'll write my considerations about the more controversial stoff and let it be up to you. If you find anything in that edit to be principled (like policy-making with a -), I don't think the fact that I wrote it should be an obstacle for re-introducing it to the text. Marginataen (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Need your advice whether some action should be taken against this editor

I think we're done here. Bishonen | tålk 07:40, 20 June 2023 (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.

Hello Bishonen, this particular user seems to be problematic! We generally avoid K.S.Singh as a source especially in sensitive caste articles. The same was documented by Sitush, User:Sitush/CasteSources#The_People_of_India. This user, Dympies had used the same in the article on Rajput, a contentious caste article. They were reverted by LukeEmily here; Dympies reverted LukeEmily in spite of the explanation (edit summary), when I intervened and finally reverted the edits, here. Dympies was explained on the article talk page that Singh and this series in particular are considered by the community as unreliable. I also added the recent objection by Abecedare regarding this source (here) on the Rajput article talk page, and the issue was settled; here's the discussion Talk:Rajput#K.S Singh as a source. In spite of all these, Dympies used the same source in another article, Nai (caste), and even engaged in edit war when reverted, see 1, 2, 3. You may please check the revision history! Now, in spite of warning the user (in my edit summary) against using the source rejected by the community and edit warring (WP:CASTE), the user has reinstated the same content using the same source (but national edition, somewhat reliable, not recommended for caste articles)! Please help. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Ekdalian. If Dympies used the OUP version, which is reliable per Sitush and Luke Emily, it gets too complicated for me. Abecedare? Bishonen | tålk 15:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC).
@Ekdalian: The most recent The People of India was a very ambitious and, arguably, well-intentioned project but its use as a source on wikipedia is a complicated issue. Speaking from memory, and simplifying (hence all the textual air-quotes), the main critiques were:
  • That this "government led nationalist anthropology" was fundamentally misconceived and ended up reinforcing the caste structure that the earlier colonial projects had "projected" on Indian society. And that it shared the deficiencies of those works: reifying caste; communities agitating for high/low caste status to enhance their social standing or to benefit from reservations; scientific racism (the project included collection of morphological measurements and representative photographs for each community); etc.
  • And while the project started with great ambition and vigor, it lost steam and budgetary support. Corners were cut, content copied from earlier colonial era works etc, which makes it hard for us as wikipedia editors to evaluate whether the content we are sourcing from it represents the project's own findings or is a regurgitation of the older works.
  • While the project's survey was very broad, it consequently wasn't very deep. The surveyors talked to some 25,000 "informed" members of some 5000 communities, ie, an average of 5 members (including just 1 woman) per community. This obviously cannot substitute for even a basic study of an individual community.
(TL;DR)  I'd suggest the following rule of thumb:
  • Use the national volumes published by OUP conservatively, ie, only for high level claims and with attribution. And prefer more specialized and more recent works when they are available.
  • Don't use the regional series published by non-OUP publishers at all.
Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks both, Bishonen and Abecedare for your time. I completely agree with you, Abecedare. Thanks, again! Ekdalian (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello Abecedare, sorry to bother you! What about the national one published by Anthropological Survey of India e.g. the source used in this edit? Any such rule of thumb? I would really appreciate your suggestion in this regard. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ekdalian: I'd recommend not citing any of the non-OUP volumes (and that shouldn't be taken as a endorsement of the OUP volumes!). Abecedare (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Btw, the match-making role of members of the community itself may may not be an issue. See for example, the discussion on Page 354 of The Construction of Religious Boundaries. I am pointing this not to push for this particular source (more specialized works on Nai community would be preferable) but because its analytic discussion of the topic (how the "barber" community probably entered into match-making) provides a useful contrast with the declarative generalizations in the PoI volumes (eg, pp 681-683 in Rajasthan vol 2). Abecedare (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Abecedare for sharing your valuable suggestion in this regard! Thanks, Bishonen; I was in doubt, and your talk page really helped me as usual! Ekdalian (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Bishonen, sorry to bother you once again! I am requesting some form of action against the user Dympies after carefully examining their recent edits (as per WP:GS/CASTE). In spite of being aware of such discretionary sanctions on articles like Rajput (alerted by Doug Weller almost a year back), Dympies has been trying to glorify the caste citing fringe sources for quite some time now; I first noticed this edit where the user is reverting LukeEmily and trying to push their POV that Rajput ('almost all Rajput clans originated from peasant or pastoral communities' from the lead section of our article on Rajput, also a caste having disputed varna status) is equivalent to 'Rajputra', a Sanskrit word meaning "son of a king"! In spite of lengthy discussions on the Rajput article talk page, and detailed explanation by multiple editors like LukeEmily (like Singh cannot be cited for controversial claims, discussed above as well, very well explained by Abecedare), the user tried to push their agenda. The trigger behind this complaint is this particular recent edit, where Dympies is blanking the content of the article on Rajputra and creating a redirect to Raiput! Moreover, the discussions on the talk page Talk:Rajput#Replacement of redirect (Rajputra) with questionable content, where Dympies is trying their best to prove everyone else wrong, is a clear example of POV pushing (misleading caste glorification), and I sincerely believe that this user deserves at least a warning from an admin since such behavior goes against our core principles related to contentious topics. Rest, you are the best judge! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I hear you, Ekdalian, and I'm inclined to topic ban the user from India and Pakistan for persistent caste promotion as well as use of unreliable sources. But first I need some support, lest I trip over my own feet. What do you say, Abecedare? Note, both of you, that I've given them a contentious topics alert. This is because, while Doug Weller alerted them to discretionary sanctions in June 2022, that will "expire" in a few days. Bishonen | tålk 11:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC).
Thanks, Bishonen; let's wait for Abecedare. Btw, though the term Rajput is derived from the Sanskrit word 'Rajputra' in early/medieval period, here's my explanation why Rajput and the Sanskrit word 'Rajputra' cannot be synonymous, and equating the two is a classic example of caste glorification! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Bishonen, mam please don't pay any heed to the complainant Ekdalian. He has some behavioural issues. After my first interaction with him, Admantine123 approached him at his talk page here. I responded there itself with my argument but Ekdalian was too eager to express his support to the two users Admantine123 and LukeEmily in a very casual manner without providing any rationale. On 15 June, LukeEmily replaced the existing redirect Rajputra with a poorly written article with his OR in a large edit summary. I found the article to be frivolous and hence reverted him. My edit was then reverted by Ekdalian giving an edit summary in a bad taste. He then posted a harrassing warning at my talk page. The edit to Rajputra is being discussed here. If you check his comments in the thread till my last comment, he had been there just to show his presence providing invariable support to the pov of LukeEmily and Admantine123 with comments like "I fully agree with them". It seems that he is there just to show his presence. Also, he seems to be too fond of LukeEmily and Admantine123 as my points are simply being ignored by him and he has already made his mind that Luke and Admantine are right and I am wrong. Probably, this is being done to attain a forced consensus. I urge you to note his behaviour. Thanks. Dympies (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I haven't confirmed as to who's responsible exactly (possibly Dympies through edits such as [45], [46], [47]), but the current version of the article confuses the issue of the origins of the word "Rajput" with the origin of the community (now) referred to with that name. And for the average reader, this confusion would have the effect of pushing back the origins of the Rajput community by a few millennia and tracing it to royalty.
The POV-pushing issue in short: I don't believe that there is much dispute that the word "Rajput" is derived from the word "Rajputra" (lit. son of Kings), and I would easily accept that the latter word appears in texts dating to BCE, or even that the two words were sometimes used interchangeably in the Medieval times. But there seems to be a subtle attempt in the current article to (fallaciously) imply that the age of the word Rajputra is indicative of the age of the community and that's it's literal meaning is indicative of the community's origins. I say subtle because this effect is achieved not through some outright false statement (afaict) but by, for example, positioning the unduly lengthy Early references section, which deals mainly with the word Rajputra and how it has been used, at the head of the Origins section.
By the way, Alf Hiltebeitel, cited later in the article, specifically mentions and dismisses such attempts by, among others, Asopa who is cited repeatedly in the Early references section. To quote from a footnote explaining the types of "contrived evidence" used to derive the origins of Rajputs:

Five types of evidence are prominent:...(5) Sanskrit etymology, especially to misread and antiquate the Agnivmssa (Asopa 1972, 1976, 1, 11, nn. 3-5) or the "solar and lunar races" (Vaidya 1924, 259-300). Attempts to trace Agnivamsa Rajputs directly from Vedic and epic sources (e.g., Vaidya 1924,7; Asopa 1972, 1976, 21-24) are unconvincing, and Asopa's epic references (1972, 1976, 11) are either far-fetched or unintelligible.

— p. 442 of Rethinking India’s Oral and Classical Epics
Will leave any admin action to Bishonen. Abecedare (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh god. Is "let's make the goat the gardener" an expression in English at all? This is above my paygrade, sorry. Bishonen | tålk 19:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC).
Ah, what an evocative expression!:)
I'll need to take another look to see if advice/restrictions/sanctions are warranted; may take me a day or two due to RL distractions. Pinging @RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, and Doug Weller: since they have the necessary area-background. And @Sitush: in hope. Abecedare (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Abecedare As far as I am concerned, this putative etymology is a figment. We have for years had reliable sources that indicate no mention before the 14C or thereabouts and not even the most trenchant of pov-pushers/sockfarms has suggested the community name is directly related to Rajputra. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Abecedare and Bishonen, I will try to explain the Early References sub-ection in brief which is being discussed here. This sub-section doesn't contain any synthesized content and we have written nowhere that the said rajputras of epics have anything to do with the modern Rajput caste. Such references were added because scholars have discussed them in context of Rajputs. For instance, the appearance of rajputra in Hindu epics and early medieval works from Kalidasa, Kautilya and Bana have been mentioned by Rima Hooja while discussing Rajputs; Sabita Singh mentions appearance of the term in Chachnama and Bakshali manuscript while discussing Rajputs; Andre Wink discusses the appearance of thakur in Al-Baladhuri and notes that it can be related to Rajputs; Rima Hooja discusses Asopa's research which found usage of rajputra from 11th to 14th century texts and inscriptions; then she discusses Rajtarangini in context of Rajputs. The varied opinions of modern scholars regarding the origin of Rajputs have been well-recorded in a dedicated sub-section titled Scholars' views. The formation of caste community is also given a dedicated sub-section titled Emergence as a community. All these distinct sub-sections were made to avoid confusion to readers and to arrange the things in a better way against the old version which was totally messed up. Thanks and Regards. Dympies (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Dympies This has a whiff of WP:SYNTHESIS about it. - Sitush (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Sitush, great to see you back! Bishonen has already mentioned that she is "inclined to topic ban the user from India and Pakistan for persistent caste promotion as well as use of unreliable sources", but she needs some support. Regarding POV pushing, Abecedare has also explained how Dympies has been achieving the same through their edits, and I quote Abecedare here: "there seems to be a subtle attempt in the current article to (fallaciously) imply that the age of the word Rajputra is indicative of the age of the community and that's it's literal meaning is indicative of the community's origins. I say subtle because this effect is achieved not through some outright false statement (afaict) but by, for example, positioning the unduly lengthy Early references section, which deals mainly with the word Rajputra and how it has been used, at the head of the Origins section." Sitush has also supported the same. I have already explained above how editing rights have been abused by the user Dympies in order to promote/glorify the caste Rajput!
Now, we are all waiting for some admin who would "bell the cat"! Pinging the experienced admins once again, @Doug Weller, RegentsPark, and Vanamonde93: would urge you to take necessary action against the user Dympies as per WP:GS/CASTE. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Ekdalian, I can understand your desperation in getting me topic banned. Afterall, you were providing undue support to the pov of LukeEmily without understanding the context.I find it highly unfair on your part to request admins to ban someone over a content dispute. Your allegations of caste glorification is nothing but WP:UNCIVIL. We should always be open for discussion and admins are always welcome to make changes to the any page if they find any discrepancy. As explained above, my edits are supported by sources and can't be simply dismissed; but again, admins know the best. We are just learners who keep on learning from them. Regards, Dympies (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Dympies Admins have to learn, too. Although the WP:5P underpin Wikipedia, the nuances of policies and guidelines change frequently. But admins have a particular level of community trust invested in them when it comes to interpretation and application of those policies etc. Consensus isn't static and admins aren't infallible but it's a system that seems to work well most of the time.
That said, experienced contributors are not necessarily admins and there are still some "legacy" admins who really have very little experience (none of the latter feature in this thread!). I am an experienced non-admin and purely in the context of this discussion I think you are trying to glorify a caste in a non-compliant way. Whether you have done that before, make a habit of it/aren't learning, are being tendentious and/or repeatedly disruptive etc is something I haven't looked into but the words "thin ice" certainly come to mind. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Sitush, I humbly disagree with you here. I didn't do anything in a non-compliant way. The content in question has been there for around six months or so. I had a little bit of edit warring but that was resolved on talk page. Then, we had got a stable version. I received no warning or any other kind of message regarding these edits from any admin or an uninvolved editor whatsoever. On getting engaged in a content dispute over redirect page Rajputra, Ekdalian came here with his complaint. This shows his impatience rather than any fault on my part. Dympies (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Ekdalian, Sitush, Abecedare and others. Other than the "subtle" addition of several lines of Rajputra(prince) in the origin section to misrepresent the community as being descended from royalty, here are a few more troubling edits (including blanking of sourced content that does not glorify Rajputs).
1.Dympies changed the lead here to change caste formation from 16th century to 17th century to 12th century to 17th century.
2.Dympies later changed the lead from here from 12th century to 17th century to 12th century to 16th century.
3.Removed Rajput related sexual abuse from the Chamar page here
4.Removed pastoral and peasant from the lead of Rajput here
5.When a senior editor @Trangabellum: advised him that Asopa was not reliable, he deleted Trangabellum's comment here and then continues to add Asopa without any discussion.
6. False accusations against Ekdalian here
Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
LukeEmily, I will answer all your allegations serial wise.
1- Yes I changed caste formation from 16th to "12th to 16th century". It was based on content in the main body. The edit was smooth, there was no opposition from anyone whatsoever and even today, its unopposed.
2- Yes I changed it again from "16th to 17th" to "16th". Again it was based on main body. Most sources said 16th century, thats why it got changed. The edit remained unopposed till today simply because it was fine.
3- Yes, I removed sexual abuse thing from Chamar page because I thought that it was related to the Dalit community as a whole rather than Chamar caste specific because the source mentioned Dusadh caste along with Chamar. Also, it wasn't suited for the history section at all. The same was narrated in edit summary. Upon reverted, I didn't edit war, so don't know whats the issue here.
4- Yes, I removed pastoral and peasant from lead because I thought it was undue. Origin section contained opinions of different scholars and not all had the same viewpoint. This edit was reverted by Admantine123 and I didn't engage in any edit war. You are just hyping the things in bad faith.
5- Trengabellum had called a source unreliable on Wikipedia Resource Exchange Forum. That forum is meant for requesting and receiving sources which are not available in public domain. It was fault on Trengabellum's part to comment on a source's reliability on that forum as such forums are not made for these kind of discussions. Hence, I removed it.
6- Ekdalian had been disrespectful towards me since our first interaction. What seems false accusation to you was a genuine concern for me. Thanks, Dympies (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Dympies, the above points(including Rajputra issue) illustrate a pattern of fallaciously editing (as Abecedare pointed out) with the end result of "incorrectly" sanitizing/glorifying the Rajput caste related topics. I can no longer assume good faith from you. That is my honest opinion.LukeEmily (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
LukeEmily, you have had enough! Its high time you explain following edits of yours which according to me are highly POV pushing in nature and done in bad faith:
1- In this edit to Chitpavan Brahmins page, he added as many as five new citations to a line taking the total number of citations to 8 from existing 3. He also changed the main body by adding the terms like parvenu and newcomers to the Brahmin class . One of the newly added citations used the term parvenu but he made this edit in such a way that readers get a false impression that as many as eight citations support the statement. This was a classic case of WP:CITEBOMB. This was not the only shortcoming of this edit. None of the eight citations had said that Chitpavan Brahmins were newcomers to the "Brahmin" class but he synthesized the stuff by saying that Chitpavans were considered "newcomers to the Brahmin class". He was doing it to push his agenda that Chitpavan Brahmins were of non-Brahmin origin. His edit history in Chitpavan Brahmins confirms this.
2- He made this edit to Rajapur Saraswat Brahmin on 27 Sept 2022. Taking the name of "Sitush's version", he mass reverted the page to the version of 13 Feb 2018. On closely examining this edit, I found that he made such a mass revert only to project Rajapur Saraswat Brahmins as an OBC community which was utterly false. The sources provided in support of their OBC status didn't mention RSB or Rajapur Saraswat Brahmins. So, I removed the content here. To counter me, he produced two new citations and restored OBC here. On checking the newly added sources, I found that none of the sources support the statement that Rajapur Saraswat Brahmin is an OBC caste. This was a clear cut WP:SYNTHESIS which he did twice and his only motive was to demean the community.
3- He was discussing something on Talk: Rajput. When he began to lose debate to Fowler&fowler and Akalanka820, he cited a quora answer to add some weight to his narrative. For him, his agenda is foremost. By hook or crook, he wants his POV content to be accepted.
After going through his editing behaviour in caste articles, I think its LukeEmily who needs to be topic banned. Dympies (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Wow! With more false accusations and misrepresentation of facts you are only provng my point. Let me prove how you are misrepresenting them one by one.
RSB: Check this 2018 version by Sitush Rajapur Saraswat brahmin It does say OBC and that is indeed Sitush's version. That OBC has been there for a very long time . In fact, the Rajpuri Saraswat are Dalits as per this source: Global Encyclopaedia of the South Indian Dalit's Ethnography (page 729,730). They only follow Brahmanical customs. They are also called Rajpuri in short as the source says. And THEY ARE OBC. They may call themselves rajapuri Saraswat (brahmins) as the page 730 reference by Nayak shows. I have nothing for/against them nor do I care personally if they are Brahmins or Dalits or Muslims or atheists. My motive is to show what is in the sources, not to demean or glorify any community. Unfortunately, most caste pages in wikipedia are subject to WP:PUFFERY and hence most correcting edits are not welcome.
About Chitpavans, new comer to Brahmin class is very clearly said by sources. Secondly, the quote is : "Upon the chitpavans who had come into prominence after the rise of the Peshwas they[deshasthas] looked down with scarcely veiled contempt as the parvenus, barely fit to associate on terms of equality with the noblest of the dvijas". Parvenu does mean new comer to a social class and barely fit to the noblest of dwijas does mean barely fit to associate with Brahmins. Madhav Deshpande from the Univ of Michigan has explained his analysis of "brāhmaṇā nūtanāḥ kāryāḥ"(sanskrit of new Brahmin creation). So another misrepresentation by you.
About Quora, I only pointed to some image from Quora of scans of two Sanskrit scriptures as I did not know where else that image could be found. Was that wrong? And, there is nothing wrong in adding more citations. BTW, you deleted the Jewish origin on Chitpavan falsely citing that it is not supported by source although it was. Then you deleted the sources! And then you were also told that it has been specifically approved by Sitush and admin. And you are blaming me?LukeEmily (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


Hey Dympies, can you please show the diffs where my behaviour was disrespectful towards you? Don't forget that this false accusation will be presented in case I take this to WP:AE, though I believe it would get settled here itself!
Bishonen, on a lighter note, I was wondering whether I should apply for adminship considering the dearth of Indian admins! Don't take this statement seriously; I am pretty much satisfied with my role as an editor; and aware of the fact that we need uninvolved admins, which means I would have to come to your talk page anyway! Sorry to bother you so frequently, btw. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Heads-up: I have topic-banned Dympies from Rajput-related content based on the above discussion and the explanation in my notification. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you so much, Abecedare for taking the final step as well as devoting your valuable time! Thanks Bishonen for your initial evaluation and consideration of a topic ban, which played an important role. Thanks all, who participated in the discussion! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2023 (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.

Please remove insulting edits from history on User talk:Widr

Here are some insulting edits made by anon:

Thank you. LDM2003 (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Bishonen has handled that. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, I've blocked, but not revision deleted, if that's what you'd like, LDM2003? I think it's doing the troll too much honor, myself. It's far-fetched, surely, to think people will look it up in the history. But you could take it to WP:ANI if you like, in case another admin thinks differently. Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC).

AfC notification: Draft:Kindling (2023 film) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kindling (2023 film). Thanks! Twinkle1990 (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Twinkle1990: OK.. so, I told you 331dot didn't write it but Starklinson did, and now you think I wrote it? I think I'd better give up before this spreads even further. Bishonen | tålk 10:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC).
Sorry. I landed in wrong talk page. Sorry again. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Believe I found a sock connection with someone you blocked

Hi Bishonen, I just did a wildcard search on an IP range that blocked user Defeedme has used quite a bit recently - it's 172.56.160.*

As I perused the edits, I saw this one. It looks like Defeedme and Md Sunnat Ali Mollik are connected? I'm not sure, but I thought it would be helpful to bring this to your attention. Also, that range appears to have been used exclusively by this person for vandalism and railing against "libtards" for about the past month, so maybe a range-block would help? Wes sideman (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, Wes, if the accounts are connected, Defeedme is quite the actor when they speak in the character of MSAM (who doesn't seem able to use English without the unreliable help of Google Translate). Surely it's at least as likely that Defeedme was following Doug Weller around. Anyway, the accounts are both indeffed, so any connection isn't of great practical importance. A rangeblock is something else; that's a good idea. But what do you know, as I was looking at it just now, Favonian stole my thunder and blocked 172.56.160.0/23 for a month. Danes, bah! Too efficient, they are! Bishonen | tålk 19:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC).
Ah, you obviously DID know more about this than I did. I didn't know about the "following Doug Weller around" angle. That makes sense. I don't know how he finds the time! Thanks. Wes sideman (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Also wanted to call your attention to two more ranges they are using: they've moved from 172.56.161.* (already blocked) to the 172.58. range. On the same BLP discussion, they also used 2605:59C8:25AF:* , which was also used recently to ask an editor to look at the Klete Keller article (which started their obsession with me). No other edits have come from that 2605 range, so would it be okay to ask for a block of that entire range 2605:59C8:25AF:* to curtail their disruption? Wes sideman (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Please give me a few whole IP's or diffs, Wes sideman. I don't know what to do with something like 172.58. or 2605:59C8:25AF:*. (That may well be clear to the likes of Favonian, but not to me.) Also, I can't block an IPv6 where I only have the first three groups; it's too big for me; I need four groups. These things will all be resolved if you provide some diffs. Bishonen | tålk 13:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC).
Sure thing.
  • The recent 2605 diffs arguing against my postion on the BLP of Jeff Skilling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Skilling&diff=prev&oldid=1161414608
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Skilling&diff=prev&oldid=1161414413
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1161413562
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1161413476

  • and the one from the same range that is focused on Klete Keller, from a few days ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hatman31&curid=62478213&diff=prev&oldid=1161296589
There's also this WP:CANVAS, on 7 different editors' talk pages, that happened on the exact same day:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/129.222.222.20
Wes sideman (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You have summoned the IPv6 savant, oh Scaly One. The IPs under suspicion all fit snugly inside 2605:59c8:25af:c410::/64, ready for your justice. Favonian (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The Kraken rises! Out of, er, Storebælt, perhaps? Thanks, Favonian, and thanks, Wes. For another time, do you see how the first four groups of digits in all your IPv6's are the same? That means it's a nice convenient /64 range — something even admins like me can handle — and they all represent one person. You'll really get quite far with IPv6 by merely keeping that in mind, and by providing the /64 in question in reports. Bishzilla has let the range live another day; it's not sure, to her always AGF mind, that it represents Defeedme. There's little point in blocking the canvassing IP, also — it certainly doesn't seem very static — but I gave it 31 hours anyway. Bishonen | tålk 16:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. My evidence for that /64 range goes a little deeper, but please indulge me - in the same thread of that conversation, making the same points as the /64, is this IP. The 172.58.242.234 is very close to a recently-blocked range of Defeedme's that they were hopping around, this one at 172.56.161.0/24, and they were there just 2 days earlier. They both track back to T-Mobile IP addresses. No one else made any edits to Wikipedia from that range recently. That's how I ID'd that range in the first place. Also the stalking of me. Wes sideman (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Essay critique

I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Valjean. I have asked a question on talk. Bishonen | tålk 01:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC).

Persistent vandalism in the article on Satavahana dynasty

Hi Bishonen, the user Sandeepkumarhistory is engaged in disruptive editing/vandalism in the article on Satavahana dynasty, in spite of warning by multiple editors on their talk page! Would request you to take necessary action. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't look good, Ekdalian. I've blocked for a couple of days. Bishonen | tålk 16:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC).
Thanks a lot. Ekdalian (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

About revert some info about samovar title

I wonder why you took back my post in the title. Is it because I included a blog post while talking about modern samovars while researching about samovars? I would be very happy if you provide information. İn my researchs it was a great information. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samovar&oldid=prev&diff=1161748435 Thanks KyThErA (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, KyThErA, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for trying to improve articles. As I said in my edit summary, I reverted your edit to Samovar (and also your edit to Tea in Turkey) because it was sourced to an advertisement/blog. Please use only reliable sources. Also, the prose you added wasn't very encyclopedic, but sounded like marketingspeak, e.g. "The design of the electric samovar is a nod to the rich cultural heritage of tea-drinking societies". I don't know if you took such phrasing from somewhere on the internet, which is not allowed (it doesn't sound much like your own style in the above post), but it is in any case too florid. Plain, factual prose is best in an encyclopedia, and please use your own words. Bishonen | tålk 07:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC).
Thanks for your recommends. İ am trying to my best. i just really want to make quality contributions. I will be carefull about that. KyThErA (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Question about BLP vandalism and user warnings

Hello! I was looking at my watchlist and noticed you made this edit, where you added a level 4 vandalism user warning with the note Vandalising biography articles is taken seriously here. When I go to warn a user about vandalism on a BLP for the first time, should I go for the 4th template, the 1st one, or somewhere in between? Thanks in advance, penguinencounter2@enwiki:~/talk/contrib$ 21:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, there may be different schools of thought about this, PenguinEncounter2. When vandalism is either of a BLP, or is otherwise particularly bad and egregious, I tend to use uw-vandalism3 or uw-vandalism4, instead of the usual uw-vandalism1, which I think of more as being for harmless graffiti. The uw-vandalism series is meant to start from level 1, yes, but Wikipedia is not a bureacracy. If the vandalism is designed to humiliate the victim, then I believe a certain elasticity of principle is appropriate, and I will start with level 3. (In the case you mentioned,the level 4 I selected was probably an overreaction.) I do not believe we are obliged to follow a rigid scheme; if we were, bots might as well take over these warnings. TL;DR version: It's OK to use your best judgment. And a PS: A personally written warning, or at least with a personal addition, is best, Bishonen | tålk 02:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC).

June music

June songs
my story today

moar on my talk -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, a thousand daisies! Thank you, Gerda. [Bishonen daintily picks a small posy for Bishzilla's Victorian parlour.] They're tusenskönor (Tausendschön) in her ancient language! Bishonen | tålk 20:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC).
Always learning! Tausendschön in German means a different flower, - and where I grew up its cultivated variety, belli. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Removing the tag on Roxy's page?

I'm sorry, but why did you remove the tag? There doesn't appear to have been any consensus to do so, and it was just picking at old wounds. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

What possible benefit to the encyclopedia could arise from your post? It looks like picking at old wounds. Johnuniq (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can say that. Removing the tag against consensus was stirring up old drama and treating a favored contributor differently than other banned users. The encyclopedia is hurt when people are treated unequally.-- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Rockstone35 We should treat editors unequally. A new editor should not be treated in the same way an experienced editor is, for example. We certainly have had problems in treating experienced editors unequally, but I don't see how insisting on a ban notice that is distressing to someone suffering from various illnesses including Chronic lymphocytic leukemia improves anything other than perhaps callousness. I also see that "The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits." That's important when the ban is a topic ban, etc, but not when the editor is site banned and cannot edit. Doug Weller talk 07:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: - the ironic thing is that we don't tag users who are only given topic bans, only indefinite site bans. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Rockstone35yes, that makes little sense. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I removed it because I came across this convo on Roxy's page, which I've been watching for years. A fleeting look at my contributions would have shown you this post and saved you the trouble of asking. Bishonen | tålk 07:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC).
I saw it, I just don't agree that treating other users differently is the right thing to do. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Rockstone35 But we do and should at times. Don’t bite the newbies is generally a good idea. Make special accessibility provisions, etc. aaAnd being compassionate at times when it doesn’t hurt, IAR remember. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh. So you didn't really want to ask me a question? You just wanted to tell me what you thought was the right thing to do, and your "I'm sorry, but why" was flimflam. Please come straight to the point another time. I hope you're done on my page now. Bishonen | tålk 21:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC).
Really? Am I not allowed to question your decisions because you're an admin or something? This is disappointing. I'm done. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
That makes no sense. But as long as you're really done, that's fine. Just stay away, please.Bishonen | tålk 21:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC).

Welcome Back!

Ekdalian has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Hope you had a great holiday!†

Ekdalian (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Delicious! Well worth coming back for. Thank you, Ekdalian. Bishonen | tålk 15:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC).

July music

July songs
my story today

My flowers of resilience. - Great music (in June, I'm behind: three great RMF concerts)! - Last Saturday, a friend played for us at her birthday party, on four instruments including baryton, with family (granddaughters!) and colleagues, from Renaissance to Haydn. - My story today is very personal: the DYK appeared on Wikipedia's 15th birthday, and describes a concert I sang. I was requested to translate the bio into German for a memorial concert ... - see background, and we talked about life and death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 20:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC).
more? fireworks on the Rhine pictured on 1 July, but the real stars were sun and moon. I love today's story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
On today's Main page, you can find a cantata that Bach first performed 300 years ago, and an iconic saxophonist from East Germany. - A bit of QAI history on my talk, Br'er, RexxS and more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Today Jahrhundertring, and I'm listening to Götterdämmerung from the Bayreuth Festival, close to the scene pictured, - the image (of a woman who can't believe what she has to see) features also on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Great, Gerda. I do appreciate it. Bishonen | tålk 20:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC).

Email

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I've replied. Bishonen | tålk 09:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC).
Thanks a lot. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The sock has finally been blocked! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

User Varoon

Hey Bishonen, check Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. I studied the Indian Express newspaper source and edited that article on the basis of that. But that particular user is continuously reverting my edits saying that Indian classification are not relevant in Mauritius. I think WP: STICKTOSOURCE applies there. I was about to take that user to WP:ANI, but on their talkpage, I saw numerous messages of previous such reportings of that user by different editors. So, i chose to inform you.This will save our time.-Admantine123 (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Seewoosagur Ramgoolam was last edited on 15 December 2021. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Good point, Johnuniq. Yes, Admantine123, please use the talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 09:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC).
It's not content dispute, it's clear vandalism. The source explicitly say something, but he is putting something else, as per his own opinion. A third uninvolved editor may verify this.-Admantine123 (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Even if you are correct, the other editor presumably thinks the edits are good (see WP:AGF which is a policy we are required to follow). A calm and clear explanation on article talk will clarify the situation for other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have initiated a discussion on talk page of that article. But, I am sure that this is the case of WP:CIR. Let's see, what they say.-Admantine123 (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

They've continued edit warring without responding on talk, Admantine123. I've warned. Bishonen | tålk 17:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen, this is a WP:CIR issue. They are not providing any source and reverting the sourced content as per their preference. I can't see your warning on their talk page btw. Please, also note the recent messages on their talk page, they all are about this particular user not sticking to source and edit warring on several other articles. -Admantine123 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Wow, looks like I forgot to save. Good job you told me. Bishonen | tålk 18:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC).

To be fair

I have actually seen some unironic nazis / conspiracists claim that there is a Jewish / non white agenda to cause global warming. It's quite amusing tbh! GeneralHamster (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

OK. I don't think it goes in the article essay, though. Definitely not without a reliable source. Bishonen | tålk 17:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC).

Admin action review

I have asked for a review of your recent action at Wikipedia:Administrative action review#Unblock of Tony1 by Bishonen. Sandstein 10:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Bishonen, awhile back I saw that you tried to deal with some issues with Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[48]. Not asking for action on your part since it looks like you dealt with plenty there, just advice from someone familiar with them. It seems like a lot of the badgering, etc. has transferred over to the GMO periphery over at Environmental Working Group, a fringe organization in the subject. There's a bit of that going on at the last few talk sections at Talk:Environmental_Working_Group where they haven't been getting traction with edits (mostly due to MEDRS issues or WP:SYNTH), they don't address those issues, and just reinsert slightly changed text while accusing others of stonewalling. There's a bit of a cycle now where they've denied knowing what other editors are talking about, editors linking back to the very talk or edit summaries explaining those issues, and overall refusal to get the point that's made following anything from an outside perspective difficult. That or messing around with editors comments on talk pages[49][50] Constant just seems to be the word to best describe all this.

Since you dealt with similar issues from them (and they've accumulated a block log for this kind of stuff since you initially interacted with them), I was wondering if you had any advice on how to proceed with addressing the behavior side of this editor? It's been a headache having to repeat things so much that I honestly don't look forward to trying to sort out all the underlying behavior issues at admin boards. It's just been a mess trying to give them pathways to get consensus on the talk page for something only for them to lash out with stuff like this or barrel ahead with edits anyways. Thanks for any advice. KoA (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

EWG is a notable environmental activism group. For example, they publish a popular list of “safe” sunscreens. I think it is an error to characterize this group as “fringe”. Jehochman Talk 13:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Jaguar padding by ... Not to go all tangent-y here, but at least one highly reputable organization considers that list of "safe" sunscreens to be...suspect. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but suspect is not fringe. There is a lot of room for scientific disagreement. The EWG list is based on an objective criteria: does or does not have some chemicals. There may be dispute about whether those chemicals are unsafe or not. No doubt the manufacturers think they are safe, as well as their consulting experts and groups who they sponsor. Jehochman Talk 18:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for protecting the article on Mahishya

Hi Bishonen.. almost all such caste articles are protected (in fact, mostly ECP), I am not sure why Mahishya is an exception! Would request you to take care of the user RohitSenapati55 as well, who is edit warring in spite of all warnings! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, Ekdalian. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 07:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC).
Thanks a lot for your prompt action! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by Nobita's associate

Hi Bishonen.. user CharlesWain has been following my edits for quite some time, reverting my edits wherever possible on some ground or the other! Latest examples are 1, 2 (supporting the master of socks, Nobita here), 3, etc. You might remember user DearDebasish, you had earlier blocked & unblocked this user, finally warned him for edit warring, and the user has changed their original name, DearDebasish!

I have always felt that this user doesn't edit neutrally as far as Bengali Kayastha / related articles are concerned, but couldn't confirm the same! One fine morning, when I checked Bengali Wikipedia, I found that all the socks/blocked users here including Nobita456 were pretty much active there doing exactly what we prevented them from doing in English Wikipedia! I had posted here at that time, so you may be aware that I fought against those users, Nobita was blocked in Bengali Wikipedia after I initiated an SPI, and finally managed to convince their admins that we should replace the poor versions of these sensitive caste articles by the translation of their respective articles from English Wikipedia.

Coming to the point, I was stunned to see that CharlesWain was active there in Bengali Wikipedia, and helped Nobita create a poor version of the Kayastha article, since Nobita's objective was to promote Baidya caste and undermine Kayastha (sounds silly) as part of medieval Baidya-Kayastha rivalry! You may check this talk page concern where a user is accusing DearDebasish (now CharlesWain) and questioning the neutrality of the article on (Bengali) Kayastha! I understand you won't be able to read Bengali; the user Sreema1990 mentions 3 points under the section named 'Intentional distortion': 1) Unnecessary/undue mention of Baidya as Brahmin-like caste in the article on Kayastha by DearDebasish & others; 2) Intentionally portraying Kayastha as Karan (caste) which is misleading; 3) Undermining Kayastha & considering them as equivalent to agriculturist castes like Mahishya & Sadgop but portraying Baidya as Brahmin (again accusing DearDebasish)! This is one such edit by DearDebasish! I can ping Satnam2408; Satnam, can you please check the above edits in Bengali and validate what I have mentioned related to Bengali Wikipedia!

I understand that Bengali and English Wikipedia are different altogether, but I wanted to share with you that such edits and accusations in Bengali Wikipedia clearly indicates the intent of DearDebasish, who has changed his name to CharlesWain, probably in order to avoid such controversies! Would request you to consider these and expect some sort of action against this user, at least a warning! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The false claim that I am Nobita's associate is itself a clear-cut violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. Use talk page for the content dispute and remember that what happened in Bengali Wikipedia can be only resolved there, not here. CharlesWain (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
We're also very concerned about Ekdalian's behaviours in Bengali Kayastha page, which include, but are not restricted to, slow edit -warring, WP:OWN, WP:STONEWALLING. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
This looks like it's above my paygrade. Abecedare, Sitush, and RegentsPark, are you there? Bishonen | tålk 11:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC).
I am currently (slowly) reading a book to help with the Bengali Kayastha article. There is no doubt that Ekdalian and CharlesWain are at loggerheads, that Ekdalian sort of has ownership issues with Kayastha-related articles, that CharlesWain sometimes seems wayward at them. But I missed the Nobita fun, so am not going to be much help on this particular concern, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Honestly speaking, I don't have any ownership issue! Together with editors like Sitush,
Joshua Jonathan, and later LukeEmily, I have contributions in the article on Bengali Kayastha! I have been protecting (preventing vandalism & POV pushing) not just this article, but a whole bunch of articles including Baidya, Mahishya, Vishwakarma (caste), & hundreds of such articles! Though the original version of Baidya was written by us (I mean, together with Sitush), I welcomed TB & LukeEmily for changes, and the current version has major contributions by TB; still, I am the first person to revert POV edits, or say, point out the presence of socks! Today, I have reverted a typical POV pusher in the article on Sundhi, though the editors involved in the talk page discussion are other experienced editors!
CharlesWain couldn't explain their edits in Bengali Wikipedia (along with Nobita), which clearly show their anti-Kayastha agenda! Had we (neutral editors like Sitush, LukeEmily, Fylindfotberserk & others, and admins like you, Abecedare, RegentsPark & DougWeller) not been here in English Wikipedia, caste articles would have become a playground of POV pushers, and that is what we have seen precisely in Bengali Wikipedia, where users like Nobita, DrSunBD/socks and CharlesWain had created poor versions of these articles citing poorly sourced content! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ekdalian OK, then I retract that with apologies. It was just an impression: I wasn't suggesting that any sanction was required. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I am a long term editor. I work in broad range of topics and I am here to stay.
I work in Bengali Wikipedia too where I have more than 550 edits in more than 30 articles. Sharing a diff here of an WP:SPA with 30 edits ranting on me in Bengali Wikipedia wouldn't help. I will not stop trying to do what is right just because an editor who works in much narrow range of topics than me trying to create false narratives; WP:GAME. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Come on CharlesWain, you only edit Bengali caste articles and articles related to Mahishya caste; I edit almost all major Indian caste articles! And you have been trying to play Nobita's game! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Anyone can see ! CharlesWain (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I have seen edits of Sreema1990 on the Bengali Wikipedia. Their edits seem problematic. For example, they are adding a weird type of claim that in the Mahabharata, the Baidya caste was mentioned as a shudra born of a shudra father and vaishya mother without any source. I have overlooked Hutton on the Bengali Kayastha page (one of the diffs of Ekdalian reminds me). The source of Hutton was discussed in the WP:RSN here. Ekdalian has pinged LukeEmily and an uninvolved editor but has not pinged me, Fowler&fowler, or RegentsPark or others who expressed their concerns about the source. I think Sitush is correct. Satnam2408 (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Satnam2408, you are missing the point; we were not discussing whether Sreema1990's edits are good enough or not! We were discussing about the accusation, and it seems from the diffs I have provided that the accusation is based on facts; DD had created a really poor version of the article together with Nobita! Come on Satnam, we don't invite everyone in a discussion; a couple of experienced neutral editors serve the purpose. Don't forget, you have now established yourself as an editor; at that time, TB had portrayed you as a SPA on RegentsPark's talk page! Now, you have contributed in other articles and I can ping you if required. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
BTW, can you share the diffs where RegentsPark and F&f have expressed their concern! I am truly interested since I heard this for the first time! Thanks, Satnam2408! Ekdalian (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Satnam2408, got your point after going through the links you 've provided once again! So you are talking about the recent discussion! I just randomly picked two neutral editors & pinged them! I could see F&f's comments but RP was not a part of the other discussion regarding reliability of Hutton! But, I am concerned about the fact that you completely digressed from the discussion! I had requested you to validate my translation (Bengali to English); you spoke about Sreema1990's edits in another article and then about the source by Hutton! Thanks, anyway! Ekdalian (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey Ekdalian I believe edits by the editors should reveal their intentions. I cannot comment on Sreema1990's accusations (I have already specified). As for the information provided by CharlesWain, I can say that better sources can be provided there (I am talking about the translations you have provided and that's added in the Bengali Wikipedia by the editors). I have not edited the Bangla Wikipedia much, except for some in my early days, so I can't speak about the sourcing habits and culture in the Bengali Wikipedia. By the way, I think we cannot choose editors randomly to obtain support for a source under WP:CANVASING and I am not digressing, I am strictly following your diffs as You have provided here. Anyway, Thanks to all, Satnam2408 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Satnam2408, you couldn't get my point, and I 'll leave it there! BTW, you want to say, instead of picking neutral editors like LukeEmily, I should pick someone like CW or one of the socks from Nobita's sockfarm! In fact, neutral & unbiased editors were pinged in order to get fair & unbiased opinion i.e. in order to avoid WP:CANVASING! Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Complete misinterpretation! By the word 'chose' I mean to say ping. You have pinged two editors of your choice in the article talk page, and LukeEmily is one of them who has previously given approval for the source. However, you have not pinged F&F and others who have expressed concern (which I have reiterated),Anyway, I will discuss it on the talk page of the respective article once I get some free time from my professional projects. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
We can't do anything about edits on the Bengali wikipedia but if there are any ongoing issues here, those we can handle. My hope though is that with Sitush currently active, consensus can be developed among the involved editors for any updates and improvements to the Kayastha/Baidya articles without Bish, RP and I having to play too much of a role. Call it lazy optimism. :) Abecedare (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrative action review#Unblock of Tony1 by Bishonen

Hi, this is in reference to the now-closed XRV discussion linked to above (permalink), in which you did not substantively participate. Please read the feedback by others there and reinstate the block at issue, because I still consider it necessary and your unblock irresponsible. Thanks in advance and best regards, Sandstein 11:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I'm not sure why you direct me to the feedback by others (which I have read, yes). Zero people in the discussion asked for the block to be reinstated; several said explicitly that it would be a bad idea.
Come on, Sandstein, you don't really expect me to reinstate a two-week block three weeks after I lifted it, surely? Even if I had come round to thinking I was wrong to unblock (which I haven't), I wouldn't jerk a user around like that. Would any admin? Would you? Bishonen | tålk 14:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC).
@Sandstein The closing Admin, User:Cullen, didn’t back you. You have no business coming here, particularly as your review was out of process as you didn’t follow the required process. You've misread the rules completely and are making claims about who can initiate a review that contradict the instructions. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

August music

August songs
my story today

My story today - a first - isn't about an article by me, but one I reviewed for DYK, see here. I like all: topic, "hook", connected article (a GA on its way towards FA), image and the music "in the background". I just returned from a weekend with two weddings, so also like the spirit ;) - Pics to come, I promise one cake, the other was too large! Good music, and better even in the concert ending the second day, - Goldberg Variations theme for an encore, after Dohnányi Serenade! - I played with the dedication for Goldberg Variations in my Lohengrin entry 10 years ago ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Again not by me: today's story - with the triumph of music over military - is uplifting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

A light in the darkness, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 20:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Now: picture of heart-shaped cake(s) uploaded! - Today's story is about a tenor, - why his roles are not linked on the Main page remains a mystery to me. Today is also the birthday of the Bayreuth Festival. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
One more day uploaded, with another wedding cake - I couldn't resist. Today's story is about the Inkpot Madonna who returned to "her place" 9 years ago, and also has aspects of early learning, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Today is Debussy's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Today is Gwendolyn Killebrew's birthday, - pictured: a spider and sweet food, home-made --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Philomathes2357

You topic-banned this person in January with a list of conditions [51] but their conduct has relapsed if you look at their recent talk page behavior. See [52]

Also, there is a strong possibility that they or someone aligned with them created a sock [53] who began immediately echoing their aspersions against Dlthewave 73.115.146.253 (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, IP. Philomathes' topic ban from American post-1992 politics, which I set as one of the conditions for unblock, was for 6 months only, from 25 January 2023. See [54]. That means the ban expired recently, on 25 July. As for the potential sock, yes, it might be Philomathes' sock, or it might not be. The opinions aren't that unusual. If you think you have enough evidence (I don't, personally), you could open an SPI. Bishonen | tålk 14:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prima_Linea&diff=prev&oldid=1163858733
Philo broke the ban and is bludgeoning talks with walls of text again. 2607:FB91:1AEC:8646:AC39:B778:6AFD:D911 (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
That diff does not violate the ban, which was from post-1992 politics. According to the article Prima Linea, the group was active from the late 1970s until the early 1980s. Do you have any examples of bludgeoning talkpages? And, if you're going to come in from all different IPs, might you possibly create an account, so that I know whether it's the same person talking or not? Bishonen | tålk 15:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC).
Looks like you already did. Bishonen | tålk 16:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC).
Philomathes's conduct has continued to degrade. Now when the problems with their conduct have been pointed out they have begun demanding that other users cease participating in those talk threads and threatening to "seek two way interaction bans."
I also reviewed their past further to make aure I had a good understanding after they accused Andrevan of conduct towards them "dating back months and months" [55] but found no problem conduct from Andrevan. The current worst of the bludgeoning is at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view where they are rehashing their old just-prior-to-topic-ban arguments from Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch, the same that they promised not to engage in during the unblocking discussions on their talk page, along with a couple of politics related pages where they are trying to remove terms such as "far right" and insisting that everything is "opinion," such as Talk: Breitbart News.
I am asking your review first as the prior blocking admin rather than going to a board since they seem unwilling to listen to anyone pointing out the legitimate concerns with their conduct. Lois Lane of Earth-12 (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
@Lois Lane of Earth-12 I see one request for an interaction ban, have I missed any? And I've asked who that is aimed at. I think it's Andrevan who posted to P's talk page. As for bludgeoning, given the number of replies and the agf etc problems, yes. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Doug Weller Philomathes made one at Andrevan and another I think was directed at me. Lois Lane of Earth-12 (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Lois Lane of Earth-12 I am not sure, I think that’s a problem with the reply feature. Andrevan, not you. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Even worse. [56] Lois Lane of Earth-12 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, this is interesting.
My thread on NPOV does relate to my pre-ban interests. To be clear, I recognize that a fair amount of my pre-ban conduct towards other users was unacceptable. However, the NPOV thread seems to have generated a lot of interesting back-and-forth, and I don't see how it's inherently problematic, nor do I see a consensus within the thread that the thread lacks merit. On the contrary.
It's intriguing that a supposedly "new user" created an account for, apparently, the sole purpose of singling me out. This is at least the third time this has happened. Am I paranoid, or is that a little bit sus?
I get very frustrated when people are rude to me, and especially when people mock or dismiss a strawman version of what I've said. I know I can be verbose, but there's a simple solution: don't read what I wrote unless you truly want to engage in a fairly extensive and deep discussion. If you don't want to engage with the material, there are literally millions and millions of other articles to read and improve.
However, I definitely need to learn to refrain from engaging with the non-constructive negative comments, because two wrongs don't make a right, and even if I think someone's being a d*ck or engaging in bad faith, an AGF violation on my part is not acceptable, and I get that. I and I alone am responsible for my conduct, and therefore I'm going to go ahead and give myself a voluntary 48-hour ban from Wikipedia to go outside and get some fresh air, effective immediately. Cheers. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
"I can be verbose but there's a simple solution: don't read what I wrote unless"
I hope you would realize you're admitting that your walls of text are one of several ways you deliberately try to run oeople off, which is WP: BLUDGEONING. The solution isn't to demand that nobody who disagrees with you talk to you. The solution isn't for you to call people "illiterate" or start demanding interaction bans whixh I think is just you hoping to run off people who are not enabling you. The solution is for you to stop WP: BLUDGEONING. Lois Lane of Earth-12 (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Immediate reversion

Hello. Following last week's edit warring report [57] I find this edit [58] by User:Tgeorgescu to be troubling. Isn't consensus achieved by real discussion and official procedure rather than compatriots giving an opinion that sides with your own? There was no true discussion. I tried but he didn't seem interested in it, just a challenging tone and snide comments. There also was no effort on his part to do what you asked by getting a neutral third party to take a look see and mediate. And then there was this [59], which I also found to be troubling since it seemed to be an attempt to work around your lock and return the article to Tgeorgescu's preference. While I have no interest in dying on any hill, it just seems to me how he handled the entire incident was poor and not in the spirit of working on a solution. My edits were mostly grammar related and to achieve neutrality, nothing controversial. I suppose there's nothing left to do about any of this, but I thought you might be interested in how things ended up following the edit war notification. Thank you for your time. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, User:Alaska4Me2. "Compatriots"? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you insinuating that the users agreeing with User:Tgeorgescu are meatpuppets? Please remember that we're supposed to assume good faith here. It's obvious to me that Tgeorgescu does have talkpage consensus for applying WP:RS/AC. Also, from the way you argue on talk, notably here, I have to join Tgeorgescu in wondering whether you have actually read WP:RS/AC, which has been mentioned so many times in the discussion. It doesn't look like it. Another point I'd like to make: you say "There also was no effort on his part to do what you [meaning me] asked by getting a neutral third party to take a look see and mediate". Right. I didn't ask Tgeorgescu in particular to use WP:3O; I suggested it to both of you. There was no effort on your part to do so either. Bishonen | tålk 18:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC).

Bad choice of wording. I meant similar viewpoints not that they are colluding together. I misunderstood your direction for the mediation. Since I've never had this kind of issue previously and am not as experienced as the other individual, I read it as you were wanting the other party to take care of it. Looking back at what you did say, I can see it was an either-or suggestion. I'll know better if I run into anything similar in the future. Thank you for responding! A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Alaska4Me2: If you search en.wiki talk pages, that specific WP:RS/AC claim has already been discussed several times in the past. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you (or any tps) take a look

Alekm28 (talk · contribs) has created this draft Draft:Blazo Kovacevic. The artist is real but I can't find anything about an arrest. I know he has done work using x-ray technology before so I don't know if this is a hoax, an attack page or if I'm just naff at Google search today. Thank you, Knitsey (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

(tps comment) "...a situation that had captured the attention of the art world" -- clearly ain't so. Looks like a hoax and a rather egregious WP:BLP violation. My speedy-delete finger is getting twitchy. Antandrus (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, crap, I'm too slow as usual. I just wrote up a painstakingly good-faith-assuming note to the user and then went to delete the draft, but you had already zapped it, Antandrus. Oh well. You'd better talk to them, then, if you think they deserve it. Goodnight, all. Bishonen | tålk 22:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC).
(Hi Bishonen! Long time no see :) tempus fugit...) Antandrus (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks both. Knitsey (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Activating Farzad Pak Page

Hi dear, I had a question regarding my page that was not published. Then I realized that it was immediately deleted by you. Since i spends many weeks to learn how to create a page, I appreciate if you can at least return my page temporarily so that i can save the information and references I had included in my page. I think now i understand why my page was not published and I do respect that. I have a proven track record of an award winning film producer and I was under the impression that my colleagues created their wikipedia page by themselves. I appreciate if you can assist me on this issue. I just want to have acces to the information and references that i have included temporarily. Many thanks, Farzad Pakwith Farzad Pak (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Farzad Pak. I just wrote on your page and offered to send you your text, on certain conditions. Please read my post there. Bishonen | tålk 14:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC).
Thank you, It really took weeks for me to realize how to link the references to my page with all the details and unfortunately I had no Idea of my wrong approach. But the information and references i put are very important to me Farzad Pak (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I understand. Please read on your talkpage what I would like you to do before I temporarily activate your userpage. That will give you access to all your information and references. Bishonen | tålk 14:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC).
Farzad Pak, please go to your talkpage — to User talk:Farzad Pak — and just make the promises I ask for there. I can't help you until you do. My post there is in the "August 2023" section. Bishonen | tålk 15:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC).

Oh dear, there seems to be a problem, and I won't be online for that much longer. Apparently it's easier for you to find my talkpage than your own, so I'll just copy here my post from there:

Farzad Pak, I don't believe Theroadislong can provide your deleted text, but I can, since I'm an administrator. You can activate your Wikipedia e-mail in your Preferences if you like, and I'll e-mail it to you. Or, perhaps simpler for you, I can put your text into a subpage of the form User:Farzad Park/Autobiography, for an hour or two. I haven't done that yet — that's why the page link is red. But I will, if you reply below and a) promise that you won't put it anywhere else on Wikipedia, and b) that you will copy the text for your own use within an hour. I'm assuming that you want it for something other than creating an autobiography on Wikipedia. Please note that the creation of autobiographies is strongly discouraged here. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

You see? Please make the two promises I ask for, right here on my page, below, and I will put your deleted userpage into a subpage. Bishonen | tålk 15:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC).

Problematic user

Hi Bishonen, See this user Proverealbiharhistory . I think its a vandalism only account. I noticed him after his recent edit on Mithila region. This user is doing disruption on a number of pages.-Admantine123 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Admantine123. Clicking on the user's contributions, I immediately got stuck on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anga (region), where I spotted another problem user (or well, at least another account... you know how that goes, and the names are similar) which took some handling. I don't really think I'm cut out for much adminning in this area, though. Talkpage stalkers? Abecedare, RegentsPark? Could you please just take a look at the contributions, if it's convenient? Bishonen | tålk 19:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC).

Complaint against the exaggerated banners of WMF

Edward-Woodrow recently wrote a letter, addressed to the editors on the Wikimedia projects, staunchly advocating against the exaggeration of the economic situation of Wikipedia (specifically on Banners) in order to obtain funds, against the misuse of the funds by WMF, which gives these funds to other unrelated projects, and against scandals such as that of the Golden Parachutes. Here is the letter: User:Edward-Woodrow/complaint. Feel free to sign in support if you want to. Have a good day Reman Empire (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Reman Empire. (Cool username!) I was aware, in fact, since I'd been reading the Signpost, and am still thinking about it. A suggestion for you: when you tell people about this, I think they'll get more, and more focused, information if you refer them also to the Signpost article and the following discussion, which I believe was Edward-Woodrow's inspiration for the letter. Bishonen | tålk 18:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC).
Thanks for the Info. It will be of great use Reman Empire (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
As an info, just in case, it was juste moved to village Pump (miscellaneous). Reman Empire (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

In case you have any questions

All talked to death already. Bishonen | tålk 15:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Bish. I hope all is well. Some time ago, I got the impression that you would prefer that I stay off your talk page, so I've been trying to honor that, although I don't feel that way and hope it was just a misunderstanding. So I hope it's OK for me to post this. I saw at someone else's talk page today that you have some concerns that relate to me and an AE thread. If you'd like to discuss that with me, I'd welcome that (but of course if you don't, that's OK too). Just let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't just a misunderstanding, Tryptofish, but you're welcome to post here at this time. Of course you're talking about my post on Nishidani's page. I don't think there's anything to discuss about it, though, as I simply said exactly what I think of your AE action. I wouldn't expect you to agree with my opinion, and that's all right. Bishonen | tålk 18:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC).
I'm really sorry that you feel that way about me, but we don't have to agree. You seem to hold a lot of anger at me, but please understand that I have no anger towards you. However, you described me as seeking a pound of flesh, and since the content in question revolves around Jewish people, that's something that makes me feel a need to say something in my defense. I'm going to say it, and you don't have to agree with it, either. Maybe other people who read what I say will understand better. What I saw on the page was a lead sentence that said that science had "affirmed", shown that, yup folks, just as you had been suspecting, there is a "hierarchy of races", some races better than others. (I'm a scientist, and saying that science has affirmed something is a much stronger claim than saying that science had found some evidence for something; science often accumulates all kinds of evidence with concluding that something has been affirmed. I see some other editors at the AE who appear not to understand that. And similarly, there can be all kinds of genetic differences between people, but those don't give rise to a hierarchy in which some groups of people are placed above or below others.) It was that other editor, not me, who had written that, although I believe that the way it sounds was inadvertent. I tried to change it to be less troublesome. I didn't make a stink about what I had found, but just attempted to make it better. I did a mediocre job of it, and readily acknowledged that other editors had subsequently improved on it. I never insulted any of the other editors at the talk page. But at AE, there are people who are making it sound like I had come along and created a racist-sounding sentence where none had been before, and the other editor was right to have called me out. That it was just a level-headed talk page explanation of why my edit had created a problem that needed to be corrected. That's nonsense. Tamzin was right that it was just a borderline violation of the existing logged warning, but enough of a violation that it could not be ignored. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Don't give me "Jewish people", please. Are you suggesting I used an antisemitic metaphor? I know perfectly well it refers originally to Shylock. But you know perfectly well that it's a trope that has long since left any Jewish moorings and is widely - widely! - used without any such associations. Bishonen | tålk 19:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC).
See how easy it is to make someone's remark sound worse than what was intended? That's what happened to me. But in all seriousness, I really don't want to be in a dispute with you and I really have only positive opinions of you, so I'll leave you alone now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I think that there is a strong argument for pursuing this. Whatever Bish maybe saying now. Accusing a Jew of seeking a "pound of flesh" is highly dubious. I'mm certainluy considering taking in to ANI. Dronkle (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it's best to just drop this now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
You may want to drop it but I am not satisfied with Bishonen's casual dismissal when challenged on the use of a metaphor that originates in the blood libel culture Dronkle (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@Dronkle And how was Bishonen to know that Tryptofish is Jewish? I didn't know that. Still don't in fact. How do you know? Maybe that's what Tryptofish is implying, maybe not. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm very selective about what personal information I do or do not reveal on site, so I'm not going to comment one way or the other about my religious or ethnic identity. Bish is one of extremely few community members who know my real life name, and perhaps she can make some inferences from that. But, for me, all of that is beside the point. I really want everyone to drop this. There is no good to come of picking at the scab any further.
The "pound of flesh" trope does, of course, come from Shakespeare, and it came about as an antisemitic slur. It has been used by antisemites over the centuries. It has also come into more general use, in ways that are not specifically tied to antisemitism. I disagree with Bish about it being "widely used without any such associations". It's something that has to be used carefully, with attention to context, in order to avoid those associations. But I find the idea that Bish was in any way motivated by anything even remotely resembling antisemitism utterly unbelievable. We are human beings (except for me, because I'm a fish). Human beings make mistakes. I made mistakes in the edit that set off the current controversy: I should never have used the language about genetic differences (something I don't even believe). Think of it as a momentary failure to see something, but not as me having some sort of malicious intent. I see what Bish said the same way. She made a mistake, just as I had made one. Since then, I think we've gotten things back on a collegial track ([60]).
So now, I think it's time to lower the temperature. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Starkex

Hello there. User:Starkex, who you topic banned from "all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and/or Afghanistan" has been repeatedly violating this ban, with only a handful of edits since then not being clear and obvious topic ban violations. Do I need to file an enforcement request, or given the egregious nature and frequency of the violations can it be addressed without needing to fill in forms in triplicate and get them stamped by the appropriate person. Thank you. TPF 1951 (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the alert, TPF 1951. Topic banning admins depend on people telling them about this stuff. No, of course you don't need to fill in any forms; I'll take care of it as soon as I've had breakfast. Bishonen | tålk 08:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC).
@Bishonen
Where was I "officially" banned? I haven't found a log (except a message you left on my talkpage) that mentions me citing I was banned from the topics via jurisdiction due to "violating". Starkex (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Starkex, are you saying you didn't notice this big pushy yellow template with the header Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban? The one where I said I had the authority of an Arbitration Committee decision, and where I urged you to please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is? And where you were warned that violations of the ban could lead to blocks? And where you were invited to contact me on my talk page if any of it was unclear to you? Or are you merely saying you didn't read it? As for your not finding it in any log, there was a link to the Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2023 in the yellow template. Here's the log entry for your sanction. Bishonen | tålk 10:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC).
Where can I appeal bailout? Starkex (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by bailout. The yellow template on your page has information about how you can appeal your topic ban, and the block notice I just placed on your page has information about how to appeal the 2-week block. Bishonen | tålk 11:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC).
Hello again. They have made five article edits since the block. Out of those we have Battle of Aror (which I didn't bother to tell you about straight away since it was kind of helpful removing all the bolding from the first paragraph, but a quick look at killed participant Raja Dahir should confirm it's covered by the topic ban), Sinti (adding Sindhis to the hatnote, an ethnic group in Pakistnd and India) and Talpur dynasty (unquestionably Pakistan related), and lastly Sindhi nationalism (again unquestionably Pakistan related). It does not appear they understand that they are topic banned does it? TPF 1951 (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, TPF 1951. I wish I could understand what's so hard. Blocked for three months (sigh). Indefinite comes next. Bishonen | tålk 16:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC).

ANI opinion request regarding hounding allegations

Hi Bishonen, as you had blocked Migsmigss for hounding before, I'd like to hear your opinion about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § KyleJoan, Migsmigss, edit warring, article ownership, hounding allegations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, ~ ToBeFree, I'll take a look. Can't say I remember anything about it, though — four years ago! I've seen a world of disruption since then! Bishonen | tålk 11:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC).
Heh, thank you very much! I'm close to blocking since my last message there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I've weighed in. Their latest post, just above mine ("Why not?") says it all, in a way. That's what I call collaborative. Bishonen | tålk 11:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC).

Caste promotion accounts

Hello @Bishonen, this user Vendan221 is constantly promoting pallar caste from various articles to make Pallar (Actually, a Dalit caste) a Kshatriya caste. Most of his edits appear to be Pallar and Devendrakula Velalar related subjects. His recent edit 1 violates WP:CENSORSHIP policy.

Another user Worldgiant does the same. These 2 accounts have been indulging in caste promotion by turning a Dalit caste into a Kshatriya caste. I request you to please add these articles to your vandalism watchlist. Kautilyapundit (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Will check these articles! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much, mate. Kautilyapundit (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
OK, I'll add them, Kautilyapundit. I note, however, that it's been over 3 months since Worldgiant last edited, so I'm not sure there's much point in warning them, as you recently did. (Noting also that I'm not much good with the complexities of caste.) Bishonen | tålk 08:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC).
Your contributions are priceless to our Wikipedia community. Thanks a lot, Bishonen. Have a nice day ahead :) Kautilyapundit (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Moms for Liberty

Your assertion that the sentenced i removed summarizes the body of the article is incorrect. The sentence contains information not supported by sources anywhere in the article, indeed the word "grassroots" is not mentioned anywhere else in the article.XavierGreen (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

A summary won't use exactly the same words as the summarized materials, nor should it. I was referring to the material about ties to the Republican party in the section "Ideology and political affiliations", the material about accusations of harassment in "Alleged harassment and threats toward teachers and public school officials", and the material about accusations of "deepening divisions among parents and making it more challenging for school officials to educate students" in the section "Reception", all of them amply sourced. It seems you think the absence of the word "grassroots" in the body of the article justifies your removal of mention of all these things from the lead, but I don't agree. Several users have reverted you. Please don't edit war; use the talkpage to discuss and try to reach an agreement. Perhaps the sentence you removed can be changed to please everybody? Bishonen | tålk 21:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC).
Per MOS:LEAD and MOS:LEADCITE the lead paragraph should only give a precis of the article, and non contentious material within the lead does not require a citation to a source. If the body of the article gives sufficient examples of a particular aspect of the subject, then that may be summarised with a word or phrase that does not appear in any source as long as it provides the reader with a correct understanding. It may be that a better word or phrase might be substituted, but the original term used should not be removed completely. In this instance, "grassroots" is not sufficient reason to remove content unless it can be shown to misrepresent content in the main body of the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Exactly, but I don't know if the user is interested any more, Little Less. They complained on their page that I hadn't responded here, some 15 minutes after I did, and then went AFK. Meanwhile, several people have reverted them at the article, so maybe they gave up. Good to see you, anyway! Bishonen | tålk 16:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC).
I practice with a mirror. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Rajputra

Hi Bishonen.. hope you are fine. I had posted here earlier regarding the POV pushing related to Rajput, where the user Dympies had created a redirect on the article Rajputra (literally son of king) to the caste Rajput! All of us including Abecedare, Sitush, you were against such apparent caste promotion, and Dympies was blocked from pages related to Rajput! In between, I missed an AfD, and the article again was reduced to the same redirect after the AfD in early July! I have expanded the article now after one & a half months, but two users are currently edit warring! I requested them to show me any related policy, but no luck! Are you aware of any such policy preventing me from expanding the article! Would request you to have a look at the revision history, and advice accordingly. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Ekdalian, this is Abecedare's baby. They topic banned Dympies, but I'm not sure it was specifically over the redirect thing. Unfortunately the user who opened the AFD, Lithopsian, didn't use a permanent link to the previous discussion on this page, so I had some difficulty finding it. Here it is, in case you'd like to look it up, Abecedare. And here is your topic ban explained. I'm ashamed to push everything over from my plate to yours, but I really don't have the background for this. Ignore it if you don't have time, please. Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC).
@Ekdalian that article would be better at Wiktionary - very WP:DICDEF, I think, and really scrabbling for sources. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, both. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

kitten

UshankaWasTaken (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:OWN issues

someone has some. Someone named Philomanthes2357. Who keeps accusing people of being sockpuppets so his friend admins can make false BS accusations stick. [61] 73.115.151.17 (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, this comment leaves me absolutely convinced that you are a sockpuppet. And not a very sophisticated one, either. I'm glad you pinged Bishonen again, so that she can see that this is a recurring issue. Now that I'm reasonably sure you're a sock, I'll go ahead and handle this through SPI. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

UAA bot reported

Hey, any of those stand out as not appropriate? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

No. There was this, but it was user-reported and also added after your post here. (I've just zapped it.) Are you saying the UAA bot is kind of stupid? Yes... average for a bot, I guess. Bishonen | tålk 10:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC).

Obvious troll is obvious

You beat me to indeffing BarryBamalow by a few seconds. Always nice to see your name in the log! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry! As somebody who always looks too slowly at reported vandalism, and then scratches her head for a while, and then blocks, I'm delighted to find myself the winner for once. The Knitsey impersonation must have given me an unusual burst of speed. (Waves at Knitsey.) Bishonen | tålk 21:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC).
How slow am I today? I had forgotten all about the trans thing in relation to MO. I must be slowing down, 3 months ago I would have been straight to AIV in seconds.
Old age. Knitsey (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
And again [62]. I gave them a 4im warning. Knitsey (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Good idea. Bishonen | tålk 19:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC).

Sorry!

About the talk page thing. I do appreciate you looking out for me. Can I ask you to take a look at this edit please [63]? I reverted earlier today but they've removed the info again. I didn't want to wade in all guns blazing. I reverted [64] here. I didn't leave them a talk page message as I hoped it would suffice. Should I revert again then discuss it on their talk page? I was going to remove the children's names as well. Thank you, Knitsey (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I see she has now removed the references, too. On the other hand... Hmm. Please do remove the children's names, Knitsey, but I'm having some trouble finding the info about the doping in the sources. I don't see it at siteducyclisme.net, and at bikecult.com, under "1988 Ghent (BEL)", where Stan Tourné is mentioned (misspelt) as getting silver, there is an [X] against his name. So, does [X] mean disqualified for doping? No, it doesn't mean anything, if you check out the Abbreviations list at the top; there is no such abbreviation. "Disqualified drug test" is supposed to be indicated with a [3]. Checking the list in general, there are no [3]'s, but plenty of [X]'s. It's almost as they decided to whitewash the doping. Whatever happened, it makes bikecult.com pretty useless as evidence of doping by Tourné. Can you find anything else? You may be better at Google Books than me; I was only able to catch tantalising glimpses of Meutgens' book. Anyway, in view of the username, I've given Mandy tourne a COI warning. Maybe you want to try to talk to her without blazing of guns? (Though telling her off about her "racist" nonsense can't hurt.) Bishonen | tålk 20:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC).
I'm a numpty, I just saw the x without checking. I will see if I can find anything else. I will also remove the childrens details. Thanks for being more thorough than me(ops). Knitsey (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This seems to stem from a raid in 1986 raid at Six Jours de Paris-Bercy. Only 2 people were convicted and Tourné wasn't one of them. The only details I can find are here [65] which led me here [66] (no mention of Tourné).
I'm not sure about a site that calls itself Dopeology, regardless, there is no evidence of charges or conviction. I also checked out all the other language Wikipedia (7?), non of which mention doping.
I'm going to leave it as deleted.
I will delete the childrens names. Knitsey (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

References, etc

Hello Bishonen, is it possible to temporarily allow me to check this deleted article Mitanshu Kawlekar. Or perhaps move to one of my user pages? Rejoy2003(talk) 06:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Rejoy2003. I've emailed you the article. Bishonen | tålk 09:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC).
Hey @Bishonen, thanks alot. I'm planning to rework on these articles. Could you also do R N Mauzo and Narayan Mauzo? Thanks again! Rejoy2003(talk) 09:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
OK, done, but please note that these two were deleted as copyright violations. If you plan to work on them, be very careful to use your own words! Bishonen | tålk 09:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC).
Sure, I will. Thank you Rejoy2003(talk) 10:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@Bishonen Sorry, I just went through the email. You've sent me only one article, Narayan Mauzo. Rejoy2003(talk) 10:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Right, sorry. I guess I got confused with the names. Sent. Bishonen | tålk 11:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC).

Draft:Siddharth Sukhlal kushwaha

Hi Bishonen Draft:Siddharth Sukhlal kushwaha was unnecessarily moved to draft space by someone, who was in hurry. I was expanding it and it fulfills WP:NPOL. Even in its present version, it can exist on mainspace as a stub page. Can you please move it to mainspace, as I am finding it difficult to edit in draftspace. Admantine123 (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for blocking that account with the misogynist user name. Realwomenfirst 🦖🤍💜 16:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm frankly worried about your username as well, Realwomenfirst. Transphobes aren't welcome here. Bishonen | tålk 17:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC).

Please

Hi, could you please revdel these edits. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Thanks . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Who are you and what have you done with Bish? 🤪

You seem uncharacteristically concerned and solicitous. (Marginataen)😛 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Bishzilla is unfortunately very tenderhearted, young Fritter. She tends to nag me about blocked users stuck in the limbo of nobody-wants-to-review-their-unblock-requests, and will threaten to suborn a crat and steal my tools again.[67] Bishonen | tålk 17:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC).

Some baklava for you!

Hi Bishonen! It's great to you're still active. I came back from a long absence last year and reclaimed the joy of editing Wikipedia. Hope you're well. BorgQueen (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back, BorgQueen! Are both the forks for me? (Bishonen quickly scoffs the baklava before Darwinbish can steal it.) Bishonen | tålk 21:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC).

Yup, just in case you drop one of them and don't want to pick it up. You want to eat it elegantly.
Guess what, I just realised you were from Sweden. I'm learning Swedish language these days because of the articles I'm working on. Sweden has such a rich treasure chest of archaeological stuff! BorgQueen (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
The "tålk" tipped you off, huh? Bishonen | tålk 22:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC).
Love the small circle over a. Ååååå. BorgQueen (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Åh, så fin den är! Bishonen | tålk 08:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC).
P.S. Sorry to say I hadn't heard of your Luttra Woman before, BorgQueen, not even as Raspberry Girl. What a fine article! Bishonen | tålk 08:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC).
Tack själv! BorgQueen (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
To quote a film: The Borg, eh? Sounds Swedish!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The best Star Trek film so far! Well, in my opinion anyway. BorgQueen (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Question

Bishonen, may I preform some general image replacement on several different pages? I am very sorry to bother you with these non-controversial changes, but as it is a part of my agreement, I have to. I ask permission to replace:

Current photo of Boje used on his own article's infobox and under "Leadership" on the NB page with this cropped version. Current image of Boje at the party conference on his own page with this cropped version. Current Vermund image under "Party leadership" with this cropped version. Current info box image of Vermund on her own page with this newer one. Current Mikkel Bjørn info box image with this on Bjørn's own page And to delete this image from the NB page as it adds nothing of value to the article. I would also like to ask for permission to rename “Party leadership” to “Leadership”, “Election results” to “Electoral performance” and “Part platform” to “Party program” on the NB article.--Marginataen (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry, Marginataen. I'm glad you asked, but you may not. You have agreed to a topic ban from the New Right and its current/former members, so you may not edit any articles related to those things in any way. That is, you can't edit New Right (Denmark), Lars Boje Mathiesen, Pernille Vermund, or Mikkel Bjørn; not to replace images, nor in any other way. It doesn't matter that the edits are non-controversial (in your opinion). You may, however, make edit requests on the talkpages of these articles, so I suggest you try to request the changes you want in that way. Alternatively, you might want to ask Tamzin. She's not using her admin tools atm, but she did unblock you and set your conditions, so she may be willing to answer questions about it, and she might conceivably feel differently about it than I do. If she does, I don't mind. Incidentally, please note that it's more convenient for the people you're asking if you provide links to the articles in question, so we don't have to dig them out via Commons. Bishonen | tålk 18:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC).
Thanks for extending the leeway, Bish (CC @Marginataen), but I'm taking non-adminship strictly, which means I have no authority to reduce the scope of a TBAN, and even if you're delegating that authority, I'll have to politely decline. This might sound silly, because I'll probably be back to the mop in a week or several, but it's the only way I can balance priorities at the moment. I think it's reasonable for Marginataen to treat you or any other admin involved in this as de facto sanctioning admin in my absence; the other option would be to appeal to WP:AN, although I can't say I recommend that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The thing is that I want to change images on several different pages and can't really see a rationale behind creating a discussion on every single page. Also, I would be afraid of getting blocked if I did, because this request is about several different pages, and I'm only allowed to do own request per day per page. Another options that I do not expect you to do, is that one of you just could change the images or the ones you agree with should be changes. Marginataen (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't get it, sorry. One request per day per page means that you can, for example on Thursday, make a request on each of the talkpages for the four pages I named. Then, on Friday, you can make another request for each of them, and so on. So how could you get blocked because there are four pages? That won't happen. And creating similar discussions on each of the four talkpages doesn't sound like much of a problem to me. If anything, it's an advantage, because you can link each of your request to the other three, to make people aware that there are other things you also need help with. I feel that's an advantage because the talkpage of an article like Pernille Vermund isn't likely to be that well watched in itself - linking to it on other pages would surely help get attention to your problem. And no, I'm afraid I don't want to make changes to Danish political articles. That would make me more involved, and less likely to be able to admin them, and also, I'm not exactly knowledgeable about Danish politics. It's simply not an area I want to edit. Bishonen | tålk 21:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) As someone who somewhat frequently handles edit requests, as long as you make sure they aren't annoying to implement (be clear about the changes you want made, and ideally provide the wikitext to use), it's fine if you make a few per day across multiple pages. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen
Someone has (probably via the talk page) found my sandbox and copied into the article the images I use under "Leadership" as well as a collage under "2019 general election". It is problematic that Økonom can simply revert someone's (not mine) constructive edit just because it contained content taken from my sandbox. Marginataen (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Marginataen. This is a rather complex situation, and I'm not sure what to advise. The IP, 217.116.228.10, found those images, which you had uploaded to Commons, in your sandbox User:Marginataen/sandbox/NB and added them to New Right (Denmark). Now, I had told you you could have that sandbox on Wikipedia even though you're topic-banned from the New Right political party. Perhaps I didn't think far enough about what could happen with it. It might have been a bad idea to let you keep it and edit it, since it provides a path for images of yours into articles you're banned from, and I may have to withdraw that permission. Provisionally, I'll just say it seems to me that Økonom was justified in removing the images. If you disagree, feel free to take this to WP:ANI (but beware the boomerang); I'd quite like some fresh eyes on the conundrum, for myself, even if the ANI folk do tell me I was a fool for letting you keep the sandbox. Note, if you go to ANI, please make sure to link to any articles you discuss. I've told you this before, but you still didn't do it just above, talking instead loosely about "the article", and I had to figure out which article it was. The people at ANI will definitely not have the patience for that. Økonom, do you have any comment? Or you, Tamzin? Bishonen | tålk 18:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC).
Well, I do not think that the sandbox exception from the topic ban is an advantage. @Marginataen apparently uses it to maintain permanent alternative versions of various New Right-related articles in user space and to bypass the normal procedure of COI requests, inviting instead specific other users to visit his sandbox after having his ordinary request turned down, like here. As another user commented here, it also means that the records of the precise contents of earlier COI requests disappear from the talk pages of the relevant articles, contrary to the intention of the usual COI procedure. Økonom (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen
I'm real sorry for not making clear what article it was. It was more the principle that a constructive edit was reverted on the sole basis that it used content generated by me. I am not gonna take further action. I think it would be extreme to withdraw my permission due to one dude once copying a collage of mine into the article. I've been writing on a comprehensive text proposal that I'll properly propose at some point. Marginataen (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I just see Økonom commented. It's not a permant alternative, it's a work in progress text proposal. I'm not trying to "bypass" anything. After the first time where I, while disclosing COI, simply linked to my sandbox, my proposal was implemented without any issues. The second time, I did exactly the same, but was told that there needs to be a permanent record. Since then, I've not made any edit requests. Marginataen (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
The point is exactly that you did not make a new regular COI edit request after having had your latest one turned down twice because of the sandbox issue, but instead responded by pointing another specific editor, who had been helpful towards you in the past, to your desired changes in the sandbox via this comment. This is bypassing the normal COI procedure, appearing more like canvassing. Økonom (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I was more because I wanted an explanation because I was confused about why I didn't have do to it the first time. Also, I realised that I could do some more work on the text before proposing it. Then ready, I'll make a proper edit request. This is all whataboutism. I just wanted to point out the problematic in you replacing an informative collage displaying the first original MPs with a random image of Vermund during an interview for the sole reason that the collage was made by me. This I've now done. I'll make a proper edit request at some point when I'm ready. Marginataen (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Økonom. Yes, that is indeed more like canvassing. I was not aware of the way you intended to use your sandboxes, Marginataen. If I had known there would be attempts like this and this from you to enter your sandboxes into the conversation about the article(s) that you're banned from, I would not have permitted them. It seems to me that you have encroached on my good will and my assumption of good faith, and I hereby rescind that permission. I'll give you 24 hours to copy your texts into some text-editor offline, if you wish; then I'm deleting the sandboxes User:Marginataen/sandbox/NB, User:Marginataen/sandbox/Pernille Vermund, and User:Marginataen/sandbox/Rasmus Paludan. That should also take care of things like other users (IP 217.116.228.10) cannibalizing them for images. I'm putting a note about this on your page, to make sure you remain aware of it. Bishonen | tålk 22:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC).

Holocaust denial

Thanks for the correction - hadn't realised there was an article on Wikipedia. Regards Denisarona (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Plz Suggest Something if possible

Hi Bishonen,I wanted to work on this deleted page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sujit Meher.If he is not so popular all over the country but atleast in Odisha State he is a notable person,trust me As I am from Odisha state of India I have very much genuine and concrete knowledge of him.When he revived our traditional Habaspuri Handloom,he was very much in news back then.I am very sure the article will meet WP:GNG now with sufficient reliable sources from leading newspaper articles.IshwarTalk 11:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Ishwar. I'm afraid Sujit Meher got himself a bad reputation on Wikipedia back in the day for self-promotion and use of sockpuppets. See for example Sandstein's close of the 2016 AfD, and DGG's comment there. Sujit Meher was repeatedly recreated with promotional content. That's why I eventually protected it against recreation (which I suppose is the reason you're appealing to me). I'm not going to remove that protection unless you provide some of the reliable sources from leading newspapers that you mention. I notice that you just added Meher's name to our article Habaspuri sari; please note that The Times of India is unlikely to be reliable for a subject like that. See WP:TOI. I know nothing about the Mid-day source, but it certainly reads like a press release or even a paid advertisement. You need better sources than that for a biography article. Anyway, you could always start drafting a new article in your own "userspace". Use this link, if you like: User:Riskyishwar/Sujit Meher. If you put in the reliable sources you mention (not the kinds of poor sources that were criticised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sujit Meher) and let me know, I'll take a look and possibly allow it to become an article. Bishonen | tålk 16:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC).
Thanks a lot! I will definitely try my best to develop this draft to be article(not being over confident). IshwarTalk 02:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding a Bangladesh obsessed user

Hi Bishonen.. Hope you are fine! This is regarding a particular editor (apparently Bangladeshi, as evident from the user talk page), user A.Musketeer, who seems to own the article on List of wars involving Bangladesh! I checked the article history and found that an editor Lancepark had earlier moved the article to List of wars involving Bengal, since the article mostly mentions medieval wars when no country namely Bangladesh existed! Bengal is a broader region comprising Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal! When I tried to move the page, the user reverted as usual citing undiscussed move, and now when I initiated a discussion in the article talk page, and everyone who commented there, are in my favour, the attitude of A.Musketeer simply shows that they are not only adamant, but having ownership issue as well. Would request you to please have a look at Talk:List of wars involving Bangladesh#Recent Move & Revert! Please help. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I have submitted a formal move request. Thanks, anyway! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Indef please

Hi Bishonen. Can you block User:95.96.74.188 again? They definitely don't get it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Can't indef IPs, no. But I have re-blocked that IP for three months, along with the small ranges they previously used for block evasion (62.145.192.0/22 and 89.205.227.0/25). It took me a while to figure out how to take care of the ranges... but it's all experience! Thanks for alerting me, Joshua Jonathan. Bishonen | tålk 08:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC).
Thanks. I'd first removed their latest talkpage-rant, but then self-reverted, out of politeness, to explain again what the problems with their edits are. But I doubt it they really understand; their view on the meaning of meditation in Chan/Zen does have a ground, but is so complex and contextual that, given their rambling arguments I don't expect them to be able to use the appropriate sources to write a coherent and balanced text on this. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
JJ, I've blocked the IP you pinged me about, but it's obviously difficult to get the individual via whack-a-mole. No fun having to semi the article either, but I've done so, for two weeks. Bishonen | tålk 08:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC).
Thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Philomathes2357 again

This is a general alert/request for further investigation I’m sending to multiple respected users who have been involved with this user in the past. Recently this user accused me of sock puppetry (using extremely poor evidence and no diffs whatsoever) and subsequently two users have come to me with claims that there is off-site coordination, administrative corruption, and undisclosed COIs going on here. See links:

Dronebogus (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

[[68]] @Ponyo and Bbb23: this might interest you also. Bbb23 note that an impersonator of yours is involved in the Wikipediasucks thread. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Doug, I appreciate the ping, but whenever I'm informed about one of these sorts of things, I click on a few of the links, my eyes glaze over, and I lose interest. As for Wikipediasucks, I lump that in with the other weird anti-Wikipedia websites that I don't read. With Wikipediasucks in particular, apparently to even view certain things, you have to register. I know some respected users have accounts at these websites, but not me, now or ever. Wikipedia itself is too much of a soap opera at times, but these websites are a combination of anti-social media, blatant soap opera all the time, and horror shows. Halloween is coming up soon, so I suppose it's a good time for them.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Bbb23 Agreed. I'm not sure any respected editors have accounts at Wikipediasucks Doug Weller talk 13:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Heh, maybe, I'm not sure where people draw the line. Doesn't it fall under "know thy enemy"? Frankly, knowing my friends is enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I considered it but it seemed like too much of hassle. If the above linked excerpts are considered credible enough, then there’s no point. Otherwise it might be necessary to make an account just to get a screencap. Dronebogus (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Circling back on this for posterity... a troll did a joe job after they impersonated SFR on the forum, then came on here attacked me and Doug accusing us of being antisemitic, Materialscientist revoked TPA and FFF blocked them on another page. There are several attacks on those forums which mention me and several other users. I guess the action has died down, but I'm leaving a note here in-case offwiki harassment of Philomathes, Valjean, or anyone else becomes an issue again. Andre🚐 02:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Repeated edit warring at Zainab Abbas article.

In Zainab Abbas article, in response to the recent circulating rumors some are adding info from Indian websites and treating their reliability as absolute while writing info that seems to be written like a troll. Can you look into it. 182.183.0.254 (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, IP. The users in question have been blocked for sock puppetry by Bbb23, so the problem is hopefully over. But I'll try to keep an eye on the article. Bishonen | tålk 14:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC).
PS, I see there's already a new sock. I have blocked it and semiprotected the article for a couple of weeks. Bishonen | tålk 17:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC).
Thanks. 182.183.0.254 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Questionable closure at ANI

Recently Bbb23 closed this discussion at ANI. While I agree it devolved quickly, and understand admins are given pretty broad authority to close discussions, this close struck me as rather sloppy and opinionated given the discussion was still being edited by good-faith users up until the close. When I explained what I thought to them on their talk page, their answer was decidedly curt and unhelpful. I was wondering if another admin could offer a second opinion on this close? Dronebogus (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Videh raj

Hi Bish. You partial blocked Videh raj from Brahmin a while ago. I notice they're editing Kanyakubja Brahmin in a big way. Not sure if that's kosher or not but you might want to take a look. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Ho boy, RegentsPark. The sourcing... They have also been adding that caste to individual bio articles (need I mention that the people haven't self-identified). I've topic banned from caste and social groups. That may be a bit of a pious fiction, since caste is their only interest on Wikipedia. I'll see if I have time to do a bit of cleanup later... sigh. (This is a hint to all the kind talkpage watchers.) Bishonen | tålk 09:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC).

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the pretty Yogo, Gerda! Bishonen | tålk 09:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC).

Request for self-block

I ask that you please block me from editing the page "Max Trejo - Mexican-American footballer" that I have done a lot of work on as it is too time consuming for me and because under the 2023 season section I ended up making the page unbalanced, biased in favor of the subject, overly detailed, and included trivia. The problem is the match reviews. I inadvertently turned the page into something of a sports column and the match reviews need deleted. I don't want to deal with it anymore. I read you block only for six months but I would respectfully request a full year. There are so many better things that I can be doing on Wikipedia. Thank you. Jmr012 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Jmr012. That's the first time I've been asked for a self-requested partial block! Your request is reasonable, and I'm prepared to make it a full year. As per my page about it, though, I'll first wait 24 hours, to give you a chance to change your mind. If I haven't heard from you in 24 hours' time, I'll block you from Max Trejo. Bishonen | tålk 21:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC).
I'm fine with reading the article. I simply want to be prevented from editing it. Jmr012 (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, sure. A block won't prevent you from reading it. If you should see vandalism, you may want to mention it on the talkpage, or (perhaps more usefully, since I'm not sure how well-watched that is) to me. Bishonen | tålk 21:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC).
Hi, I was wondering when you would enact my year self-requested editing block on the Max Trejo article? Jmr012 (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, right, sorry. You have been blocked for one year from editing Max Trejo. Bishonen | tålk 13:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC).
Thank you most kindly. Jmr012 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Christmas Felicitations

I wish you a Merry Yuletide, a little early, but by December I shall have other things to do with my time. So I’m sending my Christmas cards early - one can’t beat a little organisation. My local garden centre is already broadcasting Herald Angels harking and whatnot to encourage the locals to waste their money on plastic, glittering rubbish - I bought a red cyclamen for £1.99. So glad to see you’re still here - are you writing pages though? So important, I always feel, to educate the masses. Do take care of yourself, none of us are getting any younger! Much love The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

How lovely to hear from you, my lady. A very happy Sicilian Christmas and a joyful Easter to you too! Writing pages? Pages? What are they? No, my Wikipedia time nowadays is mostly spent wildly swinging the banhammer. That takes care of the masses all right. Fun all the year round! Bishonen | tålk 20:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC).

Sealioning

I had lost the link to that wonderful cartoon. Thanks for bringing it back. I may dress as a sea lion tamer for Halloween.

Hope all is well. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hehe. Sure. And I hope you are doing well, it's nice to see you around, even with the "Ret." in your moniker. If you should lose the link again, it's listed on my userpage under "Essays" (hardly the logical place, no), along with this one, which is perhaps even more useful to refer to. Bishonen | tålk 20:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC).
I keep forgetting how to spell xkcd. The First Amendment is the most misunderstood 45 words I've yet to see. Well, there's the Second Amendment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Gurbachan Singh Salaria

Hi, is it worth putting Gurbachan Singh Salaria under some limited but long-term protection? According to a couple of the regulars there - Applodion and Indy beetle - there has been repeated disruption from caste glorifiers seeking to associate the "hero" as one of their own. Who'd da thunk it?

Latest thread is on talk page at here, where a bunch of non-glorifiers with experience of such matters have come to an agreement that caste should be omitted entirely. Both Applodion & Indy beetle are happy with that. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure, Sitush. Per the history, not much of the caste glorification has been down to IPs. Applodion is happy with it? I don't see where they suggest that - did you mean Admantine? Anyway, I do see there's consensus to leave out caste from the article. I've put in an edit notice about it. I'm not protecting it right now — please get back to me if IPs do add back the caste stuff. It can in any case be reverted on sight, with a reference to the edit notice or to the link I give there. Bishonen | tålk 10:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC).
OK, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Sitush: was talking about my comment of pov pushing by IPs, which indeed took place. For examples see here: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76] just to include some examples of the last months. As for page protection, we will have to wait and see whether these IPs return. Applodion (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

TheDelhiBoy2

Do you think it's worth a CU here? I'm not an admin myself. Uhooep (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Uhooep. Only a handful of specialized Checkusers can do checks, not ordinary admins like me. And the CUs will only do it if there are very specific reasons to suspect sockpuppetry. If you have reason to think some particular other account is a sock of TheDelhiBoy2, you can ask for a check. Feel free to tell me about it if you want assistance. But a general check of TheDelhiBoy2 to ferret out possible socks is a non-starter; CUs are actually not allowed to use their tools like that. And as for User:TheDelhiBoy, which is of course a possibility, that account is already blocked indefinitely, so it's moot — nobody's going to care if those two are the same person. Bishonen | tålk 01:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC).

Nestle

Hi, sorry if this consumes your time, but there is a certain IP address, 37.35.67.39, who has been making edits to mostly American and European confectionery and processed food companies by adding Nestle to infoboxes and adding Nestle lists and templates to articles and adding those articles to Nestle lists and templates, including many companies which were sold by Nestle years ago and no longer have affiliation. They also have been adding container categories and such to articles. I have advised them on what they are doing wrong, but they seem to have ignored every warning they've received. They also seem to be making many test edits. Some of their edits do seem constructive, but they are being quite problematic. Editors 37.35.67.20 and 37.35.67.44 have recently made similar edits. Seeing as how you helped with Jutos, I was wondering what your opinions are on this. Thanks for your time. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse. Could you please give me a few examples of what's wrong with specific edits of theirs (i.e., provide references or WP links for specific companies no longer being affiliated with Nestle and similar problems)? The IPs you enumerate can easily be blocked for a while, as they all belong to the same tiny little range. But I hesitate to do that without having chapter and verse for their edits being wrong, and I'm not much good with multinational conglomerates myself. Also, do let me know if you should spot any more related IPs beyond those three, in case a larger range needs blocking. Bishonen | tålk 17:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC).
I don't know too much about conglomerations myself, but some of their problematic edits include this one they just made to 100 Grand Bar, which is now owned by Ferrero, not Nestle. Others include this and this that they made to the Nestle template, both of which are no longer owned by Nestle, and this that they made to the same page as we speak, this that they made to Baby Ruth (owned by Ferrero), this to Butterfinger (same thing), any of the four edits they made to Moj Kiosk, several categories added in this edit to Zvecevo, and this one to Smartfood. Seeming test edits they made include this to California Pizza Kitchen, this to List of assets owned by PepsiCo, this to Dole plc, this to Princess Gate Spring Water, and some of their edits to Winiary (company) and Zvecevo, which were done in a long and convoluted series. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Got you, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse. I've blocked 37.35.67.0/26 for a month, and told them in the block log to read your warnings on User talk:37.35.67.39, already. Quite likely they don't know they have a talkpage (or actually in this case many talkpages), but they will be shown the block log text. Thanks for reporting! Bishonen | tålk 17:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC).

A troll

Hi Bishonen, not sure if you are the right person to ask but I've seen you deal with trolls before. Just a note this user has made three troll edits on the same article. Here, and in these edit summaries here and here. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Zenomonoz:, User:When the Wind Blows is not here to improve the encyclopedia, and unless I miss my guess, will not be around for long. Meanwhile, keep your nose clean, don't get dragged into the mud or tempted to react in kind; just keep following policies and guidelines as you have been, and WtWB will be out of here sooner or later, most likely indef blocked. Mathglot (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both. I've indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | tålk 11:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC).

For the talkpage stalkers: a deletion request

The Christmas card images File:Bishzilla blink santa rotated.gif and File:Bishzilla blink santa.gif have been nominated for deletion on Commons. The discussion is here, in case you wish to take part. Bishonen | tålk 13:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC).

Why is no reason given for deletion? And should you post there or on the discussion page, which is blank? Doug Weller talk 13:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Doug. I've assumed the reason for deletion resides in the "owned and licensed by Toho" bit (so I mentioned I don't think the Bishzilla images infringe Toho's copyright).
As for using the talkpage, no, I think their deletion discussions are structured like ours, meaning the talkpage doesn't come into it. (If you look at some random AFD on Wikipedia, there's a 99% chance it also has a blank, redlinked, talkpage.) And reading the blank Commons talkpage, it says it's for discussing how to improve the main page, just as the blank Wikipedia AFD talkpages do. Furthermore, when I opened the main page in edit mode to add my comment, it looked like I was expected, because there already was a * for me to use. Bishonen | tålk 15:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC).
Will the GodBish devour the Darwintwins? (Nope.)
PS, Bishzilla's Christmas cards have already been saved, in plenty of time for the festive season. Bishonen | tålk 21:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) Is it even Christmas without a Bishzilla message? Knitsey (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, or without an exploding gift from Santa's little helper Darwinbish? Bishonen | tålk 21:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC).
Good grief, you're EVERYWHERE! Knitsey (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Might "GodBish" emerge to smite them heathens with biblical force? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Emerging and devouring the heathen Darwintwins? Oh no, let them frolic forever! No truthfish here! Bishonen | tålk 21:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC).

Re: Truthking77

FWIW, I was about to warn them for editwarring, but then I looked more closely and Cullen didn't actually revert their 2 edits, just 1. So their 2nd edit wasn't a revert because Cullen never reverted the revert he meant to revert. I think. Andre🚐 23:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I know; I was just going to revert back to last good when you did. It's a fine thing I didn't have to, I appreciate it, as I now remain an uninvolved admin. Not gonna block anybody for some hours now, though; going to bed. (I didn't say they were edit warring, did I? I told them not to start doing it. :-)) Bishonen | tålk 23:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC).
Got it, just wanted to make sure you saw :-) Hope all is well. Andre🚐 23:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

My Other Wiki Is Magic

BTW, it's Bbb23's fault they lost TPA.😛 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see it is. Bishonen | tålk 21:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC).
And I deserve many, many cookies for that, as well as a bunch of designer donuts for blocking the user. Disclaimer: I am a paid consultant for the cookie and donut industries. I wrote the article Drunken Donuts, of which I am very proud. Some might think I should be blocked for UPE (undisclosed paid eating), but there are a lot of chips and holes in that argument.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
LMAO -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Elegant donut in Miami Beach
Here is a photo that I took in February. 2019 in anticipation of this conversation. Cullen328 (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I've been trying to avoid going to weddings all my life. Maybe I should reconsider.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
A Jewish lawyer from Montreal married my nephew. a Jewish lawyer from New York. They now have a healthy wealthy baby. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Who hopefully won't become a lawyer.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I feel safe in saying that my influence on the child's career path is de minimis, as a lawyer might say. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I got married during the worst of Covid in NYC on Zoom. Solved that problem. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Wow. That’s fascinating. I hadn’t thought of that, but why not? These LTAs are a pain. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Fascinating also. Well, in a way. Hardly worth tagging or listing or the like. Bishonen | tålk 21:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC).
The only reason I would ever want the difficult job as admin is to read the revdels. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I know! I handed in my tools for a while once, and being shut out from the revdels just killed me. I kept thinking, just as you are now thinking about the post in question, that they had to be amazingly interesting. I assure you this one wasn't, but I know it's not in human nature to believe me. Bishonen | tålk 22:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC).
Hah. Forgot about it before I finished typing that. And I should have added the abuse encountered as an admin. The posts I've seen before revdel were not likely to win any literary awards. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Harassment, please?

Information icon Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Voskresno (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific, Voskresno. That template on its own is pointless. Bishonen | tålk 22:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC).
@Voskresno: A fair question. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Never mind, I found it: you're referring to my post on your page on 19 July (sic). I don't think it was harassment, and you may have noticed another administrator has just commented on your page to the same effect. And yet another just above. Just answer the question I asked, please. Bishonen | tålk 22:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC).
I can't answer the question because it's predicated on false premises. Please see this discussion if you would like to learn more. Voskresno (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Be aware, Bishonen, that this discussion on my talk page falls into TLDR territory. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I think Bishonen is more than capable of opening it and seeing the amount of text present. I can only suspect that you made this comment as yet another way to harass me. Voskresno (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Cullen's not harassing you either. Please stop making accusations like that. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The days when I could enjoy reading expansive prose are long gone. A form of early senility, I fear. A bit frustrating as it hit in the middle of third year English. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

hello

Hi bish/zilla. Just felt like dropping in. ❤️ PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! It's the little Praxidicae with the Babydicae! [Bishzilla puts the baby very cautiously in her pocket.] Stay! No egress through catflap! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 19:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC).

Disruptive editor RealPharmer3

Let me know if I need to take this elsewhere.

Other users previously warned RealPharmer3 for engaging in WP:WHITEWASHING of pages, here, here, here, and here.

  • Here they deleted a quote from a reliable source, and did their own analysis by linking to the CDC in their edit summary.
  • On two occasions, the user removed the wikilinks to the McGill Office for Science and Society next to a critical statement on Huberman (here and here). Seems to be an intentional clear whitewashing attempt to reduce the credibility of the source.
  • RealPharmer3 has edited to replace quotes, e.g. here, instead of simply adding more context alongside it.
  • ^That also appears to constitute WP:PROFRINGE editing. In replacing a quote to give credibility to Hubermans anti-sunscreen claim, they selectively left out the next sentence from the original source which states "no evidence is offered" that sunscreen stays in the body for 10 years.
  • The user also appears to fail to WP:GETTHEPOINT after I linked them a number of editing guideline pages. Here they claim they were a good editor "from the beginning" and complain about being reverted while claiming they are just 'adding balance'. Here they suggest they have no idea what content they selectively edited out, despite me linking the edit history right above. Also see the talk page where the user keeps repeating arguments to myself and another user.

It's a bit of a headache having to go back and forth on the talk page, and edit to correct their sloppy editing. The persistent editing seems like a form of edit warring, alongside the WP:WHITEWASHING and WP:NOTHERE. Is it possible for you to warn or take action? Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Zenomonoz. Thanks for your report. I've studied the history and talkpage of Andrew D. Huberman (I'm not as interested in the very old warnings) and yes, that looks like tendentious editing to me. I have warned RealPharmer3, and may page-block them, unless they can give satisfactory answers to a couple of questions I have asked. Bishonen | tålk 21:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC).

Duplicates

Hello again, Bishonen. Not sure if you are fine being my 'go-to' source for problems like these, but I don't really know where else to go, so... There is an article I discovered, Mlangeni Nawa, which appears to be a duplicate of Don Eric Mlangeni. Don Eric Mlangeni was made months before Mlangeni Nawa was, so that is the original article, but Mlangeni Nawa is in much better shape. Their sources are slightly different and Don Eric is tagged for notability, but their content is nearly the same except for the lede. A cursory google search seems to show him referred to as Don Mlangeni the most. Do you have any advice on what I should do in this situation? Turn one of the articles into a redirect to the other? Start a new one named Don Mlangeni and delete the other two?

Many thanks, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse. Nice catch! You don't need to start a third article; instead, if I were you, I'd move Mlangeni Nawa (the better article) to a new name, "Don Mlangeni", leaving Mlangeni Nawa as a redirect, and then turn Don Eric Mlangeni into a redirect to Don Mlangeni. That way, people can type in any of the three versions of the name and still land at an article under the most used name. At a glance, I don't see any content worth merging, but if you do, then of course add it to the target article. Bishonen | tålk 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC).
Will there be a sequel, A Few Redirects More? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Tcdm (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Tcdm (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)}}

Tinder

I tried adding references, but found it hard to navigate around the clutter when writing. So I decided to say my piece first, then add sources after. Highland Blast (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not acceptable, Highland Blast; you need to add sources along with the text. (It's no big deal if it isn't technically correct; you can fix that afterwards.) Please look up WP:Reliable sources to see what type of sources are acceptable. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that any source will make it encyclopedic to add the kind of opinion that you do. Note that article text is supposed to be neutral per our policy WP:NPOV. Bishonen | tålk 22:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC).
Anyway, I have to go to bed now. Hello, talkpage stalkers in other timezones, you're welcome to take a look at recent edits to Tinder (app), as Highland Blast may need further assistance. Bishonen | tålk 22:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC).
Looks like Galobtter took care of it elegantly. Good night to everyone (eventually). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes I've been ambushed. By two women! LOL Highland Blast (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
And now you've created your userpage, nice. Hope you continue as an editor. [Changed my mind about that. Bishonen | tålk 12:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC).] Wow, I never knew Galobtter was a lady. Well, there you go. Hi, Sluzzelin, always a pleasure! Bishonen | tålk 13:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC).

Help with the removal of unnecessary quotes.

After reading WP:QUOTE's "Editors should take care to avoid letting quotations, especially from unreliable sources" and WP:Dontoverusequotes's "Quotations are often taken from primary sources such as personal diaries or interviews. The problem with such sources is that they may not be fully representative of an individual's views. It may be that they changed their views throughout their life, or held conflicting views at once."

Considering a nazi individual Albert Speer cannot be taken that of a reliable source, so in Religious views of Adolf Hitler's Views of Islam section 4th para was "According to Speer, Hitler was convinced that had Islam taken root in central Europe at this time, the Germanic people would have become the "heirs of that religion" with Islam being "perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament". Hitler said that while the Arabs, on account of their "racial inferiority", would have been unable to handle the harsh climate and conditions of the region, and that instead the Islamized Germans would have "stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire". A "religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and in subjugating all nations to that faith"."

And I condensed it to "According to Speer, Hitler believed that if Islam had taken root in central Europe, the Germanic people would have become the "heirs of that religion" and would have "stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire" as Islam, according to him suited the Germanic temperament." so as not to rely on direct quotes because of the contradictory nature of so many of Hitler's words and actions.

Also there is a revert war going on this issue. Can you check it 182.183.20.126 (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Your changes are unnecessary. In your first edit you made no mention of the reliability of Speer, nor did you in your subsequent edits, up until the last one. Speer has been cited on that particular article since the very beginning. You don't seem to have a problem with any other of the Speer quotes on the article apart from the specific ones regarding Islam. So it's quite evident that you don't have any problem with the reliability of Speer, your problem lies within what he says in those specific quotes.
Hitler's views on Islam can be found in a multitude of other sources. I would be more than happy to post some of them on the article for you in addition to the Speer quotes.

Hitler thought and strongly believed that if Germans had adopted Islam, then they might have fared well in world history and went on to achieve more in history. This thought process of Hitler is expressed in 'Adolf Hitlers Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944'. Here is the quote from 'Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944': "Hätte bei Poitiers nicht Karl Martell gesiegt: Haben wir schon die jüdische Welt auf uns genommen - das Christentum ist so etwas Fades, so hätten wir viel eher noch den Mohammedanismus übernommen, diese Lehre der Belohnung des Heldentums: Der Kämpfer allein hat den siebenten Himmel! Die Germanen hätten die Welt damit erobert, nur durch das Christentum sind wir davon abgehalten worden." (Werwolf 28. 8. 1942, mittags H/Wa.)

Translation: "Had it not been for Karl Martell to triumph at Poitiers: If we had already taken on the Jewish world - Christianity is so bland-we would have adopted Mohammedanism much sooner, this doctrine of the reward of heroism: the fighter alone has the seventh heaven ! the Teutons would have conquered the world with it, we were only kept from it by Christianity."

This particular thought of Hitler is registered in numerous independent sources, the first I will cite is Albert Speer's memoir 'Inside the Third Reich.'

Here is the quote from Albert Speer's memoir: "Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire." Albert Speer, Inside The Third Reich.

"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness" Adolf Hitler, Inside The Third Reich, Albert Speer


Another source where the same thought of Hitler is registered is Walter Hewel Diaries, where Hewel records Hitler saying "Wenn wir Mohammedaner geworden wären, würden wir heute die Welt besitzen." (8. Juni 1941 Sonntag. Berghof.)

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Hewel/Tgb_1941.html

Translation of the above quote from Walther Hewel Diaries: "If we had become Mohammedans, we would own the world today."

Another independent source that corroborates this particular thought of Hitler is Edmund Glaise von Horstenau. The below passage is reproduced from the book 'Islam and Nazi Germany's War, David Motadel'

"After discussing the Muslim SS division in the Balkans with Himmler and Hitler in Berlin in February 1943, Edmund Glaise von Horstenau noted that Himmler had expressed his disdain for Christianity while explaining that he found Islam 'very admirable.' Hitler had made a similar remark. A few months later, according to Horstenau, Himmler brought up the subject again: 'We also spoke about the Muslim question. He came again to speak about the heroic character of the Mohammedan religion while expressing his disdain for Christianity, and especially Catholicism.'" (Ein General im Zwielicht, ed. Broucek, vol. 3, 189-190 (February 1943), quotations on 189..,322 (November 1943).

Another source is Eva Braun's sister, Ilse: "After the war, Eva Braun's sister, Ilse, remembered that Hitler had often discussed the Islamic religion with her and Eva." (Islam and Nazi Germany's War, David Motadel, Citation: Ilse Braun made this comment in a conversation with Werner Maser in May 1971, see Werner Maser, Adolf Hitler: Legende-Mythos-Wirklichkeit (Cologne, 1971), 475.)

Another source is from Hermann Neubacher: "In any case, Hitler was thoroughly fascinated by this historical speculation. Hermann Neubacher, special representative of the Foreign Office for the Balkans, also noted in his autobiography that "Hitler showed great sympathy for Islam and that he was convinced that "if the Germans had become Muslims, they would have achieved more in history." According to Neubacher, Hitler had further described Islam, in a conversation, as a "religion of men" (Männerreligion)." (Islam and Nazi Germany's War, David Motadel, Citation: Hermann Neubacher, Sonderauftrag Südost 1940- 1945: Bericht eines fl iegenden Diplomaten, (Göttingen, 1956), 33.)

Another independent source is Christa Schroeder's memoir 'He Was My Chief: The Memoirs of Adolf Hitler's Secretary': "Hitler found himself in agreement with many aspects of Islam, in particular, the ban on drinking and eating the flesh of swine, and the practice of periodic fasting." (Christa Schroeder's 'He Was My Chief: The Memoirs of Adolf Hitler's Secretary.)

Do I have to go on?

Ithinkusergoeshere (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Much of what you said above has has already been covered in the article. My edit streamlined the content while retaining the essence of Hitler's views on Islam, as reported by Albert Speer. Those WP:Undue direct quotes are not adding anything substantial.
Also streamlining a piece of quote does not merit that every other also needs the same treatment, although it definitely could use some. I'll leave that to another editor. 182.183.20.126 (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
On an important note, the excluded quote redundantly echoes Hitler's admiration for the militaristic aspects of Islam and its forceful expansion themes already addressed in preceding sections of the content. Therefore, the condensed content I proposed can be entirely omitted, as it is essentially repetition. 182.183.20.126 (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, both. I think this disagreement would be better handled by further discussion on Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler than by me intervening. It's a little unfortunate that only the two of you are discussing on talk so far, but then that situation is perfectly suited to using the lightweight dispute resolution Wikipedia:Third opinion. Please look it up and see what you think, both of you. It's not complicated or time-consuming like WP:RFC or WP:DRN. And perhaps my stalkers would like to take a look? Bishonen | tålk 11:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC).

Question

Hi, I have to go back into hospital for surgery again and didn't want to log in on their wifi with my account. Can I do minor editing from the ip or should I just not bother? Editing might help keep me sane for a few days after whilst I'm stuck with snorers, farters and grunters (of which I am one of course). Thanks in advance! Knitsey (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Knitsey. Sorry to hear you'll be among the snorers and farters; hope the surgery goes smoothly. I wouldn't recommend editing from your IP. Perhaps you could create a sock an alternative account, with its own password, for use specifically in potentially unsafe environments? People often do that. Example: User:Floquensock. Bishonen | tålk 23:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC).
Thank you, that's not a bad idea! If I do create one, do I just post details from this account to the new account to confirm it's me and not an impersonator? Knitsey (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
You can do what Floquenbeam did; he posted a message signed by himself on the sock's userpage, saying it was his. Simpler. Bishonen | tålk 23:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC).
Lovely, thank you. Knitsey (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No Nazis

I'm still around in the background, but less than you. I kinda took over WP:NONAZIS after Mpants. If you and sympathetic talk page watchers could look after it, I'd appreciate it. I'm somewhat depressed that people don't understand that the context was that we had people who thought the extermination of non-European ethnicities was a good thing here and that there were people at ANI defending not blocking them for that fact alone. NONAZIS effectively decimated that argument, and I take issue with some of the recent comments at the MfD and talk page that don't understand it's value. Feel free to email as always, I'm around there :) TonyBallioni (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Tony, thanks for believing in me and my talkpage stalkers; we'll do our best. Glad you're still around! Bishonen | tålk 09:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC).
December songs
story · music
I'm glad that you two are around! I mentioned "new era" a few times recently, - we sang great music by a certain Mozart recently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Today, I managed to get the pics to snow (on 28 Nov), and heard a lovely concert, after listening to a miracle of meditative dreaming on 6 December (or just click on music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honour to have known him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
New pic, cake (home-baked but not by me) before a dream of a concert --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. Don't miss pictured doggie. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Hacked?

Have you been hacked, or how is it that you removed categorization of e.g. Carl Johan Bernadotte as a son of his British mother? Just askin'. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

What a courteous way of asking, SergeWoodzing. But you're right, I got some of the relationships wrong. Mind you, I find the whole category Swedish people of British descent ridiculous, especially as applied to royalty. I wonder what this IP was thinking? There are presumably several British ancestors back in Carl Gustaf's family tree — bound to be, the way royalty typically marries internationally — but why should an encyclopedia care? I'm thinking of proposing the category for deletion, along with a few others. Bishonen | tålk 13:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC).
Thank you! That would be just fine by me. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
There has been quite a discussion at Swedish Americans about who they might be, i.e. how many generations could tell. One twit there insisted that if one calls oneself a German American, that's what one is. Oh, and then of course we have consensus to deal with, not to mention frequency. What would you suggest. friggzample, to try to get an article like Hedwig of Holstein renamed with the woman's actual name? One of the worst consensus freak-outs on enWP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Newcomer homepage

Hi Bishonen. I noticed your recent edit to 84Swagahh's Talk page (the editor has now been banned as a sock). You said you didn't know what a "homepage" is in relation to Wikipedia. For future reference, all new accounts get homepages (actually tabs visible when they look at their UserPage or own TalkPage) as a default. You can activate this growth team feature using the checkbox at the foot of Special:Preferences if you want to see what it does. In that respect, 84Swagahh was not being devious. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I was thrown off by the absence of any edits by 84Swagahh to anything that might be called a homepage, but now I understand. Bishonen | tålk 13:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC).
PS, I did activate it to see, and was immediately assigned a mentor! Bishonen | tålk 13:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC).
That happened to me when I enabled the newcomer homepage to get an understanding of the experience. Mentors are easy to unassign, but it would be nice if the software checked for tenure before automatically assigning a mentor. Folly Mox (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I signed up to be a mentor when the scheme started but the vast majority of my mentees never contact me and about 60% of those who do never edit again! It usually turns out that the only reason they signed up was to create an autobiography. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, Growth research showed 28% of new accounts come here to start a new article, but the sample was drawn from Korean and Czech wikipedias (or something; typing in haste). I wonder if the percentage on en.wp is higher, and also that the percentage of contact from people trying to start articles on non-notable living people is higher than from those who create an account to do something helpful instead.
My own first choice for amelioration is a notice at Special:CreateAccount that says something like Wikipedia is not for brand building. If you are creating an account to write about yourself, your business, or someone you know, you will experience frustration. Folly Mox (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Like, it's an easy mistake to make, but people who come here to build their brand are wasting their own time as much as ours, and it's to everyone's benefit to correct their misconception and get them through and out of the editing ecosystem as quickly as possible rather than naively assuming they will convert to constructive editors eventually. Folly Mox (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree, Folly Mox. Sometimes I feel bad about blocking them — this pleasant fellow this morning, for example — but to keep him hanging around would surely not be doing him a favour. I thought it obvious that he came here for one thing only, and he has kind of corroborated that by not bothering to appeal. What do you think, Deepfriedokra? Bishonen | tålk 16:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC).
Oh, the ping for User:Deepfriedokra prolly didn't work; doing over. Bishonen | tålk 17:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC).
New users here for self branding are both the bane of my existence and my raison d'etre. I love/hate the lament, "I created a Wikipedia profile to get a panel on Google." On the one hand, I think forewarning these troubled souls would ease the Weltschmerz of the Zeitgeist. On the other, es gibt gern shadenfreude when they find out the hard way. On the Gripping Hand, I don't think we could push through the needed changes, even though they would do much to lessen the work place toxicity. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Ah, a whole Leiden des jungen Fritters! Bishonen | tålk 21:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC).

Holiday Greetings

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. I couldn't help but notice the hot air balloon image on your user page. "I'm not sayin'...I'm just sayin". You might wanna rethink that! ―Buster7 ☎

Hey.... thanks for being here Bish, Doug, RP, Bbb23, Drmies, Abe

Hi Bishonen, I haven't come here today for any help (admin intervention), but only want to thank you all for the great work you all have been doing as admins! From the core of my heart, I would like to thank you, Doug Weller, RegentsPark, Bbb23, Drmies and Abecedare! Needless to mention, I badly miss Abecedare apart from being concerned about them! Thank you all, once again. Ekdalian (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Ekdalian. I miss Abecedare too — there's nobody better to guide me as I stumble my way through the WP:ARBIPA area — but they tend to be busy IRL and to therefore have to take frequent breaks, long and short. I wouldn't start to be concerned yet. Bishonen | tålk 13:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC).
@Ekdalian thanks, much appreciated. I too miss Abe, but I also think he's just on a break. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Ekdalian, thanks--best wishes to you too. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment

If you have any spare time: an IP editor has been fringe editing on conversion therapy Special:Contributions/216.49.128.107 and leaving uncivil comments, e.g: [78] Zenomonoz (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Taken care of by ScottishFinnishRadish, I see. Yawn, the advantage of skiving off and letting somebody else do the work. Bishonen | tålk 09:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC).

Really??

Hmm. Now who can it be that I'm thinking of who doesn't come anywhere remotely near to following this principle? 🤔 JBW (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You think I don't blush when I type it? Bishonen | tålk 22:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC).

Martin T. Buell

Hello again, it is me, I must be getting annoying by now, but...Apparently the subject of this article, Martin T. Buell, has been dead since March of this year, and his middle name is also Thomas. I was going to add this to the article, but I can't seem to find any reliable sources, or at least identify any, as I don't have much expertise or experience in the field of biographies on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if you do either, but any help or advice you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You're always welcome here, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse. Of course it's peculiarly important that a person's death is confirmed by reliable sources, but I would have thought the obituaries found by Google would qualify. This one, for instance. Or use two of them, for extra security. If the person wasn't famous enough for an obit in the NYT, what're you gonna do? Whether an outlet is reliable depends on what kind of information it's used for, and of course the local obits aren't going to have the dates or the middle name wrong. That's my thought, but maybe a talkpage stalker knows better? Bishonen | tålk 08:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) I'd prefer this obituary; obits are regularly sourced to worse, sometimes even funeral home franchises (not recommended). As an aside, I'm not sure if Mossman 2018 would contribute to notability, but it has some info on the subject and could probably be used to source some fresh statements for the article if it's not all trivia / cruft / advert (haven't checked closely). Folly Mox (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Folly. Bishonen | tålk 13:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC).

Disruptive?

Hi Bishonen. I've had disagreements with an editor on Lex Fridman(a man associated with Andrew Huberman) where Uhhhum seems to engage in sort of low level white washing. They user continually adjusts the article to move critique of Fridman's Tesla study into a different section at the bottom of the article, which removes the context and the chronological flow of the article. E.g. here they move it back to the bottom. There was an earlier discussion over this here on the talk page. They just posted a large message here, casting aspersions at myself and another editor, claiming "Before you, a user named @ancientwalrus was the instrumental editor in the push back against the editors who'd come to this page expressing concerns over the balance of the article", and dropping hints of their whitewashing " How is it helpful to a reader to know that Missy Cummings opinion of the study is that it's "Deeply flawed"? How does that add value to a reader's understanding of Fridman's career, particularly his career at MIT? among others. They also just posted this comment claiming that the article relies too heavily on Business Insider report, an argument they brought up earlier in the talk page archives.

Here, here and here they remove content from an RS as "irrelevant". Also they have persistently posted on the talk page e.g. here arguing that the editors are biased. I have tried to help this editor understand the editing guidelines but they do seem far too protective of this page. If you have some free time to take a look, I'd appreciate it. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Race and intelligence IP you warned

Heya Bish. You warned 173.246.210.93 a couple of weeks ago about outing and harassment. They've recently been edit warring at Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist) to repost a comment that continues (via a dump of linked diffs) their harassment of the editor they tried to out. I hope the trollish tone of the comment is clear, and if isn't, I can try and explain why I see it the way I do. The race and intelligence topic area has a gallery of dedicated sockmaster, and it's likely this is one of them. Checking with you since you're at least somewhat aware of the background and because I'd rather not take a case that has involved attempted outing—and which might lead to more—to one of the more public noticeboards. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, FFF. I think I have enough to give them a holiday. Done. Bishonen | tålk 09:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC).
Obliged. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


Thanks, Schro, same to you! Bishonen | tålk 09:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC).

Happy annoying days and all that

Well, they're not that pretty, they're not even that amazing, but the Brunsli are the only Christmas cookies I get from my mother (because they're the only vegan ones she makes) So ... Happy Holidays, dearest Bishonen, from your grinchy Weihnachtsmuffel Sluzzelin

Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It's the Grinch! Good friend! [Darwinbish tastes the Brunsli, a little suspiciously. Hmmf. Not bad. Eats them all.] Have some crumbs, Bishonen! darwin bish 07:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Ha ha ha, there are people (including some loved ones) who consider gobbling up Christmas cookies before Dec 24 a grave breach of local tradition! I adore that subversive spirit, of course, yet Bishonen still deserves her own cookie. A rainbow fish sugar cookie! ---Sluzzelin talk 22:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Another cookie! Good! Or...hmm... is that Fish? Looks a lot like him! [Even Darwinbish hesitates to gobble up her brother.] darwin bish 08:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC).
That was clever, Sluzzelin! Apparently I get to keep the rainbow Darwinfish cookie for Christmas Eve. Thank you! Bishonen | tålk 08:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC).

メリークリスマス！ (Merry Christmas)

🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 01:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Lapidoth

Hello. I was wondering if you could take a look at Lapidoth and Zabbai and tell me if you think the subjects are notable? I don't know how much expertise you have in this area, and I was considering converting Lapidoth into a surname page (as there are two biographies of people with the surname) to solve the stub and notability problems, but I don't want to plow through and change the subject if it ends up being notable. Thanks in advance. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse. Well, they don't look notable to me, and I notice nobody has even tried to resolve the notability for Lapidoth, which has been tagged for notability for the better part of nine years. But I should say I'm not much good with biblical subjects, nor used to dealing with them. Your articles would certainly both need better sourcing. Little talkpage stalkers, ahoy? Bishonen | tålk 17:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC).

2024



Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Like 2019, remember? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen/Archive_25&oldid=1237238920"