User talk:Bishonen

Come canoodle with me

They archived just ahead of my comment...

• I can't believe somebody's reporting Director to ANI for some obvious jocularity, nor that admins and others are putting on a big voice about Diorector's jocular comment here. "I will see you in court for not closing the thread"? Come on, guys. Please just close the thread. Bishonen | talk 00:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC).

(Non-administrator comment): This is the first time in my life I have ever considered the possibility that smileys, or those dorkly "friendly banter" tags, have an actual use. Anmccaff (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

As the inventor or , I'm glad the scales have fallen from your eyes. Between that thread, and the recent "Death threat" thread, I'm this close (makes "this close" gesture with thumb and index finger) to proposing that a special license be required for on-wiki humor. These amateurs are endangering our wikihumor heritage. EEng 00:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC) P.S. Better watch it with that word dork. As you know, there's been some prickliness about that recently.

Well, I'm a refugee from a place with a particular attitude toward smileys. Please take this handicap into consideration. Besides, the really bad word that we can't say is d-sr-pt-v-. Anmccaff (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

<runs off to file an ANI thread about Anmccaff>ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

And most annoyingly, the crappy software didn't give me an edit conflict. When I saved my ANI remark, which somebody has now indiscreetly pasted above (I had promptly removed it), I had no way of knowing SlimVirgin had just archived the thread. Grrr. And for this I interrupted a perfectly good pout break! And I wasn't even nearly as rude as I felt like being! :-( I think I'll just go on another pout break, over that. Please don't post here, guys. I'm on break. Bishonen | talk 08:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC).

Oh very well, I'm not on break any more, it's shot full of holes anyway. Bringing back the summer meadow with horse. Thank you for your comments above, guys. Bishonen | talk 08:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC).

...I'm feeling a ittle hoarse myself...

This page has a {{bots|deny=all}} tag y'know, you'll have to sign your posts yourself. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC).

There's too much work lion around on Wikipedia to sign off comments Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 11:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You should just shoot from the hippo like that. Anmccaff (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sarasota High School

Thanks for the revdel. The same info was added earlier by an IP, User:66.87.148.226. Should that be revdel'd too? Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 18:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, done. Thank you for reverting. (I had to revdel your edit summary as well, as the username was a violation in itself.) I wonder if I should semi the page for a while? Scary stuff. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC).

Ebele Okaro

Hello,

I don't seem to understand the removal of the phrase that was used to indicate her as an Anambra descent. That's a regular word that is used to indicate people's origin in almost all varieties of English. Phrases like "European descent", "Scottish descent", etc are not uncommon on Wikipedia. Can you please explain why "Anambra descent" is bad quality?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jamie Tubers:. Are you seriously suggesting that you think "Okaro, a descent of Anambra, in Southeast Nigeria, was born in London, United Kingdom." is correct English? The idiomatic English expression that you're trying to mimic would be "of European descent". Note: (1) the preposition "of"; and (2) the adjectival form of Europe - "European". The phrase is almost always used as a direct qualifier, i.e. it's adjectival. You're trying to use it in apposition to a name, i.e. as a noun phrase – which it isn't. There's no way in English of economically constructing the sentence you're looking for. Something like "Okaro, a woman of Anambran descent (Anambra is a state in Southeast Nigeria), was born in London." would be the nearest that I can muster, but it's awkward. Have a think about the point you're trying to make and ask for help if you can't construct it in English. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, what RexxS said, Jamie Tubers. The English is incorrect. My edit summary saying it "isn't better quality than anything", may have sounded brusque, but I was referring to the previous edit summary, "better quality", which User:Celestina007 used when she restored the phrasing "a descent of Anambra". Celestina thanked me for my edit, btw, so she presumably didn't mind. Bishonen | talk 21:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC).
  • (talk page stalker) @Jamie Tubers: Since the Anambra link gives the information about its location in Nigeria, maybe drop that and go with something like "Okara was born in London but has Anambran ancestry." or "Okara was born in London to Anambran parents." followed by "The family returned to Nigeria where Okara attended the Santa Maria Primary school in Enugu State.". Thoughts, RexxS, Celestina007? EdChem (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, I see what you mean now, but then again I was more concerned about the fact that you removed a very essential information because it's "bad quality". I felt, you could've reworded the statement, instead of just out-rightly removing the information. Anyway, I'll just re-add the information, hopefully, my edit would be of a "better quality" :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Your new version, "She is of Anambran descent, a state in Southeast Nigeria" is not good syntax, as it's not the descent that's a state. (Also it should end with a full stop, not a comma.) People have made several better suggestions above, please consider them. But I'm not interested in arguing about the wording; I'm not invested in the article, and won't edit it further. I merely reverted some bad English, in the hope that someone would add the info in a better form — as I indicated in my edit summary, I didn't know, and still don't know, if "Igbo" ought to be in there — perhaps you do. I can't find it in any of the sources. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC).

• I've spent several hours tidying up, and in so doing have done away with the repetition of sources and content, changed to reliable sources, etc. She was in an Igbo language-film, FYI. Bishonen, hopefully you can now nap for a few hours and do nothing.  :)

Jamie Tubers, I left out Anambra as the reference is poor, and I noticed that there were other references that did not support the content or had reliability issues. I strongly encourage you to consider the WP:RS policy. EdChem (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Very nice work, Ed — I watched you at it. (I like watching work.) Maybe I should now change my page image to an even more relaxed animal, such as this? Notice the impressed little vandals gawping. Bishonen | talk 16:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC).

But I don't want my picture at the top of your talk page! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, that picture is Obaysch, so allow me to congratulate you on your prolific editing, a significant achievement given your "hands" are singly ill-equipped to using a keyboard and you've been dead for well over a century. I'm impressed to learn you have inspired your own dance and that you managed to father Guy Fawkes (commiserations over what happened to him, though at least you can take some comfort that he wasn't alive when drawn and quartered) over two centuries years before your own birth! Since you've now outed yourself, you might consider adding a COI notice to your article's talk page. Being (I suspect) the first WP editor to begin editing after death, your notability is assured (though verification might be problematic) and you can represent the perspectives of other deceased article subjects, but please be careful... I'd hate to see accusations of proxy editing for others who have died, Wikipedia doesn't need headlines for blocking the only known deceased Wikipedian still editing nor for being speciesist in blocking our only known hippo-editor. I know that we do have 'zillas and other cute critters editing, but none that I know of has your additional existential handicap. Finally, I understand that you value your privacy and Bishonen posting your picture may be embarrassing, but you are something of a celebrity as a computer-literate and functional deceased Hippopedian and paparazzi come with the territory. Perhaps some small tramplings might keep harassers at a more respectful distance? You might consider doing a couple of interviews to satisfy people's curiosity, which could also provide RS material for developing your article to FA (it'd be great to see you return to the main page).  :) EdChem (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Being (I suspect) the first WP editor to begin editing after death ... – your memory is short, EdChem. Surely you cannot have overlooked Ka of Catherine de Burgh? --RexxS (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

RexxS, I would not want to insult, overlook, or in any way disregard (or worse, disrespect) Lady Catherine, especially having already committed the faux pas of appearing inappropriately attired in front of Bishonen, another of the formidable Women of Wikipedia, earlier in this thread. However, I must confess to being confused. As I understand it, Lady Catherine died in 2008 and her vital essence edited between February 2009 and January 2012. However, Lady Catherine herself had edited prior to her death, from December 2006 until November 2008. Her Ladyship re-joined us, adopting her full and proper title, from 29 September 2012, and we continue to benefit from her wit, wisdom, and magnificent condescension to this day. MjolnirPants did not join us until September 2013, but died in March 1878. I think that Lady Catherine is likely the first editor to return to editing posthumously, and almost certainly the only editor to grace us with her presence in living, vital essence, and deceased forms – achievements that in another editor might be miraculous, but in Lady Catherine, with her unlimited capacities, seems to be somehow predictable. MjolnirPants, however, is the only editor I know of to begin contributing to Wikipedia after having died – an achievement all the more impressive given the computer was not even imagined in the 19th century and MjolnirPants has also overcome the formidable computer-usage limitations that come with being a hippo. Both deserve our respect for their achievements.  :) EdChem (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

All I have to say is that medical science and voice recognition technology have both obviously come a long way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You were watching? Admins can remote control the cam on my computer? I'm not dressed properly to be watched by anyone, let alone someone as graceful and refined as yourself... Bishzilla, trample me now!

On the image, I can see the symbolism, in that the hippo can appear tranquil and relaxed but when roused can run faster than a vandal and aggressively deal with crocodiles, so edit warriors would cower in their presence. :) EdChem (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Adhela and Guy Fawkes in 1883

Ed, I love the engraving of Obaysch's family, Adhela and Guy Fawkes. (Guy Fawkes is a girl. Couldn't they tell?) Would the little MONGO mind if I snuck it in amongst his atmospheric nature pictures in the edit notice? Let's see how long it takes before anybody notices. ("Hey, MONGO, I didn't know you'd taken up engraving!") Apropos, Dürer's Rhinoceros is already an FA. Written by a good friend of mine, long gone from Wikipedia. Also a cool critter. Bishonen | talk 11:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC).

Bishonen, I would imagine that distinguishing Guy Fawkes' gender would have been straight-forward, but perhaps Guy Fawkes transitioned? I like the idea of the extra image in the MONGO collection. As for good friends long gone from Wikipedia, it is sad the extent to which this site uses up editors and spits them out, but I guess that is inevitable with the way this place operates. EdChem (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

(Talk page gnome) @EdChem: Not only the administrators; I assumed that you were part of the bathrobe cabal... — PaleoNeonate — 13:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, I am surprised anyone has noticed me enough to think me part of a cabal. I'm also worried about how many editors were watching me, though, I'm not sure that a Bishzilla trampling is going to be enough to repay my debt to Wiki-society.  :( EdChem (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Bishonen, I'm not emotionally invested in the article either. I just happen to be watching it, because she is a Nigerian subject. I tend to be averse to the removal of content, without adequate explanations. Sorry for the hasty revision. All the same, thank you :).

@EdChem: Good job on the edits. I am aware of RS, I just didn't bother to check the quality of the source (and I didn't add the information initially), my bad. I guess it's resolved now. Thank you all for your time and efforts :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

(Guy Fawkes is a girl. Couldn't they tell?)Does no one remember the 5th of November?

It's about time, that Anmccaff (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jamie Tubers: sorry, I had forgotten you were not the editor who added the content. EdChem (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

MONGO still around...but stubborn fight with Dell computer to fix their junk has me sidelined sans desktop at present, just as I was starting to get back into editing....grrrrrr. Yes please do add images to the MONGO collection...which is going to be greatly expanded by August anyway after I return from wild woods excursion from my ancestral lair from whence I came.--MONGO 15:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

[Pleased.] Hello little MONGO! Bishzilla was starting to consider sending out sock posse to search! Adhela and Guy Fawkes added to edit notice. Charming. Ugly baby, admit, but Adhela nevertheless wonderful motherly expression, rather like 'zilla herself contemplating homely darwintwins. More Bigfoot images and bears from MONGO optimistically awaited. And birds, see current edit notice! bishzilla _ROARR!! 15:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC).

A situation for your attention as an admin

Greetings Bishonen. I'm enjoying not being a very active editor! I spotted at least one editor not behaving very well. Here's the page and issue in question. Be well and regards. Tapered (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Link doesn't work, Tapered. But also it's a redirect, and the IP seems to have given up, so probably no need for action. (Goes back to nap.) Bishonen | talk 08:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC).

The notability of religion in a biographical article

Hi, Bishonen. While I have your attention: User:MShabazz went through my contributions as a result of the Zionist Occupation Government debate and reverted most of my edits that mentioned the subject's religious background in biography articles. Is this not notable when properly cited? It seems to me that religion is one of the most important aspects of someone's upbringing, and most "Early life and education" sections include far less informative details. See User_talk:MShabazz for my message directly to him. Franzboas (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an old bone of contention on Wikipedia, I believe especially because some editors have insisted on adding the subject's religious "background" even for subjects that are, for example, agnostics. I'm not well up on what practice is nowadays and, indeed, I have trouble understanding why it's so bitterly contested on both sides. I'm not the right admin to answer your question. Bishonen | talk 17:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for your input. Do you know who would know more about it? Franzboas (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I usually toss thorny questions like "religious background" at User:HJ Mitchell. He's well known as impartial and can be relied on to do a thorough analysis. And I don't want him to become as idle as us old folk. --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, RexxS, good idea. I can't shake a conviction that there's a general discussion about it somewhere, but I don't know where. WP:ANI doesn't sound right, as it's a content issue. Anyway, I don't think it can be decided across the board in a simple way, because circumstances alter cases where biographies are concerned. BTW, the article you're talking about isn't called Zionist Occupation Government. That's a redirect, and your efforts to get the article moved back to that title don't seem to be gathering consensus so far. I'm putting it mildly. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC).

Yeah, I've given up on getting it moved. It's not worth the fight, and I've always understood that there is a valid argument for keeping "conspiracy theory" in the title (although I think it's the weaker argument). I'm confident that the recent torrent of support is self-reinforcing bias, but I don't think it's important enough to appeal. I'm just going to get consensus for a few factual changes and move on. Thanks for being civil, respectful, and helpful through all of this. Franzboas (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Some relevant links to discussions and consensus regarding religion in articles are WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS. This is a link to the RfC that resulted in the removal of the religion infobox parameter. Essentially if an individual's religion can be reliably sourced and is pertinent to their notability, it (generally) can be included in the body of the article. Being able to prove the subject's self-indentification with the religion is also important if there is a dispute as to whether it should be included. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And there we are. You rock, Ponyo. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC).

it's kinda funny...

how one can have a not on an article talk page for nearly a month, asking for any thoughts for potential improvements prior to nomming for GAN... and not a single comment.... but immediately after dropping the template on the talk for GAN, templates magically appear on the article... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean there. Must be aggravating. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC).

moreso that the editor placing the tag is rather unspecific about where it needs cites... in an article with over 60 footnotes. really not helpful. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't have the article on my watchlist, so why would I visit its talk page. It was nominated for GAN, so it is posted on the WikiProject's announcements, which is why I saw it. You nominated an article that has obvious issues. You evidently haven't bothered to read WP:GACR or the article you nominated fully. If you had bothered to do both, then you would have be able to identify these issues and fix them before your nomination. Nominating articles that clearly aren't up to snuff isn't helpful either. It's just a waste of a reviewer's time. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" is really all it says regarding cites. now, true, there are a few places that may need cites, and it may very well be that the refs are already used elsewhere, and i just need to reference them again. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you didn't bother to prepare the article before nominating it for GA and now you're scrambling because I've identified that it clearly doesn't meet the standard. Gotcha. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

nay, more like, i hadn't noticed some of the locations lacking sources previously. from what i can see, compared with similar video game GA's, the only think it's missing is perhaps the critical reception. compare it with minecraft. anyhow, let's maybe take this to the article talk page. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not interested in talking to you about the article any further. It has issues beyond the sourcing and woefully bad reception section. Maybe next time, don't start talking rubbish about me on another editor's talk page when you're clearly at fault for nominating the article in the first place. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's kind of understandable, though, isn't it? A note on the talk page is seen by a small handful of people; making it a GA nomination shines a spotlight on it and brings lots more eyes. BTW, I tried to remove the {{refimprove}} tag, but messed it up somehow, and you'd removed it anyway. So all I did was make article history look dumb. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

yeh, that's true. it makes a certain amount of sense. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Look at the header "Tags" on my talk: I seem not the only one who thinks degrading tags are a disgrace. I had three article tagged (all solved by now, but sooooo ugly before), and recently a TFA about a piece of art was distorted by a tag for a suggested (silly) merge for much of the day because the bot kept bringing it back. Ideas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your warning

@Bishonen: He opened by attacking me as a paid editor calling me a "shill". So i received a warning because he is your friend? Does an editor without COI make personal attacks and then refuses to apologize and instead claims he is more qualified then me? Did you give him a warning? Bishonen you've dealt with me before. I'd never get banned from a topic, look at my history. I am almost always right. Be neutral and dont post false warnings on my page. Did you see any attacks on other editors who disagree with me? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Also to let you know RexxS has been stalking me reverting articles I wrote which passed AfD. I am perfectly allowed to post on his talk page if he keeps engaging in work I've done. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

While I was still thinking whether or not to respond here, and indeed trying to think of a good reason to even leave your post on my page after you removed mine from yours, the issue went to ANI. I suggest we keep it there. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC).

Civil Services of India

Civil Services of India and Central Civil Services need your urgent attention as the sock is back. He has already vandalised both the articles twice and using profanities in the edit summary. This time he's using anonymous IPs. I strongly ask for protection for indefinite time even from registered users of both the articles after restoration, and a CU on "Uncletomwood", "Ganeshpote", "Kiranmohadika" among others. Please add the pages to your watchlist along with Vehicle beacon lights in India, Indian order of precedence, Indian Police Service, Indian Administrative Service, Indian Ordnance Factories Service, Ministry of Defence (India), Indian Armed Forces, Indian Revenue Service. Thanks!

Again..? I talked at some length with Uncletomwood here, and with you. As I said at the time, I doubt Uncletomwood would be of interest to a CheckUser. There are actually better people than me to ask about these articles, 59.88.136.171; I'm not Indian, not a Checkuser, and I'm ignorant. Please sign talkpage posts with four tildes, ~~~~ , so people don't have to look for you in the page history. IMO you should also create an account and take ownership of both your edits and your complaints and not avoid scrutiny with all these different IPs. Pinging @Sitush, Vanamonde93, SpacemanSpiff, and Bbb23: if they care to take a look. Bbb, how's your headache? Is anything here of interest to you? Bishonen | talk 14:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for protecting the article! Could you please also protect Central Civil Services? Also, please have a look at Central Secretariat Service, the same person is adding promotional content which shouldn't be here in the first place. Also, I would like to nominate

• File:CSS Special Training Assistant Superintendents 1951.jpg (since it does not serve any purpose here), and
• List of Income Tax ranks in India for deletion (since the Group A ranks are mentioned in Indian Revenue Service and Group B ranks in Income Tax Service, Group ‘B’, so no need for the third article for just the ranks, and in fact these are not "ranks", but "posts" as the former are only in the uniformed services, which income tax in India is not) and I know the same person is operating all the accounts, he cannot hide and lie forever, the truth shall prevail! Thanks, again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.247.7.249 (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2017‎

See, there really is no point in you spreading vitriol when you do not know the truth. There was absolutely no reason for you to act like this, anonymous IP. Any rational person would know that I am not socking and not handling those accounts nor am I adding any of the promotional material to the Central Secretariat Service page. It seems that you already do know and you are still being ignorant about who it really is. Guess I really have no option but to stop responding to your threats because I am not scared of it because I haven't done anything. I am not adding any promotional material and nor am I handling those accounts. Let the truth prevail. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand how frustrated the IP editor is with all the promotional content but he/she must understand it is not me. I don't want to out myself again but I want the IP editor to know that it is not me handling those accounts. PLEASE CONDUCT A CHECKUSER or any sort of other test on me to prove that I am not the socking IP Uncletomwood (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

My headaches is a bit better, Bish, thanks for asking. Nothing of any interest.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Too modern for me, Bish, and too much involving potential BLP issues. I generally prefer my subjects to be dead or, at least, inactive. I wonder if HM The Queen ever thinks this? - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: the thought of reading all those articles and histories, which my sock sense on high alert, makes me lose the will to live myself. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC).

At least you have a sock sense. I've spent countless hours dealing with socks without actually realising they were socks. I don't mind being perceived as a mug but I do detest the waste of time incurred. - Sitush (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I've only heard of such a thing as "sock sense". I wish I could buy one. Even my socks don't have any sock sense. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC).

Jack had more "sock sense" than anyone I ever came across. I suspect that spending huge amounts of time on-wiki looking at other folks' editing patterns contributes more to its development than any innate ability. Not recommended. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

i'm getting a sense of deja vu here... wasn't there just a discussion about these articles? also, i highly doubt uncletomwood is socking... keep in mind that the becaon lights article is up for AfD. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick passing comment, these articles are the playpen of Vrghs jacob (talk · contribs · logs), a notorious copyright violator (among other behavioral issues). Then there's also Motbag, the two have seemingly opposite views. I haven't looked close enough (and won't have time to in the near future, unless I'm spoonfed some evidence), so anyone interested can take a look at the various sock categories and tags of jacob (the SPI is pretty bare as Moonriddengirl and I have mostly blocked named and IP socks outside of SPI). —SpacemanSpiff 05:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see you, Spiffy! You really are a highly irregular editor! Bishonen | talk 08:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC).

SOrry for the late reply. he's back at it again. vandalising the articles himself and calling others vandals and Indians "illiterate"! This is ridiculous how are articles not yet protected and what's the harm in having a CU on Uncletomwood and his other socks?! Can't you see the similar traits?! He was saying that his parents are IAS officers while using Panrussia account and while using Uncletomwood account he claimed many false things and was bragging about them. None of which was true. I have to leave and will be back in a few hours and will share his other accounts as well

By all means, I welcome a CU on me. I am not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Varghesejacob nor am I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vrghs_jacob. And nor am I Panrussia nor motbag nor wikicab. I am only unlcetomwood. Please understand. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Bishonen, judging from the history of the Civil Services of India article, somewhere between most and all edits in May are by now-blocked socks and IPs, who are mostly reverting each other. Perhaps re-institute semi-protection (as was needed in 2013) on this page, set Bishzilla in the edit notice for the page, and Darwinbish could keep occupied any who edit problematically? EdChem (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi six months. No, no, Bishzilla in edit notice is a stronger form of protection, done instead of semi in dire cases. Before going that far, maybe we try extended confirmed protection, or db and her henchmen. Who removed Bbb23's post? I'll dig it out a little later. Bishonen | talk 09:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC). No, it was there, I'd just got temporarily blind. IP — FGS sign your posts with four tildes, ~~~~ — Bbb23 is a CU. So, I've asked him. —

Bishonen, I was thinking Bishzilla in the edit notice might cool any, ahem, over-exuberant IPs who register accounts to continue editing and acting like a royal pain in the posterior... :) EdChem (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand why my username is being constantly dragged into this. I made false claims in 2013-2014 but have never made any such claims thereafter. I repeat that I am not associated with any of the socks of Vrghs Jacob. I welcome a checkuser if only to clear my name from this mess. I also ask the IP editor to kindly please stop this disparagement immediately. Thanks! The IP editor is warned not to do this again. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious that Bbb23 doesn't think you're a sock, Uncletomwood, and that the varying IP isn't getting any traction here. No need for you to worry. You know how many users I've been disparaged by? Just ignore it. And could you please use colons to indent your posts, to show who you're replying to? See WP:INDENT. Bishonen | talk 10:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC).

Thank you so much for reassurance, Bishonen. Uncletomwood (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Due apologies, Bish, I'm sort of on Wikibreak; and I have neither the time nor the bandwidth to look into this at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

More sockIP trolling?

I seem to have yet more users logging out in order to troll me on ANI.[1] I can't just blank their comments since a logged-in user who just has a grudge against me but is not engaged in sockpuppetry has been humouring them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've commented to the IPs, Hijiri, but I hope you don't expect me to read the entire thread. Both Alex and you have written way too much in it, and the law of diminishing returns has set in. I advise you to leave well enough alone, and let whoever wants to get the last word. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC).

I know that, and I am happy not to have you read the thread. I am well aware that nothing will come of it, and that both Alex and I have written way too much. Thing is, though, I actually want the thread to be closed and/or archived without any specific result. The two users Alex and his friends have been criticizing have not done anything sanction-worthy, and I don't want Alex or his friends to be sanctioned because ... well, I know from experience that people in whose boomeranging I was involved almost always blame me for what happens rather than reflecting on their own behaviour, and I don't need any more of that nonsense at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Shit. I hadn't actually noticed, but this is the second time in as many weeks that one of them has shown up in a thread I was commenting in and essentially tried to make the discussion about me.[2] I guess I'll just watch out for this guy from now on, and the next time he trolls me -- I'll ask someone else. ;-) Sorry to bother you again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hijiri 88. I come in peace and would like to state that I am not a sock nor a user who logs out to post anonymously about you. I'm just a guy who reads the ANI and occasionally comments. As you are practically involved in every dispute ever filed on ANI, the law of averages has meant my odd comment knocks on your door more often than others. I have no beef with you, or agenda - I just think you need to stop flooding ANI with your verbose and unhelpful fanning, and give the admins a chance to address the problem properly. That's it. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No, on two separate occasions (one long before my recent dispute with another verbose user in a thread I didn't mind becoming bloated) you commented on discussions I had commented in, and instead of addressing the content of the dispute you specifically went after me. In the former instance, I was only a peripheral third party, and you chose to specifically go after me (pinging me despite of all the other editors who had posted a lot more than I had), and in the latter you completely ignored the substance of the discussion, your comment reading as though my behaviour was the subject of the thread.

And no, I am not practically involved in every dispute ever filed on ANI; I have commented in less than half the threads currently open there, and less than half in the most recent archive, even though this is basically the most active I have ever been as an ANI contributor.

It's pretty clear that, whoever you are, you are interested specifically in harassing me, and your excuses for doing so simply don't hold up: at the time you posted the above-linked comment in the ethnic/media discussion, my sig appeared 58 times on ANI, compared to 37 instances of B2C's sig, 14 of MBurch's and 12 of FFA P-16's: if I was only replying once to each comment by each of these three users (and yes, most of my comments were just responses to one or more of these users) that would explain all of it. I had only commented twice in the thread you chose to ping me in in the diff above, compared to six comments by Xx236, four by Spikeballunion, two by Jjbers (whose sig appeared 18 times on the page), and yet you devoted half of your comment to me, and mentioned only me by name, despite the fact that my comments had been several days earlier and had largely been ignored by the rest of the discussion.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. Hijiri 88, why don't you just stop? Please self-ban yourself from ANI for a few days. You don't have to answer everything. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC).

Yeah, you're right. I don't need this grief. I'll try to make sure my sig doesn't appear anywhere in either the next ANI archive or the one after that (if one of the threads I have already commented in takes a really long time to get archived). Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

He brushes off the criticism with another wall of text, which avoids the point in favour of wild swinging and empty waffle.I know how this works - I write back that I'm not picking on him or I'm not hiding my identity and we are suddenly writing screeds about that instead of the point, and I'm the next unwilling participant in the Hijiri Show. Just accept you have a problem and maybe dial it down. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hijiri hasn't posted on ANI since they made the undertaking above several days ago — "I'll try to make sure my sig doesn't appear anywhere in either the next ANI archive or the one after that" — and yet you think it appropriate to come to my page to needle them further? Would you like to be blocked for harassment? Bishonen | talk 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC).

Intelligent design

I think your comment about "the syntax problems presented by the two parallel clauses" nails it. I made the tiniest change to the opening sentence. I was hoping you could have a look, if time permits. I've opened a talk-page thread as well. Hope all is well with you. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I commented... ? Aha, found it. The woman who went out to dinner and never returned. I like your current version of the first sentence. The whole two first paragraphs feel a bit uncomfortable, though. (The third reads well to me.) That's probably because everything's contested and everything's a compromise — you know, like the horse designed by a committee. I was gonna say, there's some repetition in the first paragraph — but I see you have already fixed it, great. Then, the sentence "Both irreducible complexity and specified complexity present detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes" in the second paragraph is pretty reader-unfriendly. It starts as if the reader's gonna know beforehand about irreducible complexity and specified complexity, and know that they're ID arguments — without having to first click on the links. Of course the previous sentence is meant to introduce them as ID arguments, but I don't think that works very well: a stronger connection between the sentences is needed. Do I dare to eat a peach? I've fiddled with the second paragraph. What's the worst that can happen? (Hides.) Bishonen | talk 14:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC).

Forgot to ping Joe. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC).

The worst that could happen is you'll be tormented in Purgatory for a thousand years for that bit of blasphemy. On the bright side, it would meant I'll have some intelligent company. --RexxS (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The worst that could happen? Jimbo will block you for 3 & 1/2 hours, and a second Arbcom case will run concurrently alongside the one about whether to place the comma inside or outside of the closing quotation mark. :-) The article could really use a thorough copy-edit, but it's tough to convince some folks that the prose can be improved while still honoring long-standing consensus as far as what's being said. Thanks for joining in! I appreciate the comments & suggestions, and the second paragraph is definitely better as a result of your "fiddling". Joefromrandb (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo will block me for three and a half hours, Joe? That must be what they call escalating blocks. Compare WP:BLOCKABDICATE for what happened last time he blocked me. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC).

Escalating blocks indeed! I knew that joke wouldn't be lost on such a learned and perspicacious user. It was long before I arrived in the Wikihood (technically maybe not, as I made the occasional edit as an IP for 5 or 6 years before finally joining the place), but I've read about it. Jimbo has blocked users since his "permanent abdication" of the tool, and it's interesting that WP:BLOCKABDICATE no longer notes this fact. Of course, if Wales has the power to overrule Arbcom, their "acknowledgement" of his "abdication" is the rough equivalent of "democratic elections" in North Korea. One of these days we're going to have to finally get around to doing something with this! Joefromrandb (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, he has only blocked the odd vandal, sock, and supposedly hacked account since then; I'm not bothered about that. The hacked accounts were blocked by a hacker who had got access to Jimbo's account during the notorious Great Password Spill in November 2016.[3] That was very annoying from my POV, because I happened to see it — I saw the Jimbo Wales account vandalising on 11 November. One of the edits turned up on my watchlist. See the red figures in the contribs here? One of those. So I went to block the account, but of course I was a little taken aback, I hesitated for a moment, and checked what else it had been doing — like a fool, because it meant another admin got there a few seconds before me. Arghh. :-( :-( :-( There would have been such a pretty symmetry in me blocking Jimbo. Would really have set me up. ("Didn't Jimbo block you once?" — "Yeah, and I blocked him once.") Bishonen | talk 21:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC).

Just wait till I pass the RfA I hope to god never happens; I'll block you at least twice a week. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The return of Uebert Angel

Well, as predicted, the edits to Uebert Angel and talk page arguments have started again. Two new editors this time: one you've met on the talk page and another whose first edit to the article was to remove "formerly known as Uebert Mudzanire" from the opening. Have a look at the history and the talk page, and have a think about whether it's for PP again. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's still semi'd, RexxS, for a few hours more. I've replied on article talk. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC).

Laxmi Chand Tyagi

Someone has just miraculously recreated Laxmi Chand Tyagi, an article that was previously redirected to Gramin Vikas Vigyan Samiti, which was itself deleted following your nomination. It's the same SPS/PROMO stuff as previously, and it has appeared in a single edit by a newly registered account. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Space has deleted and blocked, I see. I salted it. Maybe Dürer's Rhinoceros would say it best, re these ever-pushing promoters? Bishonen | talk 09:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC).

On looking deeper, there appear to be a couple of older socks, the milk man wasn't the first to bring us milk!—SpacemanSpiff 09:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Saint Petersburg

Hey Bish :) Remember The Mad Lad From Saint Petersburg? He's back. In my attempt to save some time I've run into a bureaucratic snag at the SPI, though. The rangecontribs shows there is some cleanup to do -- possibly a large amount of it -- and having the checkuser would help. So in those great words spoken to Tim the Enchanter, anything you could do to help would be very helpful. Manul ~ talk 15:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hallo, kitty. Er.. so Harry Mitchell extended the short rangeblocks I had originally placed, right?[4] I see Harry is a little sporadic, but I still think I'll leave this to him and/or EdJohnston. I can only handle rangeblocks/range contributions when they're very simple and the wind is in the sou'west. Sorry. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC).

In the SPI I mentioned that I left a note with an admin (Ed) who is familiar with the case. I was surprised that the checkuser request was evaluated and rejected before Ed's input. It makes little sense having each SPI in these long-term cases start from square one, explaining the evidence as if the person reading the SPI has no knowledge of the history. Oftentimes the socks are obvious to those acquainted with the sockmaster's edits, as it is here with the distinctive madness espoused by the Mad Lad From Saint Petersburg. I don't understand why the person evaluating the checkuser request wouldn't look at the history and wouldn't wait for input from an admin familiar with the case. Rather than spending the time writing up evidence starting from square one, I had hoped to get an admin who has dealt with the Mad Lad to affirm that it's obviously him. In any case I've added some evidence that may be sufficient on its own. Manul ~ talk 18:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

AT WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Antichristos, I've semiprotected Heat death of the universe and Synergy for two years each, and proposed two more blocks. As time passes, we will wind up semiprotecting more and more pages since the guy won't run out of IPs any time soon. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The heat death of the wikiverse, Ed. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Another history merger

Please, since you are so utterly brilliant at it, is there any chance you could merge the history of Draft:Main:Pamela Clemit to that of Pamela Clemit? They somehow got lost in the moving process. --Hegvald (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there are now three versions, that's the trouble. But the more I think about it, the more it should be simple enough. (Trembling from head to foot.) I'll do it; just let me collect myself. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Done. Please don't look at my moves in the history, Hegvald, because they show how utterly brilliant I am. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

But the history...? It seems to have gotten even more lost in the process. --Hegvald (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I know. Arggh! RexxS! Help! Or perhaps any clever admin stalker would be better, who has delete rights. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

That'll teach you to ask me, Hegvald. I've asked for help on ANI. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

Alas, I'm not trusted to do jobs like that (thank goodness ). However it looks like Cryptic has sprinkled the magic fixi-dust: Special:History/Pamela Clemit. All's well that ... --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I still think the botching was done somewhat elegantly. But thanks to Cryptic for mending the thing. --Hegvald (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

A bit like watching a contortionist, wasn't it? No, RexxS, I know you're not "trusted" to delete and recreate and carry on, but my first thought was you might hold my hand while I did. Asking on ANI was admittedly quicker. I must get admin tools for Darwinfish, then we wouldn't have this circus every time (because it's not the first). Bishonen | talk 21:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

I have also made the mistake of moving to or within the wrong pagespace, as Ipigott did in this case (and I have very nearly made the mistake a few times more). It is undoubtedly a part of the interface that could need an improvement of some sort. --Hegvald (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Request For Help

Would it be at all possible if you could delete the edits made by this particular IP? The IP in question is being used by a vandal who appears to be copying and pasting large amounts (300,000 to 600,000 characters) of what appears to be lurid written pornography, and, in addition to being graphic, and possibly copyright violations, it screws up the loading of each page when one looks at the history.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If the excerpts are indeed from The Story of O I’m pretty sure they can be revdel’d as copyvios: the (supposed) author only died in 1998.—Odysseus1479 00:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) looks to be a direct copy of this book (possibly nsfw). or what you mentioned. either way, it's a copyvio. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Done, and IP blocked. Please let me know if more turns up from related IPs; the range can easily be blocked if needed. Bishonen | talk 03:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC).

salute--Mr Fink (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

User:X06 and Talk:Richard B. Spencer

I don't think X06 (talk · contribs) is here to build an encyclopedia, as a glance at his contributions list would show. This comment from Talk:Richard B. Spencer is particularly choice (highlight: "When White nationalism wins power across the West, we shall see what the Wikipedia articles are saying..."). --Calton | Talk 14:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Calton. A little surprisingly, the user has been here for ages, so I don't see a NOTHERE block at this time. Blocked for a week. If the disruption continues after the block, perhaps a topic ban can be considered. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC).

There's also this. Obviously WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I know, Volunteer Marek, but that was eight years ago. I'm surprised he wasn't blocked at the time. Wait, was that the edit that was mentioned recently on Talk:Richard B. Spencer? Yes, I see it was, and he responded by saying he was thirteen at the time. In any case, you know, VM, if he carries on in the same way you won't have to wait very long before he's blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC).

EtienneDolet "I nearly blocked you"

User:Bishonen, this is just the latest in a long series of disruptive stunts by EtienneDolet. Just a few days prior to the incident with the video they made this comment: "(Germans) know a thing or two about crematoriums" in reference to the Sednaya Prison Syrian crematorium and only struck it after it was pointed out to him that saying something like that could get him sanctioned.

Here EtienneDolet is dishonestly misrepresenting another user's comments. The user said that not EVERY negative thing needs to be put in the article (which is of course trivially true), EtienneDolet is disingenuously claiming that the user said that NO negative thing can be put in the article and then when confronted with this blatant misrepresentation he argues with the straight face that the words "every" and "any" mean the same thing. And of yeah, on the same article, he is also arguing with a straight face that the participation in a coldblooded execution in Syria is "non-controversial" (!!!) so he can add info to an article without having to provide reliable sources, just sketchy ones. You simply CANNOT have a reasoned discussion with someone so shameless and deceitful. Hence all the trouble in this topic area lately.

I can provide older examples as well, like when ED claimed that "scholarly sources" backed up one of his assertions, then when asked to provide them he stalled and finally provided links to anti-semitic conspiracy websites as his "scholarly sources".

Does he have a clean block log? Yeah, because he's great at WP:CPUSH and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and generally obstructing any meaningful conversation. Doesn't actually make his behavior any better. Like I said. This is an instance where a user simply needs to be removed from a topic area as they've done nothing but caused trouble and sown chaos.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps he needs a topic ban in that case, Volunteer Marek. But I don't feel familiar enough with either the area or the user to be the admin placing either of those. Especially, as I said, in view of the clean block log, because that makes it a big deal — never mind how, exactly, he has escaped being blocked. (His topic ban log is not clean, no.) Bishonen | talk 17:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC).

VM: If urging two admins (1, 2) to sanction EtienneDolet for the same edit isn't "admin shopping", three certainly is. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Get a life Lambden. Quit the stalking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought that making the "(Germans) know a thing or two about crematoriums" comment was a different edit from the one where they link to a video of an execution. Or is there something I've missed? If not, wouldn't that be shopping for three admins over two edits? --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Three admins are fine. After that it's a WP:3AA violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I've let ED get away with a warning for that Germans comment—as I have let VM get away with a warning for violating 1RR in that same article. El_C 08:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the behavior by ED is really problematic and just asked an opinion from another admin about it [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

---

You simply CANNOT have a reasoned discussion with someone so shameless and deceitful—How many NPA and civility warnings do you need, Volunteer Marek? El_C 08:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

[P]rovided links to anti-semitic conspiracy websites as his "scholarly sources"—That is a serious accusation. How come you don't have a diff accompanying it? El_C 08:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In my opinion, that's not a PA at all, it's a casually stated opinion based on years of longterm disruption and borderline trolling by ED. Also, this isn't ANI, it's Bish's talkpage; no one need supply diffs unless pressed. In my opinion, ED is gunning for some sanctions. He's been playing games with these sorts of articles, and needling and harassing VM and MVBW, for as long as I care to remember. I think it's time to put a permanent stop to it somehow. Although I'm not sure how this ended up here rather than ANI, I think ED is going to end up at ArbCom someday soon if this isn't sorted out. VM and MVBW aren't entirely blameless but most all of the troublemaking, disruption, harassment, game-playing, and community time-wasting comes from ED in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I, for one, fail to see how calling someone "shameless and deceitful" isn't a PA. All this venom and accusations without evidence—that doesn't work for me. If there is disruption, someone ought to compile all the evidence, with minimal invective, and we can go from there. El_C 10:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

[6].Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

El C, did you study the complete situation? As VM was alluding to, I found ED's use of the link to that video completely unacceptable, and came within an inch of blocking him. See User talk:EtienneDolet. Bishonen | talk 15:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC).

I had already have warned ED about that link. El_C 15:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I did not know anything about EtienneDolet until he started editing page Putin with inserts like Putin has enjoyed high to very high approval ratings throughout his career, particularly following the annexation of Crimea in 2014. [7]. This led him and Khirug to an editorial dispute with several users including VM [8]. He then followed and reverted edits by VM on another page [9] and reported him at WP:3RR [10]. The discussion on the page was heated [11] and resulted in complaint by ED about another user [12]. ED then submitted a rejected RfA request and made numerous WP:AE comments. His initial complaints were mostly about editing page Putin. I was especially impressed by this page created by ED. This is something I did not see since the "evidence" by Russavia (talk · contribs) and Offliner on WP:AE. ED followed edits by VM on Syrian war pages. But whatever. I would simply minimize contacts with these guys by leaving any pages where they appear. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, that wasn't a rejected RfA request, it was a rejected AE request. (I did quite a double take over that one.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There was a failed RfA request by ED and an WP:AE discussion started by ED where you commented. Thank you for helping to resolve various issues on talk pages and good neutral editing. I would like to minimize my involvement in this. Talking with ED is too frustrating for me [13]. I am not sure how VM has so much patience to talk with him and other strongly minded users on so many pages. I simply can't. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

How would you propose that someone describe an editor who has repeatedly, time and again, taken actions that are underhanded or deceitful? Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A disruptive editor. Certainly, not call them underhanded or deceitful outright, but refer to their actions instead. El_C 09:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Simply calling them "disruptive" fails to identify the specific problematic type of disruption being specifically referred to, which is deceit and underhandedness, which definitely bear mentioning because ED has been utilizing gaslighting/deceptive type of techniques longterm (and therefore merits an ArbCom case in my opinion). Stating facts is not WP:PA. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong on the NPA policy. You can't say something like that about one's character, only speak to their actions. El_C 04:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Furthermore, you are unfamiliar with the ongoing longterm problem with this editor. Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is a comment about VM just made by another user. Is not such comment on article talk page a blatant WP:NPA violation? How anyone suppose to discuss anything collaboratively with such people? My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing restrictions on sockpuppets?

Same as "the possibility that he makes a good-faith request to be unblocked, he recognizes what he did wrong, and said request is accepted, within the next few months"

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive954#User:MjolnirPants on Reliable Sources Noticeboard and other pages

Should the WP:RESTRICT entry be altered to mention that it applies to the sockmaster (as editing restrictions apply to people and not individual accounts)? Or just removed as almost certainly being redundant, as the master is indeffed and doesn't seem likely to return?

Courtesy-pinging User:MjolnirPants, who opened both the ban discussion and the subsequent SPI.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you're right, Hijiri. But naah.. I think ignoring the whole topic ban business is fine. I won't bother to remove it, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. But let's all try to remember this sockmaster, and keep a weather eye out for them on Argument from authority , because when you say they don't seem likely to return... ha, I wish. I know what you mean, of course, but ha, I bet they'll return all right. Bishonen | talk 08:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC).

Yeah, you're totally right. I was just being coy. Then again, maybe by "return" I meant the possibility that he makes a good-faith request to be unblocked, he recognizes what he did wrong, and said request is accepted, within the next few months. If block evasion is assumed, then the TBAN would still be redundant, as any new sock accounts are already due to be blocked based solely on the block evasion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that all sounds likely. --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Darwinfish studies the code for the cropped flying pig with interest. How'd Mr RexxS do that? He cut off a piece of the image! There's both height and width and also size. And yet there's only two dimensions. Hm, hm. I suppose the size must be the size of the actual pig, right, Mr RexxS? Like, size = fatness? darwin^fish 21:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC).

@Darwinfish: The size is the width of the image that you want to crop (the scale, if you like); the height and width are the dimensions of the "window" that you are cropping to; the offsets (top and left) are the position of the "window" relative to the top-left corner of the whole image. If you're a really good fish, I'll let you play with User talk:RexxS/Overlaid images. --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

'zilla + MONGO horses, thanks to RexxS!

Wow RexxS, thats cool. Lots of possibilities, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ha, that's brilliant, Ms Sarah Welch. And a little alarming, because, you know, how hungry is she? Let's see what Darwinfish can do. He's still staring at the code. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC).

• Darwinfish: those brackets, slashes and semicolons confuse me! too many!! it is not proper English and no way is it grammatically clear, but somehow works! Geek-grammar magic, probably! @RexxS: is there a way to make the overlaid images float, let text wrap around them to the left or right, somehow? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

'zilla + MONGO horses

I actually intended it to work as a template like this:

{{Overlaid images
| frame_width      = 350
| frame_height     = 250
| back_filename    = Horses and thunderstorm1.jpg
| back_height      = 360
| back_rightshift  = -30
| back_downshift   = -80
| back_alt         = 
| front_filename   = Bishzilla.png
| front_height     = 60
| front_rightshift = 20
| front_downshift  = 10
| front_alt        = 
| caption          = 'zilla + MONGO horses
}}

That should be much more readable, and would make it easier to put inside it something else that floats it off so that text can wrap around it. It also would allow a border, etc. as this demo shows. Do you think I should just move it all to template: space? --RexxS (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

'zilla + MONGO horses running scared

More scary 'zilla coming for the horses

• He he, fine template, easier to change. Look, more scary! [Darwinfish is actually very impressed by Ms Sarah's prowess with the less easy code. It confused him deeply.] darwin^fish 15:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC).

• RexxS: Indeed, finer template than before. Darwinfish will probably nibble and figure out the "rightshift" and "downshift", then share the bits. I may try the overlaid images with some maps and a few other ideas. Yes please, when you have a moment, move it to template: space. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved and documented. See Template:Overlaid images. Further improvements welcome. --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

not fish food

Thanks RexxS. Is it possible to make it default to a floating image, or add a parameter such as float = right/left/no? I will play with the "<div..." thingy, in the interim. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I could make the containing div part of the template and pass a parameter, but my natural inclination is to treat the overlay template as one thing and the part that positions it on the page as another, mainly because the way I've demonstrated for floating a container to the right (or left if you prefer) is quite generic: you can wrap anything you want inside that sort of div, so it's a useful thing to learn how to do. Here's a suggestion: see if you can get the sandbox at Template:Overlaid images/sandbox to do what you want - or talk the fish into having a go. It's easy to test by just changing one of the examples to read {{Overlaid images/sandbox ... etc. --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: So you know, your efforts have not been a waste.... I have been playing with the sandbox in preview mode. I have some questions, and will bother you after my wits are exhausted. That may be soon enough. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

re. proposed deletion of Lucifer 1970s rock band

Hello, I received an e-mail message from wikipedia this morning saying Legacypac had proposed (what I thought was) the speedy deletion of the Lucifer (1970s Rock band) article, so I left a message on his/her talk page querying that. I now realise it was not actually about the article but my Luciferfan user name! Thanks for pointing that out. I chose that user name when I was putting my first article on wikipedia about the group 'Lucifer' a few years ago, obviously with no offence meant to anyone. Hopefully that's the end of it. Thanks for your help. Luciferfan (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure it is. You don't have anything to worry about — I could read your contributions history like a book, and it's all there. Nice article! Bishonen | talk 20:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC).

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Franzboas master account

Since you participated in the discussion about Dennis Brown's block of Franzboas, I'm pointing you to this, which presents some proposals for additional action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Beyond My Ken. I also engaged Franzboas on their page at an early stage, and they've been here. But I don't think I'll weigh in all the same, as I have some doubts about what should best be done. But thanks for notifying me. Bishonen | talk 09:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC).

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Craig issue

I thank you and the other guys for the swift action regarding the Craig removal case. Although I suspected some of those accounts were fake, I'm actually surprised that all of them turned out to be so. Clausgroi (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

"Google Juice"

That was odd. I was pinged, but your message didn't show up on my User Talk page at first.

Maybe I should have chosen a less colorful expression, but what I meant, generally, is that a lot of spammers/SEO types think that posting stuff on Wikipedia increases the importance/visibility of their stuff in Google search results. I don't know if that (or other similar tactics) actually work, but it seems a common enough belief that finding spam on User pages and user sandboxes could be a full-time job.

In this specific case, the drive-by editor seemed to be attempting to legitimize the so-called binary options -- you may remember the massive COI/spam battle over Banc de Binary -- so I figured that while it wasn't an advertisement, it WAS an attempt at juicing Google to spin results favorably. --Calton | Talk 16:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I wonder if I get any google juice from my first invisible message..? It's in there somewhere — inside some template — though that wasn't where I posted it. I don 't really understand how your page works. Are there templates within templates, perhaps? That never has a good effect. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC).

Some now-blocked user dumped a load of comments on my User Talk page, where he attempt to bludgeon me by reproducing the ENTIRE contents of a Talk page. Some well-meaning person came in and tried to separate the new from the reproduced comments with some sort of template I don't understand, and I hatted the whole mess so I wouldn't have to look at it. But I've archived everything, so you won't have to deal with it in future. --Calton | Talk 16:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Norse cosmology

Hello Bish. The edits by the disruptive IP seemed familiar, so I did a search on <removed> the name the IP signed with on their talk page, and found similar disruptive edits going all the way back to 2011 (see Special:Contributions/24.25.237.226, <removed>, and posting incoherent rants on talk pages, just like the IP ypu blocked), meaning that they've regularly wasted other editors' time for at least six years now, and still haven't learnt anything from all attempts that have been made to make them understand. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. I removed some of your post, as we can't link IPs to RL names, unfortunately. But I'll keep it in mind. Does it affect many pages? Possibly an active use of semi would be best. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC).

In addition to plugging own theories about Norse cosmology they also plug an own home-grown theory (no doubt based on their own surname...) about everything that starts with "Mus" being derived from an old middle-high German word meaning "moss/mosses" (see Special:Contributions/172.78.205.84 for another IP they have used recently...), which means that it also affects any article that starts with Mu*, or has an article title containing Mu*, such as Muspelheim, Musbach valley, Mutzbach, Müssen and so on (see [14] and [15] for two old examples of it, and [16] for a recent one), so they can pop up almost anywhere here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC) (The IP signed their posts on their own talk page with their real name, BTW, and have done so for years, thereby AFAIK waiving WP:OUTING)

Good grief, Tom. That reminds me of my highschool teacher talking about how, according to Olof Rudbeck in the Atlantica, Eva, as in Adam and Eve, got her name: it was from Adam exclaiming "Eh! Va!" the first time he saw her. I'm not sure he, my teacher wasn't making it up to amuse us... but it does sound quite Rudbeckian. Reading our article... Rudbeck thought Swedish was the original language of Adam from which Latin and Hebrew had evolved... yes, of course, we're all patriots here... and Diderot used Rudbeck as a cautionary example of the deceptive linking of etymology with mythical history. A similar idea, isn't it? Just refer the IP to Diderot for the "deceptive linking"! And yes, I realise he has outed himself a few times, but still, and especially since it's an unusual name, I'd rather be safe than sorry. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC).

• They're back as Special:Contributions/172.78.207.216, wasting other editors time by using talk pages as a forum, and trying to spread their home-grown theories (see their contributions and talk page). Behaviour and comments that make me believe that the main problem with this editor is lack of competence. They have also edited as Special:Contributions/172.78.220.21, an IP that was blocked for block evasion after I reported it at WP:AIV, but was unblocked again when the admin chose to WP:AGF... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thomas.W, that's a biggish range they apparently have access to, 172.78.192.0/19. But certainly in the past few days, all edits are by our guy,[17] so I've blocked the range for 3 days. Much good may it do, since this is clearly long-time abuse, but I don't have any better ideas. :-( Pinging @There'sNoTime: for information. Bishonen | talk 14:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC).

• Thanks, Bish. What irritates me most about this IP-hopper isn't that they're trying to push OR theories, because there are lots of people doing that, but the deceptive way they go about doing it. For example by first making changes in one or more articles, such as in this example Musbury Castle (with these edits by multiple obviously related IPs; check the contributions of each of those IPs and you'll see that they're all the same person...), and then asking questions at the reference desk, where the people who answer questions obviously will check what the articles say before answering, and then give an answer that confirms the IP's theories, since the answer is based on the IP's own edits (see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Are the words Muspell, Muspiell, Musburg, and Musbury related?). Giving the IP-hopper the support and confirmation he/she craves, and at the same time making more and more people believe that what the IP-hopper says is true. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

And while I'm at it I might as well add an example of the type of incoherent posts/rants the IP-hopper is fond of adding to article talk pages... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Racist vandal has jumped to an IP

Thank you for dispatching that vandalism-only account! Alas, his talk page vitriol continues via IP. Very grateful in advance for any kibosh you are able to put on that nonsense! Take care - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've semi'd the user talkpage. If the IP persists elsewhere, please take it to AIV, Julietdeltalima, because I'm just going to bed. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC).

Saladdin

Not sure what the deal is, but I'm not going to comment unless some specific issues are presented. Not particularly keen on going on a wild goose chase. —SpacemanSpiff 03:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

PantherLoop

Re-inserted again [18]. Linguist^talk|contribs 11:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Linguist111, deleted. I suppose they know they have a talkpage? They posted on your page, so it seems logical. But if I end up having to block them to get their attention, so be it. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC).

Yes, they've replied to me a few times in the past (for example, after I reported them to ANI for persistent addition of original research back in January [19]), but they've hardly ever communicated apart from that. Not to be harsh, but it seems like they're having some competence problems (notice they've never used an edit summary and have created a number of poorly-referenced BLPs [20][21][22][23]). Also notice their last contribution to an article before they started using their user page as a web host was two weeks ago, so they seem to be WP:NOTHERE now as well. If they recreate the page I'd, regrettably, be in favour of a block. Linguist^talk|contribs 12:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Is rev-del required here?

Hi, I reported an IP to AIV. Not sure if this edit qualifies for rev-del. But would you please take a look into it? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I might as well revdel, I think, and I'll check the rest of the history, which seems very lively, and perhaps protect the article for a few days. Thank you, Usernamekiran. Somebody else has blocked the IP. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for the reply. Yes, somebody might have seen the report in AIV. I didnt realise, but that page is going through a lot of vandalism. I think the subject was recently in news. There is already a request on RFPP by other editor, I requested there the protection for 48 hours. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

PS: Is there any wikipedia guideline/policy or essay which states "a good online presence does not mean notability"? —usernamekiran(talk)

He seems to have a lot of fans, and they all seem to think Wikipedia is a chatboard. I've semiprotected for a week. Well, I don't think we have any principles for what doesn't mean notability so much, there's just too much of those things. But a good online presence isn't a reliable source. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC).

lol yes.
Would you please take a look here, and let me know what you think? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Usernamekiran: There is only one completely agreed criterion for notability and that is:

• "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

If you look harder at some of the alternative notability guidelines, you'll find them qualified by something like this (taken from Wikipedia:Notability (people) #Additional criteria:

• "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

I'd recommend making sure your essay is framed in the same manner – and remember that our guidelines are meant to descriptive of our practices, not prescriptive of what may be allowed. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot RexxS. Your inputs are very useful. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

E-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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Linguist¹1¹ 09:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

(I've replied, there's one more thing to do) Linguist¹1¹ 11:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Listen!

I am so annoyed that you are complaining all the time. I have not done you. I only added Next Topmodel Contestans which are my favorites and that is just fun because I thought I can do this on MY page but I did not know anything about it. So I leave now alone and take care of you or others around me all the time. PantherLoop (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please use wikia.com or some other webforum if you think Listen! is an appropriate way to start a discussion. As has already been explained, no page at Wikipedia belongs to you or any other editor. See WP:UP for the general procedures regarding user pages, but bear in mind that the community decides what happens at every page, and there is only one editor who thinks deletion of your user page was inappropriate. See WP:NOTHERE for an idea of what happens when someone spends too much time on things like user pages. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @PantherLoop: Note that Wikipedia also has user sandboxes (like User:PantherLoop/sandbox). However, even those sandboxes are expected to have to do with Wikipedia, i.e. to be work-in-progress article drafts (per WP:NOTWEBHOST). Those experienced editors and administrators are not harassing you, they are only making sure that Wikipedia policies are observed (which is required for the quality control of the encyclopedia). I agree that there are better suited wikis, blogs and other web hosts for your material. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 05:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

PantherLoop, I understand it can be annoying to get many complaints, but you really have to try to look at the substance of them, not just the annoyance: what they're complaining about. Please click on the blue links that they contain; they're meant to help you. And please don't put exactly the same message on my page as you already put on another, it makes it harder to take it seriously. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC).

Help me avoid AE

Once again, I am in need of some assistance...this person really needs a topic ban. Battleground behavior, disruptive talk page posts bordering on harassment; see this, and the fact that their user page is lifted from Tyler Durden; original research and battleground behavior [24] (that content is not supported by the source; and their comment is total nonsense). If all this were not enough, plenty of name calling, most of it after being warned. I dropped an ARBIPA notification on their talk page yesterday, and they went ahead and reinstated their original research, so I'd say they were eligible for a ban pronto. I'm posting here to avoid a much longer trip to AE; if you don't feel up to dealing with this, and that would be perfectly understandable, let me know and I'll bite that bullet. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde, it's almost a pleasure to get an easy request for once; it looks extremely clear-cut. I'll deal with it. Bishonen | talk 08:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC).

Vanamonde93, do you feel the same way about SPI as you do about AE? I blocked this one yesterday and for some reason he refers to the account you mention above. It's likely the same person from language and bheavior, but just trolling in a different way. —SpacemanSpiff 08:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Aha. I thought WBV seemed unexpectedly aware of the idea of multiple accounts for a new user (in the sense of accusing everybody else of using them). However, I have treated them as a new user and only topic banned for three months, which is pretty short for such disruption. Bishonen | talk 08:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC).

Many thanks, Bish. Spaceman, honestly I'm not certain. I'm quite sure WBV has had some experience on WIkipedia before, but I'm not sure where or as who. I was initially not convinced that he is the same person as epistemphilic, but after looking at the evidence I am more certain that they are in fact the same person. I will look at the behavioral similarities in greater detail tomorrow. With MYA, I'm really not certain, mostly because there isn't much material; but they do share similar quirks of in their similarly poor english. Watch the SPI, I'll post something in more detail there shortly, since this will have to deal with behavioral evidence. Vanamonde (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The Durdens

Hi Bishonen. Out of curiosity, how was CheckUser information able to verify that it was one person, not two, operating the Tyler Durden and Marla Durden accounts? As I understand it, CheckUser is only able to verify that two accounts used the same device and Internet connection. In this case, both Tyler and Marla were open about the fact that they were using the same connections and devices, so it shouldn't be a surprise to us that CheckUser would verify this. Mz7 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I go into a deep trance and sense that the two accounts are in fact one person. Actually, there were some technical characteristics that made it more likely they were one account person.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I trust your sixth sense. Thanks for clarifying, Bbb23. Mz7 (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) and (edit conflict). Hi, Mz7. I wrote a whole thing, but I see the CheckUser in question has shared his shamanistic insights already. (You mean, more likely they were one person, right, Bbb23?) Anyway, they did not affirm that they were using the same device. Tyler merely said, when you complained about Marla having edited from his, Tyler's account (as well as her own) and you told him he should get a new password at once[25] that, no, he hadn't given her his password, but he had 'had to' let her edit his user page from his PC, because she 'insisted him' (and he was logged in on his PC at the time, I assume, or it wouldn't make any sense at all).[26] The reason she had insisted was that, as a new user, she was unable to edit his userpage from her own account. If we weren't all so frantically good-faith-assuming, he would have been blocked after that rigmarole ('had to', indeed). But I'm sure you can see that the implication is that she normally used her own device, as indeed would be likely. I'd do a double-take, for my part, if I saw two siblings, aged 22 and 17, sharing one device between them, in this day and age (and one of them referring to it as "my PC", yet). Of course that wasn't it. WP:BEANS applies re Bbb23's trances, I expect. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC).

(edit conflict × 3) I think WP:BEANS and WP:DUCK are likely to be relevant reading. But I would have thought Mz7 ought to be aware of that already. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Now, now, RexxS, Mz7 is one of the most helpful and civil administrators at WP:SPI. It's a pleasure to deal with him, so no snark, please, even if you consider it mild.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: 'Shonen's talk page is one of the most popular places for vandals, spammers and sockpuppets to post, so asking here for more details about the technicalities of checkuser is a really, really bad idea. I'm one of the least patient and uncivil editors to grace these pages, so I'm unlikely to be responsive to admins like you telling me what to do. Is that clear enough for you? --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mz7: There's also a third  Confirmed account, and they're playing/trolling around with the third account and and Tyler Durden attacking each other on a Talk page. Maybe the third account is the black sheep in the family. You should also take a moment to read some of Marla's comments. It's like something out of a badly written children's book.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was like a manga/anime narrative. You know, the perky/sassy "little sister" stereotype. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Thanks for all the input, everyone. I don't like the situation any more than you do, and given all this, the blocks are reasonable to me. @RexxS: I'm indeed aware of WP:BEANS. My only question was whether CheckUser information is able, in this case, to provide more information beyond what Tyler and Marla had already made public to us. Since the answer is clearly "yes", I'm satisfied, and I'm not pushing for any more details. Mz7 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I still have my doubts. Having extensively interacted with Tyler Durden over the last six months, I know him quite well, but Marla Durden was doing newbie edits like this. But, now that Mahant Yogi Adityanath also got tagged as a sock of his, I think I will need to wait to hear from him whenever he is able to come back and file an unblock request. But the funny thing is that TD has been doing quite well, earning barnstars and appreciation from several quarters. He has no reason to play games like this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The manga/anime drama was puzzling, the disruption bad. In the best case, Tyler Durden may have tried to welcome others to wikipedia, be protective, then cover their mistakes. In the worst case, shadows of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Either way a mess, a useless time sink, not helpful to the project. I fully support the blocks by Spiffy, Bbb23, Bish, others. Time to move on, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I'm rather baffled by this whole episode. this one was a totally pointless account, and the shenanigans with the "sister" as well; but the "master" did seem to be able to edit productively, when they knuckled down to it. I'm especially confused by the idea that Tyler created two socks, but the whole lot are unrelated to this lot (we could use some behavioral evaluation there, btw) because I can see a user creating a sock to play Jekyll and Hyde in the belief that it will raise their standing; what I cannot see is a person who creates socks to do this while engaged in a dispute with another sock farm. To me, this suggests that either Tyler is a lot less mature, and possibly younger, than we think him to be, or that this is part of a larger pattern of disruption, that we have only begun to discover. Vanamonde (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I have just come to know about this. Moreover, I am traveling, and have only hurriedly read a few snatches of the supposed family drama that has proved Tyler Durden's downfall. I too thought Tyler was becoming a productive editor, and contrasted with his productive contributions, these seem puzzling. I don't believe, though, that they rise to the level of an indefinite block. I say this as someone who has very likely interacted with Tyler more than anyone commenting here, with the obvious exception of Kautilya3. Please consider blocking him for a short time, a couple of weeks perhaps, even a month, and allowing him to return with ample warnings about any future infringements. Our ultimate goal is to see the creation of reliable content, not to penalize people over indiscretions that only obliquely interfere with the creation of that content. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Fowler&fowler. I have respect for your opinion, and Kautilya3's, and have been considering shortening the block to a couple of weeks; but I'm not sure. I don't think his unblock request, which I just noticed, does him any favours, especially his suggestion that his sister probably created the other sock, as a "prank". In other words, he hasn't socked at all; it was his WP:LITTLESISTER's doing, all of it. That's a little much for me. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC).

Bish, I've looked at the behavior of this bunch once again, and I'm more convinced of what I've said above. Either Tyler is telling the truth; or he is also connected to this lot, and we are just being hugely trolled, as Spiff seems to be suggesting. I haven't made up my mind, but I cannot believe that if he has socks at all, he has only two. Vanamonde (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Yes, I do understand that his explanations are not convincing. But, from my perspective, there is the counterpoise of his increasingly mature contributions, and the fact that the infringements seem to come from no provocations that commonly lead to the creation of socks. (And I've crossed paths with a few masters of the art in my time, starting with the redoubtable user:Hkelkar.) I am suggesting that we ignore Tyler's explanations, that we not request him to come up with better ones, simply block him for a month, with no access to his user talk page, allowing him ample time to meditate on his folly (or at the very least his choice of company), to allow him to return on the condition that if there are any other incidents of this sort, a non-negotiable indefinite block will ensue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen, I believe that Tyler Durden is telling the truth, as I said on his talk page. It looks like Bbb23 is looking into the details, but in general the computer tools haven't gotten so far better that we can dispense with human judgement where needed. To claim that TD was playing pranks against himself is too far-fetched and defies everything we know about him. We need to take a second look. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think Bbb23 has this well under control. If Tyler provides the information Bbb23 has asked for, it should be possible to see that there is a little sister (i'm keeping an open mind on the existence of one) and who controls the Yogi account. If it turns out that Tyler was socking, and that the explanation provided in the unblock request was wrong, then an indef block is the best option going forward (sockpuppeteers never reform). If the evidence is murky, then a short block of the sort Fowler is advocating is the right thing to do. If the evidence clears Tyler, then, I'd support an immediate unblock. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  If (sockpuppeteers never reform) then why Kurimat got two weeks block, and NadirAli has very impressive block log touching every block zone. But he is still editing Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nadirali. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not taking the position that he did not make the sockpuppets, only suggesting that even if he did, and lied badly about it, he deserves to be given another chance because he was becoming much better at NPOV content creation and reliable sourcing. Playing "gotcha" with a few sockpuppets the motives of whose creation remain murky, misses his positive contributions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  If making positive contributions were a "get-out-of-jail-free" card for sockpuppetry, we'd still be graced by Jack Merridew's technical skills. Not to mention that Geogre would never have been so badly treated by ArbCom that he stopped editing. Are Tyler Durden's contributions really worth so much than either of those two? And before you ask – yes, I'm still pissed off about the way they were treated. --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  No, but I am saying that positive contributions can be a get-out-of-jail-after-serving-a-month-card if you are a minor (by own admission and behaviorally) and a first time offender for sockpuppetry which doesn't, prima facie, involve orchestrating greater support for a POV or avoiding a block. Meridew was one among 45 sockpuppet brethren, some seasoned editors with edit counts in the quadruple, even quintuple, digits; had a block log a mile long, lasting over many years, Tyler has three sockpuppets, whose combined edit count barely crosses 50. The editing histories of Meridew and Tyler are not apples and oranges; they are watermelons and cranberries, the former selling at half-price after a week in the supermarket, the latter still in the bog. This is as far as I go with making my point. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  You fixed the wrong mistake in indenting (see WP:LISTGAP if you can't see why). Jack was nevertheless a skilled and valuable editor whose crime was to eventually kick back against still being under an unnecessary sanction over four years after serving out a "standard offer" of rehabilitation. Geogre was a peerless writer on many subjects whose crime was to create an undeclared alternative account which he used when editing from work. I can see no equivalent justification behind Tyler Durden creating sockpuppets and playing games with us. Let me make my final point: It is fundamentally unwise to treat children as if they were adults; but it is catastrophically perverse to treat adults as if they were children. Many of the problems we experience on Wikipedia are quite probably a result of making those two mistakes. --RexxS (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I want to make 2 points. First, I want to echo Kautilya3's points above. TylerDurden appears to a productive editor and it is very much out of character for him to do something like this. If he has a trolling tendency, why didn't it manifest itself before? If you're going to make a bold claim like TylerDurden is "Mr. Jekyl & Dr.Hyde" you better have a long history to back it up.
• The second point is regarding the scale of disruption caused. If TylerDurden did resort to sockpuppetry, he should no doubt be punished. But that punishment should not be an indefinite block. Tyler/Marla Durden caused less disruption than many edit-warring users do, who often get only 24-hour or 72-hour blocks.VR _talk 06:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

User:WikiBodhiVamsa

@Mz7: Tyler Durden's previous name was Vamsee614 and the last name is same as WikiBodhiVamsa. They could geolocate to the same region, as @Bbb23: found WikiBodhiVamsa unrelated in different SPI. They both mention their name and caste in their userpage. Checkusers don't give private details, but if Bbb23 can confirm that they are from same city? Actually they have already given their location in their userpage. If they are unrelated, I don't want WikiBodhiVamsa to be blocked. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiBodhiVamsa account is blocked for different reasons. I wonder if the Vice regent account has any relation to Tyler Durden account? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No, WikiBodhiVamsa isn't blocked at all, merely topic-banned. Yes, I notice:d the "Vamsa" coincidence, Marvellous Spider-Man; as you say, they both gave their RL names on their userpages. It's odd, for sure. Bishonen | talk 08:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC).

"Vamsa" means a story or history, often a chronicle. It's odd for Britannica to have an article where we don't: https://www.britannica.com/topic/vamsa --RexxS (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I never knew that! However, "Vamsee" means flute, Krishna's musical instrument and part of TD's real name. Not sure if WBV knew what "Vamsee" means, but he has been trying to mimic or mock TD from the beginning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be surprising if these two sock-farms are now linked!That will be the perfect climax!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It also may be duly noted that Mahant Yogi Adityanath, Marla Durden and WikiBodhiVamsa--all the three users accounts were first welcomed by Tyler Durden.All (except Marla) were subsequently even warned by Tyler and all the three seemed excessively interested about one-another.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't attach any importance to the welcoming stuff. I advised TD to give guidance to new users when he reverts their edits. That is the right thing to do in my opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

RexxS: Indeed, Vaṃsa (vansha) is a notable topic in Buddhism as in Buddhavamsa etc. Also in Hinduism as Suryavamsa (solar/son-based family) and Chandravamsa (moon/daughter-based family) of the Puranas. Jainism too. Surprise!, we don't have an article. Will create a stub this week, unless someone else saves me the effort. Kautilya3: we mention vamshi in the Bansuri article, perhaps need to add vamsee in there as an alternate spelling, and maybe even a redirect. Some contributions and replies by Tyler Durden were indeed thoughtful and productive which is probably why we are even discussing all this... WikiBodhiVamsa account, fwiw, is quite new. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I suspected some meatpuppetry here Talk:Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus#Explain_how_many_editors_constitute_.22We.22 (collapsed discussion) Marvellous Spider-Man 17:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I am quite shocked that User:Ms Sarah Welch would suggest that I might be a sock puppet of TylerDurden. That is completely false. The fact that something so utterly false is being said about TylerDurden makes me wonder if some of the other stuff said against him are also equally false.VR _talk 06:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Bosnian bullshitometer

It's just gone right up to 11, triggered by the works of User:JurganHolst crapflooding Bosnian pyramid claims with this. I can't take any admin action on bullshit grounds as I'm involved, but as it's a clear copyright violation from here (including the bizarre parenthetical bit about autism) I feel justified in imposing a 24h copyvio block after he added it again after being warned. I'd be eternally (well, for at least a few days, maybe a week) grateful if you could cast your sharp admin eyes over it (and perhaps ask one of your friendly ankle-biters to guard the perimeter). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll look later, but do you think it's a sock, Boing!? You'll remember the user who is now indefinitely topic banned from the subject, see for instance [27]. Bishonen | talk 12:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC).

No, I'm sure it's a different religious follower. There's a comment from someone with the same name here (being careful what I say for Outing reasons as I/we? know the identity of the banned one). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Starting with 24 hours for copyvio seems about right. I dropped a DS alert, though I don't think it's very likely to be of use if the editor persists on the same level. Ordinary blocks may be simpler. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC).

Thanks, we'll see what happens when the block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems quiet so far (distal bodily appendages positioned in a cruciform alignment). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like he gave up. Did you see the banned one has written quite a bit about the iniquity of Wikipedia on his blog? (That surely can't be outing. So many people have.) Bishonen | talk 15:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC).

Yep, I saw that. If it keeps him happy and away from here, that's fine by me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP and the Khalsa article

117.223.238.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Article: Khalsa and its talk page. An IP is busy wholesale reverting the article to unsourced / blog-sourced / non-RS content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Warned. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC).

Thanks. Same disruption today from 59.89.7.112! No response on talk page invitation so far. But first check out MONGO buffalo pic. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Majestic, Ms Sarah Welch! I've tried blocking both IPs for a couple of days. Please let me know if there are more; I'll semi if necessary. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC).

Clearly needed the same treatment on 59.89.7.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as it's undoubtedly the same person using Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited as ISP from near Jammu in Kashmir. I've left them a warning for future reference. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

And now 139.5.5.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from the same location performs the same action. Any chance of a block and semi, please? --RexxS (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All three are static, now all blocked for a week for block evasion. I suppose I might leave the article unprotected as a honeypot for the IPs (proxies?) the individual has access to, but.. nah. Semi'd one week. It's never been protected before, so I'm loth to give it longer, but I will if the same disruption recurs after the week expires. (Provided somebody alerts me.) Bishonen | talk 10:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC).

P. S. I have also blocked the 59.89.4.0/22 range, to take in the IP posting at the bottom of this page (59.89.5.91). Bishonen | talk 13:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC).

Carrera y Carrera

Hi Bishonen, how are you? :) As you asked for, I changed the first sentence of the article Carrera y Carrera, I also added a source to El País news about Carrera y Carrera(probably the most important newspaper in Spanish in the world) and a source to Vogue_(magazine)´s news about it too. I think Carrera y Carrera is well-known in many countries so this article should stay in Wikipedia and not be deleted. What´s the next step? Thank you, Pravdaverita (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've declined the prod, because the El País and Vogue sources confer a real possibility of notability. You should not, however link to searches or tags as references. Please use the source at http://elpais.com/diario/2002/01/20/negocio/1011535406_850215.html from El País to report neutrally on the take-over in 2002/2006 by Lladró; and use the Vogue article at http://www.vogue.es/moda/tendencias/joyas/articulos/flechazo-del-dia-por-la-sortija-de-oro-con-amatista-de-carrera-y-carrera/18379 to describe La Edad de Oro de Carrera y Carrera as a fine example of their jewellery – making sure to use the actual urls as references. That will go a long way to establishing the notability of Carrera y Carrera should it be taken to WP:Articles for deletion. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Pravdaverita, your new sources are fine, and improve the article greatly. Another thing you could do to improve it is to remove Carrera y Carrera's own website as a source. Also sources like DesignJewelryBrands.com, a directory where it's pretty obvious that representatives of the brands describe themselves — it's not a neutral third-party source. Note, it's all right to use such self-created sources for things like neutral history, such as the first paragraph of the "History" section. Sourcing things like that to Carrera y Carrera itself is fine, but something like exporting to over 40 countries — that should preferably have a neutral third-party source. Also, there are some dead links, such as Brands of Spain — it would be good if you could find something else to use for that. (I hope Brands of Spain isn't needed at all, because it's obviously another self-created directory.) Thank you too, RexxS. RexxS took the next step, Pravdaverita — he removed the prod template. If he hadn't, you could have removed it yourself. I hope you understand how to use RexxS's links — if you have trouble with them, I'm sure he'll help, he's a nice dinosaur. Bishonen | talk 18:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC).

Done, thank you :) Pravdaverita (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Disrespectful behaviour

Hello Bishonen,

Is this language used by slbEdit permited in Wikipedia?

This user isn't WP:CIVIL, he does not assume WP:GOODFAITH and is constantly engagin in WP:WARs. with his WP:Disruptive editing attitude. He is known for WP:Harassment and does not respect the WP:No personal attacks rule. He does not WP:TALK before removing content or try to get WP:Consensus before you revert other wikipedians contributions.

May I remind you that he edited my own user page? And also this one.

Could you do something? P3DRO (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, P3DRO, I don't have time to look properly tonight, I'll do it tomorrow. But the diff you refer to is nothing IMO, considering the post they're responding to. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC).

I forgot to mention one thing. I'm sure that this user Notyetmyboy is a Sockpuppet of slbEdit. The modus operandi is the same, he only contributed in pages related to SL Benfica, he was only active when slbEdit was not editing and he stopped editing when slbEdit started to edit again. Also, the user name is a clear provocation. I once called him a boy because of his behaviour and he was suspended for one month, thus the username: "not yet my boy". P3DRO (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

P3DRO, did the Notyetmyboy account edit disruptively? It doesn't much look like it, as nothing has been posted on their talkpage. Notyetmyboy edited while SLBedit was away, yes, but not while they were blocked, so it wasn't used for block evasion. If it wasn't used for disruption either, nor used while the SLBedit account was editing, I can't say I'm very interested in the possibility that they're an alternative account, nor will a Checkuser be, because it wouldn't matter much.

I have to admit I have little or no understanding of sports articles, and I'm reluctant to dig into SLBedit's very voluminous edit history to find personal attacks or other disruption. If you give me some diffs with examples of those things, I'll certainly look at them. (Preferably something better than the example of "bad language" you gave above.) Bishonen | talk 10:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC).

Thejesustroll69

Thanks, Bish. I wasn't quite sure what to do there, considering the (fairly) good (well-intentioned) edit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Every part of the name is capable of offending somebody except the "the", so definitely a username block, I think. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC).

Fair enough. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought it might be some sort of cool dance move - The Jesu Stroll. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

At this point, I'm trying to abandon it. -New account 2 (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Khalsa

Can't you see that Ms Sarah Welch has changed the entire article/Page in last 15 days. This article was a standard for many years. and Now suddenly someone with a posh Christian name ropes in and changes it and you make this page protected. If you really have some morals and ethics, then make it protected from June 12, 2017 standard and not the ones that Ms Sarah Welch has changed single-handed. Though it can;t be ruled out that you are all same a gang of wiki thugs... Rascals of highest order, if you can't see who is vandalizing what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.5.91 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether people have posh names or not. What matters is that they add well-sourced and appropriate material. Ms SW's sources were excellent, and you removed the additions, and the sources, with no input on talk, and taking no responsibility for your edits, such as you could do by creating an account. You don't merely use dynamic IPs but you also flit from range to range to evade your block. Please sign your posts, so people can at least see which IP is talking for the moment. Even better: don't post, because you're blocked. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC).

Bish, you never told me you got inducted into the Order of the Silver Rapscallion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ha, are rapscallions the highest order of rascals? Very nice. 59.89.4.0/22 range blocked. Bishonen | talk 13:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC).

Bish: you know I am clueless about these IPs mumbo jumbo, but is there a difference between blocking 59.89.5.* and 59.89.4.*? Our passionate Can't-you-see-Rascals-of-highest-order editor seems to be at the 59.89.5.* IP. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems you did block 59.89.5.*; hopefully not the other if that matters!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Just do what I do, Ms Sarah Welch, and pretend you understand it. See, what I did was I put all the 59.89.xx IPs I had seen, which included 59.89.5.91, into an IP Range Tool For Dummies my son has made for me (this is why we have children), and got the range 59.89.4.0/22. That means that range does include 59.89.5.91; it doesn't mean I understand anything. No, 59.89.4.0/22 was the range I blocked; there was no "5" in it anywhere after the leading 5: see the block log here. @RexxS, Johnuniq, and Writ Keeper: maybe one of you can explain the mumbo jumbo for Ms Sarah? Even better, maybe you can find a simple IP range tool on the internet for her to use? (I can't away with Wikipedia's tool, or any other I've found out there. Unfortunately the stupid-friendly one I use isn't online.) Oh, look at MONGO's mountain lake! Bishonen | talk 20:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC).

Hmm, I can try, but it's gonna necessarily be kinda technical, so I'm sorry in advance if it doesn't make sense. Basically: y'all know that computers work in binary (0s and 1s), not in the decimal system (0-9) that we humans work with. The thing about IP address ranges is that they use binary math to calculate the ranges, but when it gets translated back into human-readable decimal numbers, it doesn't look right.

So an IPv4 address (the X.X.X.X numbers we're familiar with) is a 32-bit number; it's represented in the actual computer as a set of 32 bits, which is to say 32 1s or 0s. When we display an IP address, to make it a little more legible, we break it up into 4 numbers, each of which represents 8 of those bits, and then we convert those bit groups into decimal. As it happens a set of 8 bits can represent a total of 256 numbers--which is why each part of an IP address ranges from 0-255. So, if we were trying to see what 59.89.4.0 (ignore the /22 part for now) looks like to a computer, we would do this in reverse: 59 in binary is 00111001, 89 is 01011001, 4 is 00000100, and 0 is--of course--00000000. So we could read 59.89.4.0 in binary as 00111001.01011001.00000100.00000000.

Now, what the /22 does is define the range, and it does that by identifying the significant bits in binary--so what 59.89.4.0/22 means is the range of IP addresses that have the same first 22 binary digits (which in this case means all the IP addresses that look like 00111001.01011001.000001XX.XXXXXXXX in binary.) This includes all the IP addresses that look like 59.89.4.X, but it also includes all the IP addresses that look like 59.89.5.X. This is because the binary representation of 5 is 00000101, and so the binary representation of 59.89.5.0 is 00111001.01011001.00000101.00000000. As you can see, the first 22 binary digits of 59.89.5.0 are the same as the first 22 digits of 59.89.4.0, so when we block 59.89.4.0/22, 59.89.5.X is included in the range block. In fact, the range block will include all IP addresses that fall between 59.89.4.X and 59.89.7.X, since that's all the IP addresses that have those first 22 binary digits. Make sense?

Now, if we wanted to *just* block 59.89.5.X, without touching 59.89.4.X, 59.89.6.X, or 59.89.7.X, we'd block 59.89.5.0/24 instead. This time, the /24 instead of the /22 now tells us that we want the first 24 binary digits to be constant. Since we know that each of the first three decimal numbers represents 8 digits apiece, and that 8*3 is 24, we know that all of the binary digits in the first three numbers would have to match, meaning that that would make sure that only the IP addresses with the same exact first three decimal numbers would be included. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Look... so many 1s and 0s!

I'm grateful that Writ Keeper provided the details. The condensed version would be to assert that 59.89.4.0/22 means the first 22 bits of 59.89.4.0 when written in binary, and that is the same as the first 22 bits of 59.89.5.91, so the latter is included in the former, along with all other IP addresses that start with the same 22 bits. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both. Actually when I read that, both the long and the short version, I kind of understand it for a minute, or Darwinfish does; but I can not get my head to actually think in binary, to calculate the ranges. So I just use a tool. Did either of you have an online tool to suggest for Ms Sarah? I suppose there may be one at labs. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC).

The traditional IPv4-only tool is toollabs:blockcalc and a popular alternative is [28]. As you know, previewing {{blockcalc|1=59.89.5.12 59.89.4.44}} in a sandbox would be an alternative. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You are all wizards! Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ms Sarah Welch. Just wanted to let you know that I hid the non-free image File:LittleRascalsSaveTheDay.jpg you had added with an earlier post. Non-free images are only allowed to be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. The file can be linked using the colon trick if you like; I didn't do that myself because I wasn't sure where you want the link to show up. In addition, you can replace the non-free with one of the files found at c:Category:Our Gang if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ms Sarah Welch, thank you very much for the fine illustration of Darwinfish trying to get his head in binary gear! :-D. (I see the Little Rascals poster isn't free to use on userpages; thank you Marchjuly, of course you're right.) Bishonen | talk 08:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC).

Oops, oops Marchjuly! My bad, my bad. Thanks for the note. I should have scrolled down and seen the permissions. Next time! We have a decent collection of Die kleinen Strolche images. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you technically allowed do that?

I saw your close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Técnico (moved from WP:AN). I think you were far too merciful, but then in recent months it seems like everyone except ArbCom is moving away from permabans in favour of temporary bans in even the most extreme cases (see also: Drmies's dealing with a certain comics-focused editor in February).

But your close seemed to be effectively a one-year imposition of a DS-style restriction on the user (he can be given a more extensive topic ban on the discretion of any single admin), which -- while less restrictive than what the majority !vote was -- seems a little beyond the purview of an ANI-closer. I ask because a few months back, in an unban discussion, an admin seemingly offered to support the unban if he were allowed place the user under similar probation indefinitely and unilaterally replace the ban if disruption resumed, which seemed like a gross misunderstanding of how the banning policy. Your action was not that bad (the discussion was grey enough, and participation low enough, that you probably could have closed it without action, and even a super-!vote like that would not have been the same as unilaterally overturning a clear consensus), but I'm always worried when I see anything like "admins can impose bans" being placed by anyone other than the Arbitration Committee in anything other than extreme circumstances.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

When is too much drama not enough? The most sensible response is seen in Special:Contributions/Técnico which shows that the account may never be used again—what a surprise. I have no idea whether Bishonen correctly filled in the form required to sanction a user, but it is just a statement of the obvious, namely that if an editor gets the result shown in that ANI section and gets a lenient sanction and later repeats their disruption, an admin could respond in a suitable manner. A suitable manner might include an indefinite topic ban under the terms of WP:ARBAP2—that would be based on repeated disruption after a clear warning. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, User:Johnuniq: I'm not ignoring you to be rude. I had a reply to you ready to post when my iPad suddenly jumped from 2% to 0% and I lost it all. The basic gist is in my replies to Bish below, but I was too depressed about what happened to redraft my direct reply. Basically, I didn't mean to imply that I was criticizing Bish for filling out the wrong form: I was curious if (she thought?) she was technically filling out the correct form since I've seen a lot of weird shit going on around bans over the last seven months or so, and I was wondering if it was just a coincidence or I was just missing something. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, no, I'm probably not, it was pretty IAR. Though there is a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card in WP:CBAN: "the community may engage in a discussion to impose a topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction". My sense from that is that I'm more free to impose tailored sanctions than when I'm banning per arbcom discretionary sanctions. I'm more worried about imposing a sanction nobody in the discussion had actually suggested, than about going beyond the purview of an ANI-closer, but I still don't think it's fair to call my close a supervote. Lenient ban + probation was meant to be a compromise between all the points reasonably suggested. The discussion was at a high level (except for the user's own commentary), and I tried to find a solution that would do justice to everybody's concerns. Probably didn't succeed, because that would have been what my language calls a tulipanaros, a tulip rose, but it was my aim. Bishonen | talk 09:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC).

Oh, I didn't mean to call your close a supervote -- that would entail the assumption that most (or perhaps some) of the !voters would have disagreed with you on the substance; I suspect some of those more vested in the dispute than I might take greater issue than I do with your mercy, but it wasn't like you chose to overrule the community consensus in favour of going the opposite way. What I meant was that it would have been a supervote if you had decided to close with no action whatsoever (something I've seen in similar cases), but that even if you had done that it wouldn't have been as bad as overturning a previously imposed community sanction based on the assumption that you could unilaterally reinstate it without another ANI flare-up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. As John implies, the probation is also technically unnecessary. Since the user has received the DS alert, any admin can impose a topic ban at discretion should the disruption continue. Indeed, I thought about doing it per DS myself. But with the full and well-considered ANI discussion staring me in the face, it seemed disrespectful to the community to just place the usual old quick-and-dirty arbcom sanction. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC).

Yeah, I know. I also suspect (based partly on my experience with similar editors in the past) that they are either gone for good now that they have been told that what they had been doing was unacceptable, or will violate the probation anyway. If I had any serious concerns about your specific close it would be that the latter would happen and we'd just have another flare-up at ANI. I was mainly asking a technical question because I've seen the "admins can impose bans" thing crop up from time to time, and even though you could have cited ARBAP, it didn't seem like you or the majority of commenters in the thread were explicitly citing that. My experience earlier this year with an admin who will remain nameless has made me wish ANI-closers and/or random admins had less power to impose or overturn community sanctions and/or sanctions that should have been treated as community sanctions. I'm too lazy to check, but I can't help but imagine that there's a reason sysops are only allowed unilaterally impose sanctions in certain designated areas where ArbCom has given them the authority to do so, while sanctions otherwise require community consensus or a specific ArbCom ruling. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Request Opinion

Hi Bishonen,

I restored an ANI thread after it was removed by an IP editor with the edit summary "rv troll." This was my first action in the area, I was unaware of the ongoing discussion / dispute before the ANI thread appeared. I was then approached on my talk page and I made this post. The IP suggested it demonstrated that I am WP:NOTHERE, and another user has described my post as violating WP:NPA. As an experienced admin who I respect, I ask for your view of my actions in this ANI thread, on my user talk page, and at the end of the article talk section (most of which preceded the ANI thread). Pleas be frank, if I've misjudged my actions or acted inappropriately, I would rather be told. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Surely you don't take criticism from an editor who behaves like 71.198.247.231 seriously, Ed? If that had been a name account, it would be indeffed by now. Oh, wait.. could that possibly be the reason they prefer editing from an IP? Well, I never! Anyway, I've blocked them for a couple of weeks for disrupting ANI, it's ridiculous. As for Arthur Rubin, who I assume you're referring to, I've no idea what he's talking about in the ANI thread, and I see other people in the discussion also appear baffled. Bishonen | talk 12:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC).

I thought the IP's comment about NOTHERE was funny because it was so absurd, and their post to me that I should strike my description of their behaviour as disruption was also ridiculous. Thanks for the block on the IP, I was surprised no one had done it sooner, to be honest. I was just trying to give you the background that led to the comments from Arthur Rubin, whose post to ANI on deadnaming is followed by one with the edit summary "clear WP:NPA violation, even if accurate." I do not think of myself as someone who engages in personal attacks, and I was very surprised to see an admin refer to a post of mine as a clear violation of WP:NPA, and that is why I sought input from you as an admin who I respect and trust to honestly tell me if I've done something foolish and violated the rule against personal attacks. Arthur is talking about deadnaming so I interpret his comment as referring to my post to Colonial Overlord on my user talk page. Arthur has also said that the IP has a point in saying I am not here to build an encyclopaedia. I don't want to turn the ANI thread into a discussion of my comments as the thread needs to focus on the behaviour at talk:Trans woman. However, the comment about my being NOTHERE which I saw as silly coming from the IP is much more serious and objectionable to me coming from an admin. An admin stating on ANI that I have clearly violated {{WP:NPA]] is also problematic when I was trying to make the point that disrespecting the gender identity of a transgender person is offensive and unacceptable. I intend to raise it with Arthur on his talk page, but I wanted a reality check from an experienced Wikipedian who was outside the situation first. Am I missing something and can I be seen as NOTHERE and having clearly violated WP:NPA? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Not IMO, no. I don't understand why Arthur Rubin thinks your use of the term "deadnaming" is a personal attack. If you look up Deadname on Wikipedia, you get redirected to Transphobia, which says (leaving out the footnotes): "Misgendering can be deliberate or accidental. It ordinarily takes the form of a person using pronouns to describe someone that are not the ones that person prefers, calling a person "ma'am" or "sir" in contradiction to the person's gender identity, using a pre-transition name for someone instead of a post-transition one (called "deadnaming"), or insisting that a person must behave consistently with their assigned sex", etc bla bla. That's the only reference to deadnaming I've found, and you can see it even says it can be deliberate or accidental — so how could telling people not to do it possibly be a PA? I don't understand how Arthur Rubin can construe your telling Colonial Overlord that he has no right to deadname a transgendered person (" that does not give you or anyone else the right to violate the BLP policy by deadnaming or by denying any transgendered person their gender identity"[29]) as a personal attack. It seems very far-fetched to me. As for the way he, Arthur Rubin, expressed it — "The anon has a point"[30] — when the only point the anon had made was that you were not here to build an encyclopedia — I can only assume it was accidental, and not intended the way it sounds. It would be, well, pretty extravagant for AR to suggest out of the blue that you're NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 15:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC).

Thank you for your comments and opinion, Bishonen. I am glad to say that Arthur Rubin has struck both of his comments in the ANI thread.  :) By the way, the IP made an unblock request that leaves me curious about whose bad hand they are. EdChem (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone who thinks I have a personal vendetta against them isn't a very distinguishing characteristic, though. Users who think that (or to put it with more precision, who say they think that, and that several other admins also have a personal vendetta against them) are as the sands of the Sahara. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC).

Indeed... like meatloaf through a straw, so is the originality of sockmaster whinges... EdChem (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Doidlo and Doidlodilalodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldilodo

Thank you for the kind words. Actually, I soft-blocked the long-name account, so it was okay for them to create the shorter one afterward. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk)

Yes, it was OK after you softblocked it for being too long, but was not OK in the sense that Doidlodilalodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldilodo seems to have been itself a sock. At least it was sockblocked by DoRD.[31] BTW I see you've also welcomed a medium-length name account, Doidlodilalo, before you welcomed Doidlo.[32] If you're not worried they'll think it's OK to use both, fine — I'll leave it up to you. I may be getting jaded, but I don't think a user who messes about to this extent, with the "frodesiak" names too, shows great promise of becoming a useful contributor, but let's hope I'm wrong. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC).

All this, ...lodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldil... stuff is hurting my brain and I'm getting confused. :) From what I see Doidlodilalodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldilodo was the first account, softblocked by me, with an invitation to create another account. So, that long account was never a sock. The new accounts created were made (according to the user) to be possible new, main accounts.

I agree about your last point. The number of accounts created after the soft block and their names indicate a bit of trolling. I just want this editor to get to work using one account and make up for the time wasted so far. I'm doubtful and suspect this user was around before and had a problem with an admin.

Convenience link(s):

• Doidlodilalodaiodloadodolodiododoldidoldilodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Doidlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ddili Afrodesiak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Doidlodilalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• A Frodesiak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Dioldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (main account, all others blocked)

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The user just created Dioldo (against your warning, I know). I'll keep an eye on things. (You are within your rights to block if you really want to.) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to relieve my feelings, you mean? No, no. They're such a charmer I'll be happy to leave them in your care. Seriously, good luck. Bishonen | talk 00:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC).

Thank you. I hope I won't need the luck. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hello...Today is my birthday, so I checked the calendar to see who else shares my special day! So happy First Edit Day! LA If you reply here, please {{Ping}} me. @ 09:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump tower meeting

In regards to closing of the afD. Don't you think the discussion should remain open? Even though nominator withdrew there were multiple other people who voted delete, and a lot who voted merge. There really didn't seem to be clear consensus if any of the three ways yet, and regardless of the withdrawal there was still a debate on the issue. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, WikiVirusC, thanks for bringing it up, and you may be right. But the nominator withdrew the nomination because the article had become something completely different from what they nominated, both in name and content. That means that people in the discussion voted on different versions, and my thinking was it would be more logical to start a new discussion — a second AfD — which deals with the new version, rather than attempting to assess such a fluctuating discussion, where people were talking about all different things. Perhaps it would be a good idea to start a new AfD, which is about the current version and under the current name? In case you'd like to do that, please feel free to tell people I ("the closing admin") said so, in case they complain it's too soon. Another thought: anybody is in any case free to perform a merge-plus-redirect. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC).

It was moved to the changed name pretty early on, but most of the replies/votes were after that, but I now understand the reasoning for closing and just allowing a second nom to happen. I don't feel a new discussion is necessary since a lot of the non-keep votes were merge, and we can discuss a merge on talk page. If someone else feels strongly about deletion I assume they will nominated again I guess, but most likely decision will probably be merge or redirect anyways. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

A photograph from the noble nursery.

• Such pages should not be allowed on Wikipedia and those who create them should be horsewhipped and then banned for ever. They are nothing more than malicious and deranged anarchists set on destroying world harmony by maligning noble and honourable statesmen. I strongly doubt that Mr Trump or any of his family have ever met any of those subversive Bolsheviks running Russia, and what if they had? They were doubtless only discussing human rights abuses in Russia or gay pride or of the other new confangled causes which seem to so preoccupy people these days - all this fake news needs to be stopped at once. I am a great admirer of Mr Trump and he of me but like him, I woudl never allow my personal feelings to cloud my judgement. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• The Lady doubtlessly is privy to information confirming such that we commoners are unable to access; I have no reason not to trust her judgment in this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Isn't it time you offered yourself for adminship, m'lady, if only to redress Wikipedia's political balance? It is often said that admins are a disgustingly liberal lot. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC).

It is indeed high time that I wielded the admin tools, perhaps you should nominate me my dear. I am one of the most liberal and egalitarian people on the planet. My mind is so broad I sometimes wonder how I manage to support it. All my servants will regale you with tales of my generosity and good nature. I can see their happy faces now, as I recall last Christmas Eve when I anounced that as their Christmas gift, I would carpet the back stiairs at my own expense. Now is indeed the time for my elevation. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I wonder, is adminship not a touch common for someone as elevated as Lady Catherine? If she were a star, she would be the North Star, the constant guiding light around which all others revolve, and so should her Wiki-Status be... not a common admin but a unique position of inspiration through her benevolent example, her supreme condescension, and her willingness to rebuke cetaceans with whom she is vexed. We need a Wikipedia:Request for Catherinehood (singular, as there can be only one WikiCatherine), to formally recognise Lady Catherine as the Wikipedia OverLady with all permissions and whose merest whims would bind us mere mortal Wikipedians by their self-evident infallibility. EdChem (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I can say EdChem without fear of contradiction or accusations of false modesty that you have a perspicacity matched only by my own. It is true that I have a humble ability to improve the lives of others with my wisdom, tact and empathy. The tools would be useful, particularly the check-user one which would enable me to glimpse into an editor's private life and thus advise them on real life as well as virtual problems. I have always been very interested in what others are doing - I have a very inquiring mind which is why I am so intelligent. Perhaps you could arrange for the check user to be assigned to my account toute-de-pronto. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record, not all of us are left wing commie would be regicides. As far as I'm concerned Western Civilization has been in terminal decline since 1789. I really must make a point of calling on your ladyship. I have the honour to be and remain your obedient servant etc. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Lady Catherine, I hope you can excuse the tardiness of my response, I was overwhelmed by the magnificence of your generosity and rendered speechless by the effortless poise with which you manage to balance your infinite humility with your indescribable combination of Delphic wisdom, Wildean wit, Applebian discretion, Troiian empathy, and positively anti-Trumpian tact. I feel confident that you will be well accustomed to the effect your august personage can have on those of us who are members of the weaker sex, and believe that your universally-admired condescension will be more than adequate to the task of constructing a reply of unparalleled truthiness. Sadly, on arranging check user permissions for your account, it is not within my authority nor my power. Further, having been critical of ArbCom at times, for reasons I am sure you can readily intuit given your own perspicacity, they are generally disinclined to respond positively to my suggestions. As for our founding cetacean, I suspect he would be so over-awed by your infallibility and omniscience that he would fear elevating you to positions of greater authority due to the shadows you would inevitably cast across his reflected light. I fear that Your Ladyship will need to continue to bear the cross of limited tools as part of the slings and arrows of amassed and intimidated Lilliputians. EdChem (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Although I voted keep, I agree with the OP that this is not a valid close. The policy is clear, "While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep or added substantive comments unrelated to deletion, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it." It is not unusual for pages to change during the deletion discussion, and that does not justify this type of close. I have submitted this to deletion review. Mattflaschen - Talk 05:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Mattflaschen. Probably the best place for it. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC).

• At the risk of possibly overstepping myself, I hereby nominate Catherine the Great as Empress of all the Russias. Where is the page for that? Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will know what to do with this

From Signpost, behold File:Longnose batfish.jpg (or full glory). Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

[Bishzilla maternally interested by the look of the cute, vulnerable little creature.] Hmm. Maybe another little sock? User:Batbish? bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC).

It does look kinda like a sock, doesn't it? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Kissably cute!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Almost as adorable as this little guy. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Saladin1987

Since you have dealt with this editor's issues,[33] I believe it would be in the best interests of Wikipedia for you to check their latest editing spree.

It appears that Saladin1987 has decided to take their changing of referenced information(for which he was banned from India/Pakistan/Afghanistan articles) to Iran/Turkey areas. I have already had a brief conversation with Saladin1987 on my talk page, though I seriously doubt they will listen.[34] --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

A problematic user, Kansas Bear. As I told you privately during my break, I have forwarded your complaint to some admins I know. Precisely because I've dealt with the editor before, more and fresher eyes are better. If problems continue, there's always ANI, also. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC).

Request for IPv6 range block

Hello Bishonen. There is an IP user who I think needs an IP range block. They have been blocked on one IP address multiple times ([35]) for disruptive editing about WWE events, and have also made similar unsourced edits on other IP address in the same range ([36], [37]). I'm asking you as I recall you range blocked a similar editor in the past, who I think is the same person, although editing from a slightly different IP range. My last request seems to have been this one [38], although it looks like User: Berean Hunter blocked in that case. Anyway, thank you for your assistance. Silverfish (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Silverfish,  Done /64 range blocked 3 months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC).

Samm19

Hi ! . Thanks a lot, sir. Much appreciated.

As I stated earlier, No, I didn't accept your offer 'after' reading the message by another administrator, he may have posted that message while I was editing my post, and it was only after sending you an un-ban request that I read his message. I had deleted the earlier message and sent my request after going through that section where I was being accused of using multiple accounts. To be honest, I was, and still am, really shocked at all those accusations and allegations.

I have just one query. Am I not allowed to edit pages related to Pakistan also ? I mean even those pages or topics which are not disputed at all ?. And I don't know what your experience has been with other users, but rest assured I won't disappoint you. And I will request You to un-ban me from editing controversial topics only when I am able to convince you that I can contribute positively, and hopefully I will be able to do that in less than six months.

Regards Samm19 (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Samm19: The intention of the topic ban is to prohibit you from editing, including discussing, anything political or historical or otherwise controversial, broadly construed, related to any or all of the three countries mentioned, separately or together. But I don't want to prevent you from editing biographies of, say, Pakistani football players, or film stars, or food, provided there is no political connection. (I can say that geographical features are likely to be right out. I can't undertake to assess borderline political implications of those.) When in doubt, please ask me before you edit. And yes, if you think you can convince me in less than six months, feel free to try. You realize it won't necessarily be granted, though. BTW, it's not necessary to call me Sir, or Madam either for that matter (I'm a woman). Happy editing. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC).

Sorry for calling you 'sir' earlier.... And thanks a lot, madam Samm19 (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I think I'd better describe those exceptions on your page, so other admins and users are also aware of them. Done. Bishonen | talk 14:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC).

You made our local newspaper!

In the course of trying to clean up the single purpose editing on the Luke Messer page, the Indianapolis Star wrote an article about it that included one of your edits. Just thought you would like to know.--rogerd (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• ...and it can now be cited to reliable sources that Bishonen is a "power user".
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did like to know, thank you, rogerd! Appearing in the local media almost makes me feel like a Hoosier myself! (Though I have in fact never visited the States.) Bishonen | talk 09:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC).

The mighty Bishonen is reknown the world over!--MONGO 07:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Question

When you get the chance, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere, which I filed and which contains behavioral evidence of socking, as well as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MjolnirPants, a retaliatory filing. This person has been socking for years, all to push a particular POV at a specific article. I'd already asked the admin who dealt with it previously, but they're unable to take the time currently. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This is, what, the third Admin you’ve gone to on your WP:ADMINSHOP to get me banned?

I was cleared by a checkuser. The only ``evidence`` you have that I’ve ever even seen that page before the other week is that I disagree with you about a minor issue involving it.

I do, however, encourage anyone to check out the sockpuppet investigation I opened. That wasn’t retaliatory; even if you’d never opened anything against me I would have known you were socking. Two people making identical arguments in identical style on the same page? And once I looked into your edit histories, the implication was clear. I think that any Admin that hasn’t previously been involved that looks at all of the evidence I pointed out will clearly see what’s going on.

Do you have any explanation for how the other account always pops up when you need it even after months and months of inactivity? Or how, even when on a WikiBreak, you knew to come help it out right as it needed it?

I doubt you would even deny that the Mondegreen account’s editing history or its initial behavior is atypical in the extreme.

Not to mention that now you’re clearly attempting to bring a third account into the mix, that yet again almost immediately responds to you as soon as you call on it. Moltenflesh (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That's very interesting, @Moltenflesh:. Where do you see my 'almost immediate response', considering I haven't responded to MP at all so far, indeed I haven't edited since he posted above? But I think I'll respond now at the SPI you filed. Bishonen | talk 07:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC).

Oh none of that was addressed to you, I was replying to MjolnirPants Moltenflesh (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Moltenflesh (whose comments here follow the behavioral patterns of Perfect Orange Sphere exactly, surprise surprise) is, I believe, attempting to argue that Chrissymad is a sock of mine based on Chrissy's response at the SPI page Molten opened, rather than accusing you of responding immediately.

Indeed, we're at the point where I wouldn't be surprised if anyone who supports me on content or behavior (which has included literally everyone else who's gotten involved in the Argument from authority page or the multitudinous drama surrounding it; and I do mean 'literally'... well, literally) gets accused of sockpuppetry, right up until the point that an admin blocks Molten as the aquatic fowl they so obviously are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The third account was the one mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation, Original Position. Inactive for months and months, but then responds within the hour to your Talk Page post. That is a consistent theme: the Mondegreen account also suddenly comes back to support you when needed, just like you will for it. All the actions fit WP:ALWAYS to a T. Moltenflesh (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Bless your heart, @Moltenflesh:. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Whats shakin?

Hiya Bishonen! Enjoy this preliminary cell phone shot of Mount Jackson in Glacier National Park, Montana...I have a better rendition coming soon as I download 1000 plus images I took with my regular camera! Nice to be adding some more to the "MONGO's atmospheric nature pictures" collection, even though mine, even my best ones, hardly compare to those done by many others!--MONGO 01:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The little MONGO turn up, hello! Hope those mountains not shakin! Little MONGO, please give 'shonen link to lots of atmospheric nature pictures when they uploaded. She don't know how to find nuthin! bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of File:Zen Wikimood 08a.png

The file File:Zen Wikimood 08a.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned personal image, no foreseeable use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring over Turiya – the eternal tranquil state

83.183.97.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Bish: The above IP is persistent, edit warring with Joshua Jonathan and I in Turiya article. An invitation on the article's talk page has yielded no response yet. I would request a RFPP for a few days, but I wonder if that will help given the IP has made many edits. Nothing urgent, please take a look when you have a moment. I eagerly await the zillion photos of MONGO, don't you! Even his cell phone shot above is so good, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, Turiya isn't contagious. Anmccaff (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please warn the IP about the edit warring, Ms Sarah. I see their talkpage remains uncreated. Bishonen | talk 22:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC).

Done, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ms Sarah. I see they haven't edited since you warned them (at least not from that IP). Please let me know if there should be further problems at the article. What about the IP's contributions to Gaudiya Vaishnavism? Are those OK or would you like to revert them? Bishonen | talk 08:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC).

The IP may be Cminard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Bish: Just reviewed the Gaudiya Vaishnavism article too and did some house cleaning (it needs more attention). The IP may be a sock of Cminard, because both edit warred and restored the same section with identical content, months apart (1, 2). Cminard was blocked for similar unsourced/non-RS and disruptive editing by Ymblanter, later by Yamla, on Russia + American politics space articles. Cminard was plugging the same content in Turiya and Gaudiya Vaishnavism articles before the block. Indeed, the IP haven't edited since yesterday. But if they do, will let you know, and we can weigh the Cminard link. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed some problematic text from Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Needs more work. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

You may remember tPerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs), who was blocked for sockpuppeting back on June 21.

Now comes Don1182 (talk · contribs), created June 30, who's plowing exactly the same fields as PerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs). Am I right to be suspicious? --Calton | Talk 19:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Calton, I seem to be on an indefinite semi-break, I suddenly got so tired of the whole thing. Better put a notice at the top of the page, I guess. Anyway, what I do in these cases is ask generally ask Bbb23 or my little Ponyo for a CU — you can do that for yourself. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC).

(talk page watcher) Sorry to hear that Bish, take some time and (hopefully!) come back sometime soon feeling a little less tired of it all -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, too. I'd actually left a message on Bbb23's talk page (since he's the one who did the blocking), but it turns out that he's taking a break, too. --Calton | Talk 14:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Calton: Can you put the evidence in an SPI? I was away as well; Bishonen, Bbb23 and I clearly didn't clear our schedules with each other! I have a ton of catching up to do, but if you put together an SPI and ping me I'll take a look as soon as I can (if another CU or Clerk doesn't get to it first).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Burnout, eh? I've got just the thing. Vanamonde (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Nil Carborundum

Responding to the latest message you posted. Enjoy yourself. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

A profiterole for you

Something to sweeten your day. Hope to see you back soon and thus restore the balance of the wikiverse. Dr. K. 11:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This kitten will protect your talkpage for you.

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on history

I don't think it is appropriate for you to close the 3RR and make accusations against me. I think it would be appropriate if you recused yourself and allowed another admin who has no history with me close the discussion. You blocked me for alleged retaliation, but now that there is real retaliation and an incident of BLP violation involved, you dismiss it with a reprimand to me which I find rather disturbing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You have form in not understanding what is going on here Atsme. Do you not remember? Please remember the Griffin fiasco where we first met. There has been no violation of WP:BLP. Please think about it. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Atsme: Bishonen is in no way WP:INVOLVED, your block in August 2015 was a purely administrative action taken after a long discussion on WP:ANI, plus this very obvious act of retaliation from you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least the tps recognize the history, just not their own. Is it against policy for me to request an admin with no prior history/uninvolved? At least I try to avoid interaction with editors who have shown Ill-will toward me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

So do I, which is why I have avoided you for the past two years... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Jeez, I've shown ill will, Atsme? And here I thought we'd been having pleasant conversations about your beautiful photos. Shrug. IMO my close of your 3RR report was very mildly expressed, considering your disruption of Talk:Jared Taylor. You have ignored any number of actual reliable sources, including books published by academic presses, ignored the overwhelming consensus of the non-neutral RfC you opened yourself, and then in obvious revenge you've gone to WP:AN3 to file a frivolous "report" against experienced editors who you ridiculously hint may be socks of each other. I'm on semi-break, but if you continue to waste constructive editors' time and patience (which is our most precious resource) in the way you've been doing, I'll take the time to topic ban you from American politics. If you think admins who have previously sanctioned you are thereby involved, you'd better take a look at WP:INVOLVED. Bishonen | talk 14:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC).

Wasting constructive editors' time? So you don't consider me a constructive editor regardless of how much work I've put into this project, or what I was trying to accomplish - your words cut like a knife through my heart. How is that not considered bias/discrimination against me? What you're doing now is not unlike what you did to me before - it's a repeat performance which tells me you are not going to change - the discrimination is real. I also thought you had gotten beyond that, but I was wrong. I've done nothing to deserve your wrath yet again. Disruption? I made approximately 6 edits at Taylor and tagged it properly, all of which were reverted, then went to the TP to discuss what is already a highly contentious topic because of the wide ranging hatred for the guy, but it's also a BLP. When I realized we were getting nowhere because of a few disruptive editors who flat-ass refused to follow WP:LABEL, I called an RfC. And that is what you're calling disruptive? I thought I was following protocol per our PAGs. Removing sources from my comment in the RfC is what was disruptive but you didn't think so. Reverting large blocks of text at a newly created article in retaliation against me was disruptive, but you didn't think so. I provided the diffs, and you're blaming me. And now you're threatening me with a TB from American politics? The article was immediately listed at AfD by another of my historic detractors who is also involved in Taylor, and you don't see any POV pushing here? I can't even begin to describe how hurt and offended I am by your allegations and threat to TP ban me. Your bias against me has made you incapable of seeing the true picture whenever it involves me. Perhaps the ban that is needed is an iBan for my protection. I created one frigging article that could be considered "political" in its broadest sense - the focus of it being the DOJ which is NOT supposed to be political, and alleged collusion with MSM, and based on that one article you're threatening me with a TB on American politics. With all considered, how is that not discrimination against me? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Bish, my last comment here. This is deja vu all over again. Roxy the dog. bark 16:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think playing the victim is going to work here, it has been done too many times before... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)Atsme, we haven't interacted much, but since you supported my RFA nearly a year ago with a kind comment I hope you will take this comment in the spirit it is intended. I do not doubt (nor, I am sure, does Bishonen) that you are a constructive contributor to this project. However, I have read through that entire discussion and the RFC. While I do not think you are approaching the page in anything but good faith, you have, to put it mildly, gotten too close to the issue, and the AN3 report was a bad decision. I would respectfully suggest you step back a little from that page. Perhaps work on something else for a while, and if you do return to the page, try to do so with a cooler head and a willingness to read past the frequently antagonistic attitude (for which you are not solely to blame) and to see the substance in other folks' arguments. That way nobody gets upset further. If Bishonen is blunter than I am it is purely because she has shoveled more shit in this topic area and consequently has less patience; but as a person who has only dealt with you in an administrative capacity, she is not "involved" in capital letters. Once again, please take my comment in the spirit it is intended in. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, when I tell you I'm considering t-banning you over your disruption at Jared Taylor, you respond "I created one frigging article [presumably referring to Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting] that could be considered "political" in its broadest sense ... and based on that one article you're threatening me with a TB on American politics". That's quite a leap. I wasn't even aware of the new article, which is now apparently in train for being merged. (Added note 14:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC): I see you mentioned that article at AN3, so technically I have seen it mentioned, but I did not actually read it or its AfD, as your comment about it was even less appropriate in an AN3 report than the rest of your text.) If you think Jared Taylor has nothing to do with American politics, that's another problem. ArbCom discretionary sanctions have been authorized for "pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people", as you have been repeatedly informed. Jared Taylor is one of those closely related people, and crying BLP to prevent him being called what a massive array of reliable, including academic, sources call him is disruptive. I hope it's clear what article I'm referring to in saying that. In case you further misunderstand or ignore what I say, please don't expect me to explain it again. Perhaps one of the kind non-blunt talkpage stalkers would like to if it seems needed.

Note that you have now also received an alert about the discretionary sanctions for BLPs. Since your disruption is closely connected to the myopic use you make of such policies as WP:BLP and WP:LABEL, it may indeed be better to t-ban you from biographies, rather than from American Politics, in case of further disruption. I'll think about it. Bishonen | talk 09:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC).

I'm not going to engage you so you'll have an excuse to block me or TB me, but it seems to me that I do have the right to ask you on what grounds you are making these threats? May I please see the diffs? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Actually, Bish, a t-ban from politics broadly construed would be most appropriate. Atsme has been unrelentingly disruptive, tendentious, aggressive, and unheeding in her participation regarding anything remotely connected to Donald Trump, broadly construed, even in the face of repeated patient and civil attempts to reason with her. It has been an enormous time-sink. The issue is quite reminiscent of the drama-fest that swirled around her a few years ago. I'm not sure how much more the community should be forced to deal with. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, Softlavender. Without diffs, I believe it's called "casting aspersions." ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

My last comment here - please let Bish enjoy her break and have a chance to refresh. It's time to give it a rest. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't ANI, Atsme; I'm not required to provide diffs. However, if or when this does come to ANI or ArbCom, there are quite an overwhelming number of substantiating diffs; in fact, there are numerous repeated and repetitious conversations running into many tens of thousands of bytes each that substantiate. Softlavender (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Edited to add: And in terms of this message you have just now left on my talk page, what I have stated here does not violate that. If you believe it does, you are welcome to report it at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

RE: Please stop

I am not adding information saying there's an Icelandic Resistance Movement. I am adding information that the Nordic Resistance Movement has sent resistance men to Iceland to recruit new members. You can go ahead and stop removing it now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHeathen (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) So, you're adding an Iceland section even though you admit they don't actually have any Icelandic members yet? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The recruitment efforts of Swedish/Norwegian neo-nazis aren't an encyclopedic subject, WikiHeathen. You should stop before you're blocked from editing. Your various attempts to promote your tiny marginal organisation and make it look important are not welcome on the English Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC).

The Nordic Resistance Movement DOES have Icelandic members. I know one of them. It's the entire reason the Swedish Chapter came to Iceland; to seek new recruits.

It's preferable not to start a new section when you're continuing the same dialogue, so I've moved your post up. Your personal knowledge is not a reliable source, nor is the website in Icelandic that you refer to, see WP:QUESTIONABLE. Anybody can put up a website. Also, as I have already told you, it's not only a question of sources. Neo-nazi thugs going to Iceland to distribute propaganda is not a matter of encyclopedic interest, however much you'd like to present yourself as a Swedish "political party". (It's striking btw that the article has no mention of how many members this "party" has. 20? As much as 30?) The article needs cutting down altogether; the English Wikipedia is not a tool for extremist propaganda. The most informative part of Nordic Resistance Movement is the sentence "In the mid-1990s, former members of White Aryan Resistance (VAM) were released from prison and formed the core of Svenska motståndsrörelsen." Says it all, really. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC).

Some falafel for you!

Hello, Why you delete the Benlav Flight Systems, its an popular new startup in Iran, a fast growing technology in aviation. please help on improving NOT deletion, I ask you to create the article again. cheers Amir daryaei (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This is what it looks like now:

• Benlav avionics
• Benlav Flight Systems
• BENLAV Flight Systems
• Iranian Flight Systems
• and there is also this

Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor in question and left a summary note for the next reviewer. Alex Shih^Talk 05:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. You can have some of the falafel. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC).

Antisemitism on nazi page

The edit comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nordic_Resistance_Movement&type=revision&diff=795871962&oldid=795871373 might interest you. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's interesting. I can't sanction him, as I'm WP:INVOLVED on the article, but I shouldn't think he's long for this world. My page is quite well-watched. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC).

 Done albeit messily due to stupid tiny phone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

[Bishzilla only too familiar with stupid tiny stuff. Peers at the little Floquenbeam through her strongest reading glasses, tries to see his phone. Hmmm. Is that a cornflake in his hand?] bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC).

Bishzilla probably thinks I'm "stupid tiny stuff". --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Proofing and the F word

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.

---

Thanks for your comments about my lack of proof reading. As producing long well-edited written reports is much of my livelihood, I'm mortified to see how poor a couple of those comments are, and I'll work hard to avoid such unclear communication!

I remain perplexed though, why telling someone to "fuck off" in a heated edit during an AFD discussion is not an insult. I've read WP:NPA several times during this discussion. NPA says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". And this isn't some sly, intelligent, subtle insult - it's an offensive insult. Obviously I'm completely misinterpreting somehow, given the clear consensus; but I don't see where. I suppose I should just accept it, and enjoy the freedom to use the phrase itself.

BTW, speaking of insults, was the word "idiotically" necessary, given I wasn't keeping insisting on sanctions? I kept insisting that "FO" was a personal attack - and perhaps that does make me an idiot - but I don't see how "idiotically" helps. (though perhaps once I figure out why "fuck off" is not an insult - it will make more sense to me. Nfitz (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone wondering whether sinking more time into this discussion would be warranted should browse User talk:Nfitz#August 2017 (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Which what, demonstrates that I'm wrong about something, that when I figure it out, I'm then supportive of the position I previously opposed - like most people. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I was still hoping for a response to this; I remain perplexed how such a comment is okay with everyone, and doesn't violate WP:CIVIL. Nfitz (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Which comment? The comment "fuck off" wasn't very polite, but how you read it as an "insult" is beyond me. The speaker wasn't calling anybody anything, or implying anything about them personally, so how is it either an "insult" or a "personal attack"? I really don't know how to explain further. My own comment — that your insistence on calling "fuck off" a PA was idiotic — expressed my irritation at your uncalled-for intervention in the ANI thread to talk, repeatedly and elaborately, about "User:Sitush's long history of personal attacks or unacceptable language, as well WP:CIVIL violations". Perhaps you're right that it wasn't necessary. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC).

Hmm. Personally, I'm surprised anyone wouldn't read it as an insult. The phrase was "Fuck off, username". I'm scratching my head how this isn't both disparaging and scornful. So you wouldn't classify similar statements such as "go to hell" or "drop dead" as insults? My initial comments were simply that it was a uncivil and a WP:CIVIL violation; please tell my sense of community standards isn't so far gone that I'm wrong about that. (I've not got any interest in any vindictiveness against the editor in question, who I both value and respect - I'm merely trying to discuss this so I can understand where I'm at difference with community consensus - which I'm quite happy to follow. Nfitz (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Some people think the worst comments are those with bad words. Others, with a firmer grasp of ethics, think it is worse to be accused of antisemitism. People in the latter camp may react forcefully when so accused. Please spare us the bullshit "oh but it wasn't an accusation". See WP:CIR. You might also review WP:NOTFORUM because beating this horse to death should be done at another website—the issue was closely monitored at a very busy noticeboard and as far as I know, you are the only person who does not understand the issues and is still talking about them. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought I'd made my motive clear. That response neither answers the question, nor has any relation to the question. Stop beating the horse - I've moved on; I just want to avoid future horses, that seem to litter the place. Nfitz (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Try simply avoiding the dead horses then, instead of repeatedly coming back to trip over them again. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I am - which is why I'm asking for assistance in identifying what a dead horse looks like. I admitted that consensus was against me a long time ago, and have only in AGF sought advice so I can learn and move forward. Ironically, everyone seems more interested in jumping in and ... well beating the dead horse ... rather than actually trying to assist my growth. I honestly don't get it ... people admit they are wrong all the time in the real world; am I the only person who has ever done it before here? Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what's the problem, if any with Nfitz, but I think @James J. Lambden: (James J. Lambden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) deserves at least as much scrutiny. It looks like they might be doing a bit of political advocacy on Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably - but he seems smarter than your average bear. Either he's going to be very difficult to convincingly catch - or he's actually working in good faith, but with different views ... Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz, someone who is so consistently contrarian, as you seem to have become in recent months, would probably benefit from not discussing other people at all and instead simply contribute to article pages. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

What an awful place Wikipedia has become. Even if you admit error, and all fault, apologize, and then ask for help - instead of getting help, all you get are people lining up to be rude and bully you. Okay, who else is out there who hasn't taken a swing at me yet? Ed? James? I tried to quietly take this conversation somewhere as private as it gets around here, so as NOT to create drama. What's the message here? Ignore everything, not learn where my misconception is, and then repeat it again sometime in the future, because I've not been able to identify the root cause? I feel I'm trapped in some kind of "how not to manage people" seminar. Nfitz (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I was pinged here. Nfitz: I believe I was the first to complain about your BLP violations and the most vocal. After reading your unblock request I'm convinced you didn't understand BLP policy but you now do understand BLP policy. Note: we haven't interacted since, so my comment is based solely on that discussion. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks James - yes, that was a different debate - which I also admitted my fault, and apologized (to you in particular I think - but if I didn't, I should have), and did figure out where I've gone wrong. The issue this time, is that I'm having a hard time understanding how telling someone to fuck off isn't derogatory, disparaging, or scornful, or even a WP:CIVIL violation. I've conceded I'm obviously wrong, given the unanimity - but no one seems to have any interest in just simply explaining, what I'm missing. I do keep putting my foot in it lately - must be something in the air. Nfitz (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Whenever someone swears, try "translating" it into a clean version. So "fuck off" = "go away". It's not a violation of policy to express emotion, nor is it a violation of policy to ask (or even demand) someone leave you alone, so all you're left with is "I really want you to go away and leave me alone". People get entirely too hung up on swear words: I, for one, fucking love them. They're the shit. And you should never presume that swearing is a sign of an inability to communicate, as "common knowledge" would have us believe. Swear words are just another method of adding emotion to speech and text, and the only reason they're taboo is because they're taboo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've no problem with swear words - after all, I'm the one whose just-turned 5-year old is a regular with me for his 5th season in the crazy supporters section at the local football club, where I keep telling those around me that I don't fucking care what you shout (though in retrospect some of the Spanish ones during the Champions League might have been a bit much). Not sure if I should take this entire discussion at face-value, or if you are all just gaslighting me to the point I go and change my name to User:Fuck_Off_Nfitz to reflect my apparent standing here - and then get banned. ☺ Nfitz (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz, I really want you to go away and leave me alone. Bishonen | talk 08:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: have you tried telling him to fuck off? He seems to understand that. --RexxS (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2017 (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.

One for you to look at

Can you take a look at Dona-Hue? I was earlier on thinking of topic banning the user from India related stuff but I seem to have gotten WP:INVOLVED now by reverting some of their nonsense in a couple of articles, as are Doug Weller, Vanamonde and RegentsPark. At this point, I don't thin a topic ban would be of much help as the user shows no sign of any competence to edit here. —SpacemanSpiff 02:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Well... I'm supposed to be taking some rest and recuperation. But I'll trot out my usual about the time and enthusiasm of other contributors, and block. It's hard to be tactful in these cases — at least for me — Bishzilla might have done it better. Bishonen | talk 03:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) ((edit conflict): Not really needed any longer, but for the record...) I've been minded to ask you the same. Their edits here (such as this) and here (such as this) are good demonstrations of the problem. this doesn't inspire confidence, either. Vanamonde (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've been away too and will be on and off for a few more days, have to take care of the dog who had a bad injury. Thanks for dealing with this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Spotted in Montreal

'Zilla reputation precede her, even if French spelling not so good

Nice sign seen at Wikimania. Even Canadians take notice mighty 'Zilla. T-RexxS (rawr) 14:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Maaan...how big would the poutine have to be though ;) — fortunavelut luna 14:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the young Bistrilla is Bishzilla's little sister? [Hastily fending off the interested Bishzilla.] No, no, Bishzilla! Please don't create any more socks! Bishonen | talk 14:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC).

Bishzilla's Restaurant - where every dish is blackened! --Lyncs (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Bishzilla wear socks or only create? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Bishzilla knit socks. Any clever artist/talkpage stalker out there up for creating image of knitting Bishzilla? bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC).

KittyZilla (or should that be KittyBishilla?) just kept on knitting, and knitting, and knitting ...

EdChem (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Zilla knitting.png

One from the archives, GranZilla on her way to knitting circle, accessorized with latest creation  :)

[Zilla is tickled pink.] Hehehehehe. Little Velut Luna very clever! bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC).

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I'm not sure if they have poutine, but I was there for pizza. The best places for poutine are generally cheaper greasy spoons, using home-style fries, often fried in beef fat (no frozen or spiced fries). The gravy must have a lot of pepper and the cheese must not be grated, and should be generous, and no yellow/orange or processed cheese! —PaleoNeonate – 03:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

For me the shibboleth of real poutine is the squeak of the cheese curds: I know of no cheese per se that can emulate it. Stupid indent function seems to use the greater of a left-obstruction size and the amount of indentation instead of adding them.—Odysseus1479 04:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"Very that, Odysseus1479, very that." —PaleoNeonate – 04:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Hi Bish, just wanted to send you a wikilove item and apparently goats are now on the menu. (Since when??) Enjoy!

Softlavender (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Need to send rice and peas too! ;) — fortunavelut luna 08:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect goat has been on the menu for dinosaurs like me since at least Jurassic Park. I certainly recommend κατσίκα με ρίγανη from Santorini. And I do remember staying at a hotel in Crete where each evening the menu claimed to be serving a different sort of meat: beef, lamb, veal, pork, etc. all of which looked and tasted oddly similar. It is interesting to note that on Crete, I saw no evidence whatsoever of a single cow, sheep or pig, but there were thousands of goats. --T-RexxS (rawr) 15:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• [Bishzilla hungry as always. Fondly recollects disappearing goat in Jurassic Park — appetising scene! But also has tender heart. Also notices spiky horns on little critter — uncomfortable swallowing. After some hesitation, sticks the little goat in her pocket. Magnanimously:] Pet, not snack! bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC).

Heh... Zilla remember guy hiding in toilet-?  :) bento box style! — fortunavelut luna 16:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"Sic semper advocatorum" is the appropriate phrase, I believe. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

:)

Never seen such a pachidermous greetings on a talk page before. Made me laugh at the end of a long day, so, thanks! 87.1.125.215 (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, 87.1. It represents admins at their best; I thought of putting a caption, such as "You talkin' to me?". But OTOH we don't want to get taken to ANI for biting the newbies, do we? No. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC).

As bitter and astringent that movie is, it's one of the few I enjoyed. But then, you're right, it's not for all.

BTW, you're right, a talk page greeting is the spot where one can be humorous, in a place which in some cases can be quite gloomy. :) 87.1.125.215 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI

I've linked at ANI to a thread on this talk page involving you. Sorry, because I know from your recent comments that you'd rather this farrago was over. - Sitush (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Saladin1987

Hi, I see that you left a discretionary sanctions alert on Saladin1987's talk page a couple of months ago. Could you please take a look at his recent edits? He had made a series of edits to a large number of articles replacing Afghan with Pashtun, some of which I reverted. Now he's reverting them back stating that they are sourced edits when that's clearly not the case. I was going to leave him a caution, but I see that he's already received a ton of warnings on his talk page. FYI, besides your latest sanctions alert, he's also received two others, one by you a year ago and another by EdJohnston 3 years ago.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The user has receded somewhat in my memory, Cpt.a.haddock, but I'm pretty sure I topic banned him for six months in 2016. (Checking.) Yep, on 8 July. OK, I'll look. Bishonen | talk 14:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

I've warned him. But that damned Google Books stymies me. Sitush, can you help? Even with your head woozy, I'm sure it's better than mine for this stuff. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

The Google Books link states,

The Lodis were of pure Afghan origin and Bahlul Lodi pacified the proud Afghans by distributing rich iqtas among them. His court resembled more of an Afghan tribal assembly than the council of a great king.

Cheers!—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Saladin is just a persistent pov-pusher who prefers what they know to what the sources say. I doubt that they will change but perhaps I am in a particularly jaundiced mood after recent events. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe Saladin1987 has used up all the rope, he has been given. My previous comment from July 2017 stated the same concerns.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I've thrown him a final loop (final warning), and will try not to lose sight of how he edits after that. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

• (talk page stalker) I noticed this thread earlier today, and recognised the user name, so I added a source for "Afghan" right after the mention in the lead on Lodi dynasty, so that there's no way he can get away with claiming it's unsourced if he tries to hit that article again... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Another problem for you

IndianEditor is just here to push a point of view, not contribute to an encyclopaedia. Just see the editing history at India, Pakistan, Rally for Rivers (where advertising is a problem), Jaggi Vasudev etc. I've warned on ARBIPA and have reported to AN3,and if not for the edit warring at India (which I'm not involved in but am an editor of the article) I'd have taken action (I'm not sure of the right choice between a nothere block and an indef ARBIPA topic ban, though both are likely to have the same effect). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to inform myself better, SpacemanSpiff, but I can certainly block the user for the 3RR vio. You recollect ARBIPA topic bans can't be indefinite, btw? A year at most. Bishonen | talk 21:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

Well, per my reading of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions (and how I've seen it applied across many areas) it's only blocks that can't exceed one year but bans can be indefinite. See [39], [40] as two examples from admins other than me. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

And there's this ARBIPA indef tban imposed by you :) —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Right, Space, it's ambiguous. The comma after topic bans hints that it's only the blocks that are restricted to one year... damn this Kremlinology! Arbs I've talked to seem to think it applies to bans as well. Bishonen | talk 08:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC).

@Doug Weller: What do you say? Are ds topic bans (and revert and move restrictions and interaction bans) restricted to one year, like blocks, per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions? Bishonen | talk 08:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC).

There was a discussion a few months back on this when I think it was agreed upon that ds blocks are the only ones limited in duration (can't seem to find the link). Just look at the various years at WP:DSLOG, there's loads of indef tbans out there. Soham321 which had so many participants at AE resulted in an indef tban, etc etc. —SpacemanSpiff 08:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it needs a rewrite. I've asked on our list. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Soft block to hard block

Hi Bishonen! Can you please change the block for Oxycontin How Purdue Pharma Helped Spark The Opioid Epidemic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to a hard block? This is a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/David_Adam_Kess (see archive for DUCK per naming pattern). Ping me if you have any questions. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh. In that case, sure. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

You might want to see

these recent edits as they are about a warning you gave months ago. I've reverted his post to an article talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh god. I mean, thank you. Bishonen | talk 13:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC).

Brave MjolnirPants is trying to have a discussion with him. He's got a real CIR problem. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a thin line between bravery and stupidity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I wrote something on their page. [Wistfully:] I suppose somebody should explain to them about primary and secondary sources. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC).

Thanks! :-)

Thanks for reverting that edit on my user talk page. I'm not sure how I managed to rollback my talk page twice like that... anyways, I appreciate you for taking care of it :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what I figured, indeed I already said so on your page, Oshwah. (The song is actually "Hey, nonny, nonny", I guess? Shakespeare or something. What an immortal way with words.) Bishonen | talk 11:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) Two Shakespeare songs that I know of: "Sigh no more, ladies" from Much Ado; and Ophelia's lament for her dead father. Apparently the correct term for it is a "burden". Something new every day. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't started racist comments

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.

---

I wrote some scholary things with sources.I told Bamnamu that I think i can find some Chinese-English administrators easily but It is hard to find Korean-English administrators.So i ask him whether bamnamu is the administrator or not.I think this problem starts because i editted Goguryeo articles which can make some people feel so sensitive about that.But,i also feel so sad that I can not edit the history of my country easily.Thank youRicheaglenoble (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hijili can not read Korean and Google automatic translation machine is not perfect.I don't want to be treated as evil. Richeaglenoble (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you're evil, but indeed most people here at the English Wikipedia can't read Korean. You seem capable enough of communicating in English. It's pretty hopeless for people to communicate with you when you write in Korean and expect others to put it through some (indeed) far-from-perfect machine translation tool. Even if your own English isn't perfect either, I'm pretty sure it's better than Google translate, so please use it. And I agree with Hijiri that you really need to stop commenting on editors' nationalities, because a) it's inappropriate, and b) you're only guessing. And no, Bamnamu isn't an administrator. You shouldn't be trying to find administrators of a specific nationality anyway. Bishonen | talk 14:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC).

Richeaglenoble, the "some scholary things with sources" I was referring to were in one case a blatant copyright violation (you copy-pasted an entire newspaper article and inserted a grammatical particle here and there, and in the other was sourced to some guy's blog. The former edit ... I don't want to discuss here, since it took place on a foreign-language Wikipedia and I am TBANned from Japanese culture (which includes the genetics of the modern Japanese and modern Korean "races" and the implications of this for whether a large-scale migration and population-replacement took place in the Yayoi period) on English Wikipedia. The latter edit was apparently about how modern Han Chinese are a "mixed breed", which, given that all your other edits have been focused on how Korea is and always has been an awesome empire as much as China, is difficult to interpret in good faith.

i editted Goguryeo articles which can make some people feel so sensitive about that I'm not sensitive about it at all. I'm Irish, and the only dog I have in this fight is that I love history. I know there are a lot of Korean nationalist POV-pushers adding nonsense OR and material sourced to blogs and the like to those articles (hence the semi-protection). So when a new account shows up and starts doing the same (after making a string of nonsense edits to their own talk page to get around semi-protection), I am naturally skeptical. All good Wikipedia editors should be skeptical of edits that are not sourced, come from new accounts and are in topic areas like that one.

And then there is the above It is hard to find Korean-English administrators -- why do you care? Are you trying to find admins to help you push a Korean nationalist POV? Are you simply not comfortable communicating with people who don't read Korean? Or do you think ethnically Chinese admins like Alex are "biased" against your edits? No matter what the answer is, it doesn't look good, so stop it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Very well said, Hijiri 88. Thank you for taking the trouble to explain these things to the new user. Richeaglenoble, please read carefully what Hijiri has told you here. You can learn a lot from him about reliable sources, neutrality, and avoiding copyright violations and (especially) nationalist editing, if you try to learn in good faith. If you fail to learn, I'm afraid youre likely to end up blocked from Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 00:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC).

I tried to use google translate/korean for an afd-discussion a while back, apparently the subject stated that "When I meet my buttocks, my sleep comes up." So, not perfect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. That sort of sounds like a riff on the old advice for passengers on an out-of-control airplane: "Put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye". Maybe that was it, and the Google Translate version just wasn't very idiomatic? Bishonen | talk 14:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC).

Or possibly "I'm tired, when will this end?" I had a similar phrase come out from translating that once. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Was your comment along the lines of I think we should put this half-arsed discussion to bed now? Now that's a possibility. Irondome (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I like your thinking, Irondome, but shouldn't that reference one buttock, rather than the plural? Bishonen | talk 14:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC).

Having turned the other cheek, clearly... — fortunavelut luna 14:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Very true Bish. Maybe it was Arse of a discussion..? An enigma. Irondome (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2017 (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.

• Sorry to post here again, but the subject of the thread kind of shifted dramatically and then was closed before I got a chance to respond, and it actually went into an area that does concern me entirely aside from the main issue (which started slowly reaching a conclusion at the original ANI thread after I opened a subthread). Basically, while the OP, Bish and a number of the apparently tongue-in-cheek later comments were focused on how laughable K-E MT results can be, in this case Google actually got it exactly right on the only part that mattered: the OP was looking for a Korean admin because he was uncomfortable with the Chinese admin he was dealing with (I think i can find some Chinese-English administrators easily but It is hard to find Korean-English administrators). "old user" may or may not have been meant to imply that I was impersonating an admin (the OP dodged the question), but that was really kind of peripheral. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(And somewhere in Shizuoka, User:Curly Turkey unconsciously face-palms and doesn't know why, but has a sneaky feeling it has to do with my tendency to become a really awkward straight-man in facetious Wikipedia discussions coming to the fore again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC) )

I might be facepalming because you act like there's any hope of keeping the whackamole nationalists at bay at these kinds of articles. Noble, but souldraining. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, if we could convince CU-enabled users to run checks when we are 100% certain there's socking afoot, that would go a pretty long way. I sympathize with the motivation for not telling run-of-the-mill editors exactly why CU is allowed in some circumstances but not others. But it still makes keeping this kind of article safe really difficult. Sometimes I kinda feel like an ARBPIA3-style extended-confirmed protection for all articles related to Sino-Korean relations would not be a bad idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

3RR

I saw you closed a recent edit-warring report against Darkness Shines. Would you mind examining a similar report I submitted here: User:Sangdeboeuf reported by User:James J. Lambden? No admin has reviewed it. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

If it's still unreviewed tonight my time (it's noon here now), James J. Lambden, I'll try to get to it. I've just hastily replied to Darkness Shines, and I'm afraid that's all I've got time for before I run. Bishonen | talk 10:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

FYI regarding AN3 close

Hi Bishonen. Thanks for closing that AN3 report. Goodness knows you don't need the headache, but I thought I would be remiss not to notify you... I didn't know this at the time of the report, but Darkness Shines was indefinitely blocked, and agreed to conditions for unblock in May of 2017. One of those conditions was a restriction to 1RR for the following 6 months (expiring November 28th 2017). Make of that what you will. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen, I noted the same on DS' talkpage too, but apparently he doesn't want it there (which is fine), so I'll paste it here for you once more:

D.S. has also been routinely reverting on other articles, despite still being under a 1RR limitation as a condition for his latest unblock in May [41]. Recent diffs: [42][43] on Patriot Prayer; [44][45] on Merle Dixon; [46][47] on Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present). Routine disregard of unblock conditions should justify reinstatement of the preceding indef block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see my reply above, AlexEng and Fut.Perf.. No, I had no idea of those unblock conditions. Pity they weren't in the block log, but of course there's limited room there. I don't think I want to handle this anyway, frankly, and I don't have time to check the circumstances. I suggest you take it to either ANI or AE, depending on the context, Alex; or feel free to deal with it yourself, Future, if you're uninvolved. Bishonen | talk 10:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

<Redacted>

Just curious, I mean, I saw a block coming a mile away for something, but apparently there's a cultural reference here I'm missing... uhblock? TJW^talk 21:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Timothyjosephwood: See Polandball. GAB^gab 21:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Apart from the Polandball thing, the name contains a Polish obscenity. I know everything! Bishonen | talk 22:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

She does not. Staszek Lem told her.[48] darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 22:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

Babel fish? Babel Bish? GAB^gab 00:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

What? You guys think I'm some schmuck what goes around asking questions to mere mortals? TJW^talk 02:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Always ask your questions of the babelbish, the site oracle. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC).

It's pretty hilarious that the Babel fish would come up a few sections down from a discussion that wound up being more about machine translation than anything else. ;) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

IndianEditor

You recently blocked this one. I gave a ds warning on Sep 4th but he's continuing the problematic type of problematic edits. As I discussed something related to his edits at India, I can't take action here, but I think this needs some action. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Space. I don't see much point in topic banning, as it's pretty obviously a CIR issue. I have blocked indefinitely. (Hey, did you see MONGO's bison bull in the edit notice? Isn't it great? I wouldn't want it staring at me.) Bishonen | talk 14:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC).

I'm posting this thank you instead of just doing the thank thingy jsut to see that bison. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Cool animal. And see Muybridge's bison move! It's coming for you like a freight train! Bishonen | talk 16:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC).

Not sure if you're seeing my latest Commons uploads such as Mount Gould, Grinnell Point and Mount Wilbur beyond the Many Glacier Hotel, Glacier National Park, Montana, USA?--MONGO 01:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• I hadn't, but now I have, MONGO. They're wonderful. Unfortunately, I can't find the list to put them in for my edit notice, see [49]. But all will be well when RexxS comes out of hiding. I'm thinking of changing the length of display from 12 hours to 24 hours, too, which is something I can do without help. I keep telling people to look at the wonderful horse, and then they see a fish instead. (I like the fish, but nobody else seems very fond of it.) Bishonen | talk 16:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC).

• Changed it to 24 h. Look at the thunderstorm! Bishonen | talk 16:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC).

And now it's the ursus americanus... it probably changed so quickly because both RexxS and I have fiddled with the list. (He with aplomb, me not so much.) Anyway, MONGO, the images are stored at Module:RexxS, and now there are some glaciers too. Take a look at the list, see what you think. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC).

Not to take over your inspiration plans with just my images...but are these just grabs from the uploads I have done or taken from what I posted on my userpage at Commons? A few listed are now quite ancient actually...but whatever works is fine and I'm honored you enjoy them as much as I did taking them.--MONGO 03:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, some of my favorites are quite old. The pelicans! The horses and thunderstorm! You can see the new ones I just added in these diffs. Feel free to add your own favourites to the list, MONGO. I had some problems, so you'd better follow RexxS's instructions here. BTW, speaking from unassailable ignorance of photo equipment, you must have a really good camera now. Bishonen | talk 12:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC).

You are too kind, but flattery will get you everywhere! My camera was borrowed actually...and while more than adequate, it is now out of date, (darn technology is out of date so quickly). I also had optimal photography weather...low humidity, clear skies and mountains don't move vary fast! My pictures pale in comparison to some one like Wsiegmund's unparalleled imagery...and he has added an incalculable wealth of photographic documentation, especially on the biota of the U.S. Pacific Northwest.--MONGO 13:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

A call to the admins' noticeboard

Hello. I noticed that you have been active recently on the administrators' noticeboard's edit-warring cases. So, may I ask you to follow this case? The user's behaviour is really enervating, and he is continuing on his line through reverts and exhausting WP:BLUDGEONING, instead of operating constructive syntheses, and therefore damaging Wikipedia's content.--Wddan (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no. I'm sure some admin will take care of it soon. Bishonen | talk 16:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC).

I can say the same thing for you, your behaviour is very problematic and the source you used to replace all of the other one is not reliable, as I widely explained but it seems that you don't want to understand it. There is clearly no consensous in the talk page of Religion in Belgium. Also, you shouldn't messaging Admins, they will resolve the matter theirselves.FrankCesco26 (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Theophilus Cibber as Pistol.png

The file File:Theophilus Cibber as Pistol.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned "keep local" file.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, Rob. Apparently we have a better version of it now. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) Sorry, BU Rob13, but Orphaned "keep local" file is not grounds for deletion. Not every editor wants the trouble of keeping track of images on Commons that they have uploaded to Wikipedia, so 'keep local' means that a local copy is required to be kept. Consensus does not favour the view that all PD images must be transferred to Commons, so I'm going to ask you to change your prod to an acceptable reason (like higher resolution version available), or I'll remove the prod as a matter of principle. I shouldn't have to remind you that prods are by definition "for uncontroversial deletion" and orphaned files with a keep local template are not uncontroversial deletions. Giano, for example, often creates images of floor plans of houses in preparation for writing an article somestimes years in advance  – there is no deadline. I'm also going to ask you nicely to lay off your current spree of prods using Orphaned "keep local" file, or at least make absolutely certain that each and every one isn't something that has been uploaded in preparation for future use. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: I wrote the above before checking Giano's talk page, but sure enough, there were 4 prods and 1 FfD notified by Rob there today. I've removed the prods and commented at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 September 20 #File:Lady R Churchill.jpg, but this just shows how easy it is for editors on a break to lose their work. --RexxS (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: If you find these controversial, I'll take them to FfD instead going forward. "Keep local" most certainly doesn't require us to do anything – see WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia is not a file storage website, and WP:FFD quite clearly lists orphaned as a rationale for deletion. (Note that these were files that may or may not be present on Commons, but are not in use anywhere on the site. I did not nominate any which were marked with {{Keep local}} and in use.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:. Yes I find using "orphaned keep local file" controversial, and I'm certain I'm not the only one. Using that rationale means that you are deliberately targetting files that have "keep local" added to them, and not other files that may be unused. Presumably, you wouldn't care about WEBHOST if they allowed the images to be stored on Commons? That amounts to discrimination against many fine content editors. Editors who take the decision to add {{keep local}} are exercising their right not to have to keep checking a second watchlist on a different site just to please you. Please try to explain to the audience here how it improves the encyclopedia to delete these images:

Yes, the last three are replaceable or re-createable, but why would you want to make Giano duplicate his work? Have you any clue about what WP:WEBHOST is about? "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted" It's there to stop fly-by-night editors from dumping their holiday snaps on the encyclopedia. It most definitely is not intended just to allow petty little bureaucrats who have never written an article in their life to get rid of the hard work of some of our best content contributors, simply because they choose to keep their work on Wikipedia, not Commons. Editors like Giano sometimes create floor plans years before they use them to write a new article. It's not your place or anybody else's to demand that he uses them immediately or to impose a time limit on his contributions. Have a good think about the real consequences of your deletion nominations and the impact they will have. Are you really serious about taking those files to FfD, despite the obvious intention to use them in encyclopedia articles? If so, bring it on, and we'll see which view is most compatible with creating an encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I endorse every word RexxS says above. Demanding other editors become active at another project—and a project which fairly regularly blocks en-wiki editors, so there are many cases when editors couldn't comply with your wishes even if they wanted—just because you happen to prefer things that way, is the very embodiment of disruptive editing, and using the WP:PROD process in these circumstances is clearly inappropriate. If you want policy changed to ban local hosting of images, then get policy changed to ban local hosting of images (and be prepared for the immediate exodus of editors which such a step will trigger); don't try to enforce a non-existent policy and then act upset when people complain. ‑ Iridescent 17:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I endorse it too. As I said, I don't mind File:Theophilus Cibber as Pistol.png being deleted, since we have a technically better version of it now. But I too object to "orphaned 'keep local' file" as a PROD rationale. Bishonen | talk 17:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC).

File:Bishface.tulip.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Bishface.tulip.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

Please also consider updating other files you created or uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• ShakespeareFan00, I don't understand what details are missing. The image page already describes it as an image of a tulip with a face (which is in any case hard to miss, but I was trying to be obliging), created by me and based on File:Tulip-blossom.jpg which was in turn created by User:Geogre. What kind of further description or other details can I add? I have added the {{esoteric file}} template, as a generally good idea, though not what you asked for. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC).

You've added the required field, Thanks: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• A tulip-faced dinosaur? Yikes. I may be an immortal creature of pure thought, but my imagination is struggling to cope. Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Ha, well, I thought I had added that stuff myself in 2006, but I see it's quite new. Thanks, Dino. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC).

Appeal for wisdom

Can I appeal here for the wisdom of you and your watchers? I've raised some potential problems with an article - see Talk:Khonds#Problems_with_citations and the following section - but am not getting any input, despite mentioning the thread at the India Project talk page. If it continues to be devoid of responses, where else might be a suitable venue to raise the matter? It's a rather tricky situation. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I've left a comment there (didn't see the post at INB). If there's insufficient response after a while, I'd suggest RSN, as that's what the issue ultimately seems to be about; but is there a reason the dodgy stuff can't just be removed pending verification? Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Wisdom would definitely have to come from the watchers! Bishonen | talk 18:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC).

Got a couple now, thanks. It's a policy issue more than anything else, so subject knowledge isn't necessary. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ha! More wisdom required. Davidgoodheart has just created User:Davidgoodheart-Kelly_Wilson. Not sure what is going on and, yes, I know alternate accounts are not necessarily A Bad Thing. But at this early stage it looks like a "WP is not a webhost" thing. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• I see Davidgoodheart created that userpage, but there is no such user registered. Perhaps he was trying to create an article about Kelly Wilson, rather than a sock. I'll try to explain tomorrow that that's not the way to do it, unless somebody else does first. Sleep beckons! Bishonen | talk 23:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC).

• [Frostily.] Alternative accounts are obnoxious and disruptive! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 23:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC).

Block log typo

I see you blocked Audeamus42. In the block log you wrote Taquia, but I think you meant to write Taqiya. Not sure if this is important, or if it can even be fixed as I think block logs are not editable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Emir. BTW I remember your username was listed at WP:UAA when you were new, because somebody thought it implied authority. :-) (I declined blocking you with the argument that anybody who thinks Wikipedia is run by an emir shouldn't be editing anyway.) I don't think it matters much, no. I realized I had the spelling wrong when my link on the user's talkpage came up red, and fixed that, but the damage was already done in the log. Not a big deal. So much detail isn't necessary in the log anyway — it would be pretty standard to put just "disruptive editing and edit warring". Anybody who is really curious can find the relevant article/s by checking the talkpage and/or the user's contribs around the same date. Bishonen | talk 16:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC).

They may not be an Emir, but I am certainly the Grand Poobah of Wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated disruption and personal attacks in Lingayatism for a few weeks

Hi Bish: A hopping IP 117.242.*.*, 117.246.*.*, etc has been personally attacking for several weeks now editors Arjayay, I and others with some choice terms such as holocaust escaped prostitute / slut / bastard / etc. I have ignored it, Arjayay and others have been patient too, but given the persistence requesting a watch. I don't know if a range block is appropriate in such circumstances or would be overly broad, but possibly protecting the Lingayatism article for 6 months may help reduce the disruption a bit (given their elections are due in early 2018, the disruption is political plugging/soap and removal of scholarly RS). Where is MONGO's new treasure box of pics? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, very "choice", Ms Sarah. The range is unfortunately too big to block. I can semi the article and remove the offensive edit summaries, and I've done that. Can you suggest anything else? Do any user talkpages need protecting? The whole box of MONGO's goodies is here, and you can see the glaciers I recently added at these diffs. Bishonen | talk 11:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC).

Thanks. Arjayay got legal threats I see, but it seems unrelated. Other editors who have reverted 117.* IPs since early August seem unaffected. You had semi protected my talk page for a few months for third or fourth time, earlier this year, may be it is time to extend/indef semi protect it. MONGO is a good photographer, I must say, love how crisp his pics come out. Just back from traveling in Asia since mid August, admiring their monasteries, the temples and the manuscripts collection there. My pics unfortunately are nowhere close to MONGO-quality! Those Jackson glacier and other pics by MONGO... nice, the fluffy clouds and all. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The chap's also active at Kannada people which I protected earlier. —SpacemanSpiff 12:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah, I see my last semi of your page, from March, expires on this very day of today, at 22:41 UTC to be precise. I've extended it to a year from now, since you know such lovely people. Bishonen | talk 16:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC).

Right..whatsah matta wit the looosers dat harass editers? Had to type something so I could see one of my pics the mighty Bishonen is so kind to display...not sure what mood of an atmospheric nature...maybe bad mood, maybe good?--MONGO 16:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Charming chap. —SpacemanSpiff 03:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Sròn

Please reconsider this deletion. The copyvio page reported (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LSJqqBtrePsJ:rvlvy.co/main/index.php%3Fs%3DSr%25C3%25B2n%2520a) took content from this page, and not vice-versa. That page just contains excerpts from various Wikipedia pages (scroll through it to see) such as Sròn a' Choire Ghairbh , Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Strontian and many others. I wrote the original text of the Sròn page, including adding the images, and can assert it was not copyvio from somewhere else. The copyvio software sometimes works well, but not always. Thanks for reinstating the page! LHOON (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Being discussed on User talk:SummerPhDv2.0, LHOON. Please join in there. Bishonen | talk 17:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC).

Yea..like she said! sorry, just chiming in so I can gawk at an atmospheric nature picture...ooooh--MONGO 17:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Information regarding warning

I would like to appeal to your warning, which I believe is a mistake. Who should I contact? Please get back to me ASAP. CobraSA (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Reason for appeal :

You said "the link you keep inserting is promotional rather than a source".

First I am not in any way affiliated to the link. Secondly I have myself cleaned up the article from all promotional links. [[50]] Third, I had to appeal to an admin for the removal of a spam link to an open wiki.

You said "As people have pointed out, no source for the statement is needed".

Please explain how giving a figure does not require a source. If that was the case I could say indifferently thousands, millions, billions, and everyone would have to accept it, that doesn't make any sense.

You said "a forum wouldn't cut it in any case".

The link is not showing a forum despite the misleading url, but a content repository. The article explains thousands content items exist, and the link points to a content repository that displays a counter that backs up this statement.

I think you might not have analyzed the situation accurately, so please either reconsider and protect the page after restoring the valid sources, or kindly point out who I should contact to appeal to your decision. Thank you. CobraSA (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You falsely accused an IP of vandalism as you slow edit-warred over their removal of a blatantly unreliable source. I suggest you look up and and take to heart the first rule of holes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain how the source is "blatantly unreliable"? Because the source appears perfectly factual to me, it provides a content counter that directly confirms the content figure in the article statement. You'll need to explain why the source is unreliable, please detail as if I was 6 years old. CobraSA (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Because it's an internet forum: Anyone can say anything on a forum. (I used those exact same words in bold to explain it to my son when he was 5, so I think that fits your criteria. He certainly understood.) In this case, anyone could have uploaded a copy of an existing character under a new name. Now, I'm not suggesting that has happened. Indeed, I think it is rather obvious that it didn't happen (hence why it doesn't need a source). But the admins at that forum don't have "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy", nor are they third -party sources; they're affiliated (as affiliated as one can get with such an open source project) with the game, and indeed are a forum for volunteer developers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I stopped at "it's an internet forum". It seems you haven't even checked the source, because it's NOT a forum. It seems the issue is you just checked the url, seen 'forum' in the url and assumed it would lead to a message board page. Stop assuming things and start doing proper checks. Otherwise please don't waste my time anymore. CobraSA (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I stopped at "it's an internet forum". Well, that was a mistake because I explained why your objection is meaninless right after I said that. In the future, you should read someone's answer in it's entirety before making assumptions about they're saying, because you clearly have not addressed what I told you. A repository's statistics are only as reliable as the people adding to and maintaining it. I would also like to remind you to watch your tone: I'm trying to help you here and you are assuming bad faith on my part and casting aspersions on me in response; all based on your own admitted ignorance of what I've actually said. This is an admin's talk page, and you can be blocked for engaging with a battleground mentality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• CobraSA, you have by now received a lot of good information and advice which you don't seem interested in. Please get lost from my page (and don't go pester Mjolnir or Ed on theirs, either). As you have been repeatedly told there are a couple of noticeboards you can appropriately take your complaint to. Either pick one of them or not, just as you please, but be done here, please. Bishonen | talk 18:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC).

Hi, CobraSA. I'm not saying you're affiliated with the MUGEN community or with the link to their site. But you have edit warred against several people to re-insert it. As Calton wrote in his edit summary, the reference was "pointless"[51]: it didn't prove anything, and wasn't needed. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the content of the article; it strictly doesn't need references, since everything it says is supposed to be referenced below, in the article proper. I hope you have realized by now that calling other people's edits "vandalism" simply because you disagree with them is very much frowned on here. I warned you on the edit warring noticeboard to stop your slow edit warring at the article, because you'll be in trouble if you persist; but that's not a formal warning — I didn't write anything on your own page — it's more advice. You needn't worry about having been "warned" as some sort of black mark against you: it doesn't show up in your talkpage history. See also the comment by Floquenbeam (also an admin) below your post at WP:AN3. But if you want to protest more formally against my warning and have it noticed by other admins and experienced users, you can do so at the Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC).

Hello, could you please explain why the source is "pointless"? I've tried to explain the problem as clearly as I could, if you post a statement with a figure, it requires a source, period. If you're telling me you can post random figures on wikipedia and providing a source is pointless, then I'm sorry to say I'm not going to believe that and contact the higher ups. CobraSA (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

CobraSA, if you are going to look for 'higher-ups' you may want to post at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If any mention is needed of the number of characters created by online contributors that data probably belongs in the 'Customization' section and not in the lead. Per WP:EL #10 and #12 we don't perceive that online forums count as a reliable source for anything. The content repository that you want to link to is created by online contributors and is not the product of a publication that has editorial control and a correction policy. See WP:V. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Again it's not a forum, it's a content directory with a counter, and there is no reason to believe anybody would have the ability to alter these counters as they please, it is an objective sum of items included in the directory. How can objective data be unreliable, you don't make ANY sense. The only explanation is you didn't even bother to look at the actual source and are wasting everyone's time. CobraSA (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱ and EdJohnston, that's very comprehensive. I won't repeat what ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱ and Ed have said so well, CobraSA. Go ahead and post to one of the noticeboards mentioned if you wish. Bishonen | talk 18:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC).

• Floq, I don't see any socks for CobraSA. Toboyof did use an IP to play edit warrior. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Thanks, dear doctor. Having interacted with them on that article and talk page, it looks rather more like meatpuppetry to me, as their behaviour is reminiscent of what happens when a Wikipedia article gets discussed on an off-Wiki forum and the participants decide to come here to "fix the problem". All three editors seem very attached to the mugenarchive.com site, and CobraSA removed about a dozen other sites from the External links. On the other hand, CobraSA isn't a SPA like the other two, and seems genuinely interested in the broader topic of gaming, although I suspect that English may not be his mother tongue. I'm reasonably sure that if he reads and understands some of our policies & guidelines, he will be capable of contributing constructively. I'd be supportive of a sensible unblock request. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Hey Rexx, I just took the CU shortcut based on a reasonable suspicion; I did not look so deeply that I can verify meating. If there is something that doesn't require that one special tool but rather administrative judgment, then I'm sure Bishonen is the better person to ask. :) Oh, I'm always for unblocking people if they're reasonable. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: Without the benefit of the CU magic 8-ball (maybe I should ask for that too, haha), it was still obvious enough that this was socking or meatpuppetry that I was (and am) comfortable blocking. If you're telling me it's meatpuppetry, my thoughts remain pretty much the same. We sometimes talk about our policies being complicated and maybe newbies should be expected to know recruiting other editors is wrong, except... I cannot imagine going to some new website, accuse another established editor of sockpuppetry with zero evidence, and then think it's OK to get some of my friends to try to stack the discussion. He knew what he was doing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

thank you

Obscure warnings in ill-fitting template-speak on this page

Thank you for your comments. Some people slap warnings without thinking. You put quite a bit of thought into your response on my talk page. That's good of you.

AGrandeFan (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, AGrandeFan. I happened to catch sight of that nonsense on your page and felt I had to say something. Bishonen | talk 22:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC).

Thanks

Thank you for your level headed comments Neher AfD, even though you aren't involved in it. They are appreciated :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That discussion is getting more and more outlandish, Tony. Wow, did you see User:MONGO's waterfall in my edit notice? Bird Woman Falls. It's a switch kind of thing, I never know what it'll show next. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC).

I did. A truly gorgeous photo. I think I'd rather be there right now than at my house! Do you think its hikable? TonyBallioni (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I just now put it in the infobox in our article, Bird Woman Falls. There are roads apparently! Bishonen | talk 22:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC).

Its intermittent in that once that snow above it melts, the falls sometimes disappear in later summer. They are easily seen from the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park. Thank you for adding it to the article.--MONGO 23:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently that road has this car named Jammer! I want it! TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Pick a caption

Hi TonyBallioni (and Bish) - These are Red Jammers and they are a wonderful way to see Glacier NP. They have canvas tops that they roll back when the weather is sunny. Riding in one of these is an all time favorite memory of a visit to this park. MarnetteD|Talk 01:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Another Red Jammer bus this is number 88 though only 33 actually exist in the park. While they have been updated significantly, these buses were all originally built between 1936 and 1939.

• Just driving by to wave at you and say hello from Montana. It snowed here on Monday. Thanks for the shoutout to our area! Montanabw^(talk) 02:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha, today it's the pelicans! Nothing if not variety! Bishonen | talk 20:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC).

• I'm sorry if I dropped you in it at the Holly Neher AfD by suggesting the block. It wasn't my intention to escalate the fall-out there. It's just that you have one editor monopolising the discussion and it keeps going off track. I don't have strong views either way—I can't even remember how I go involved in the first place—but the salient points are getting lost in all the white noise which is a shame when people have taken the time to contribute. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• No problem, Betty Logan. I agree it's a shame. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC).

This seems to have no end. Don't want you to think either of us has lost it-yes, I did ping you but here's where it is now. ;) We hope (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah. I saw but was too dignified to respond. ;-) I like U's "You have now been warned at AN" followed by an AN quote that was nothing like a warning. Or perhaps he meant it in the sense of "I have now warned you at AN". But actually U seems to be aware of his paucity of material; he keeps asking everybody else to supply him with diffs for an RFAR, so far without result. Bishonen | talk 03:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC).

With respect

Hadn't seen WikiSpeak before! I think it's got project space n. down to a T -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion

Surely this is block evasion? I have reverted as such. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted, Sitush. Possibly a meatpuppet, but it comes to the same thing, so Ive blocked. Should I yell at Rashakhalifa too..? Possibly, but I don't see much point. They're indeffed anyway. Maybe tomorrow — I suppose there should be some sort of record. Anyway, it's my bedtime, g'night all. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC).

Inaccurate comment and character assassination

Bishonen, I am writing because I want to address 2 statements you've made on ANI recently related to me.

1. [52]
2. [53]

Edit 1.

You say Joe has made three edits to user talk pages in total since the previous block, Toddst1? That's very inexact; I make it seven, most of them to his own page. You are correct - I miscounted. Take a look at what I looked at. The edits on in the box were what I counted. The one month block from August 22 probably expired about Sept 22 depending on how the wiki calculates the month. I erroneously assumed that the Sept 24 edits were before release of previous block. It doesn't make that much of a difference in the context of Joefromradb's chronic incivility, but you were correct, I miscounted. It was an error and I would hope you would assume good faith. But...

Edit 2.

The first sentence is a correct point of order. Your second sentence is nothing but a bald-faced attempt at character assassination where you've brought heresay from what I can only assume was confidential ARBCOM discussions. How would you know? I am not acting as an administrator, haven't done so in a long time and how I did as an administrator has no bearing on my report about Joefromrandb. I see that as highly inappropriate and an abject abuse of power to use information you may (or may not) have gained in from several ARBCOM members to make an ad-hominem attack, in an attempt to discredit my report.

Sure, I had some problems towards the end of my time as an admin and I took myself out of that role. Discussing any issues I had as an administrator in this context - as they were not related to the issue at hand - is highly inappropriate - by you, or anyone else. An admin using heresay to make an ad-homenem attack, is unacceptable. It shows without a doubt that you are holding a grudge against me and should recuse yourself from commenting on anything I do on the wiki.

If you're going to be lurking around waiting to discredit anything I do here by bringing up that kind of stuff, neither of us have any place editing here.

I look forward to your reply. Toddst1 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Can I tell him to fuck off, Bish, please?

Toddst1: you made a wildly inaccurate statement (2/3 is very different from 2/7) at ANI that resulted in a thoughtless admin handing out an indef to a productive (if uncivil) editor. It's obvious that templating an already upset editor is provocative, and why wouldn't anybody assume it was your intention to get an uncivil response so you could go scuttling off to ANI to ask for a block? I see you've not apologised for misleading the community, whether deliberately or incompetently. If you think that 'Shonen's statement is "character assassination", wait till I get started. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not waiting around for Bishonen's permission, but I doubt very much she is "going to be lurking around waiting to discredit anything" Toddst1 does "here by bringing up that kind of stuff" and I think Toddst1 knows that. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Toddst. I wasn't aiming to scandalize you; I commented because people in the discussion were saying you were an admin,[54][55] and Drmies, a current arb, even called you "a fine, fine admin".[56] I was surprised by Drmies' opinion, but I might as well have kept that to myself; it didn't indeed have anything to do with your report on Joefromrandb. It was irrelevant, and I wish I hadn't said anything about it. Anyway, I don't know anything of ArbCom's actions or opinions other than from public discussions. I referred to them because I remembered the pretty high-profile RFAR that was filed against you in 2014, which was accepted but never opened (because you went on a prolonged break). It was an unusual case and thereby stuck in memory. I've found a link to the RFAR, which I'll supply if you want, but perhaps it's as well not to open that window into the past. Look, you needn't worry about me lurking around gunning for you. I'm sorry I mentioned your old troubles at ANI. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC).

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I feel much better. Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Todd, I won't hide that I was surprised at that warning about a comment on a talk page; I thought that was somewhat out of character. I remember you as someone who wasn't likely to have the rules overrule what's right for the project, and made a few courageous decisions. Bish is one of the good ones, really. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

IP Block

FWIW, I assumed someone would see my revert and block probably more quickly than an AIV report would have gotten answered. GMG^talk 17:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to criticize the people who warned, more just to express my anger at the IP. But actually I suspect AIV is quicker. Or why not do both? (Hey, did you see the hippos in the edit notice, aren't they charming? Who knew MONGO was an engraver in the 1870s? (All the other pics are really his, though.)) Bishonen | talk 18:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC).

Hum...I remember them. Not very hairy creatures...they must be very uncivilized.--MONGO 18:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

True, very primitive compared to Bigfoots. I put them in the edit notice with your images because Bishzilla was so pleased with the maternal body language and expression of Adhela — she could identify. Pretty ugly hippo baby, admittedly! Bishonen | talk 18:45, 11 October 2017 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Activist (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I've replied. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Editors who are willing to sink time and energy into sensitively managing COI issues, or following and carefully reviewing difficult sources, as you did at Jacob Truedson Demitz, are few and far between. Thanks for being one of the good ones! Fyddlestix (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blush, I'm very flattered, Fyddlestix. BTW, it looks like I was right about the ping problem, and it seems still ongoing; you pinged me at the AfD, but I haven't received the notification. Very annoying: people trust it, and it only works by fits and starts. :-( Bishonen | talk 21:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC).

My pings fail half the time I think, even when the function is working. There's always a typo or some aspect of the syntax that gets screwed up so it doesn't work - it's particularly easy to mess up when you do much of your editing on a mobile (which is madening on a good day) while a couple terrorists toddlers are doing their best to distract you... Fyddlestix (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a bloody good thing :p it means I can go around swearing at Admins and nooooooo-one eveeeeer finds out! HA HA!

• Wow. That lightning picture from Mongo really is gorgeous today. Yes, the no ping plague is a thing. There's a phab ticket in about it apparently. I thought they were working again for me, but who knows. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, today's edit notice, unusually, features a town (surely? or does all of the US look like that?), but it's an atmospheric nature picture for all that. Thanks for linking to the ping malfunction discussion, Tony. I had heard there was something about it on the Pump, but I was too lazy to dig it out for myself. It's not very helpful, tho'! What one wants to be told is that the... uh... I suppose, the developers, are working day and night to fix it. @Johnuniq and RexxS: do you have any thoughts? Ha, look at the poor naive woman, trying to ping people. :-( Bishonen | talk 18:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC).

• The description tells me it is over Sarpy County, Nebraska, which is not an area I am familiar with. My assumption based on the article is that it is a populated place, so a town seems reasonable.
  The technical discussion where the devs are trying to work on the solution is at T177825. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Definitely not lightning. I can see in the lower left corner Bishzilla attacking a suburb at night with her high-voltage breath. Godzilla used to do the same, but in Japan. Dr. K. 18:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@'Shonen: I would have had some thoughts, but sadly, the ping never notified me. --RexxS (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what I feared, RexxS. Exactly. I'll never be able to get any technical assistance ever again! :-c Bishonen | talk 19:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC).

The techo discussion is at TonyBallioni's above no ping plague link (contratulations on the impending adminship btw!). Bishonen's comment at 18:05, 14 October 2017 above is very interesting because I received the ping and RexxS did not. That is weird! Bishonen's wikitext included the following and a standard signature:

• {{Ping|Johnuniq|RexxS}} → @Johnuniq and RexxS: → <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] and [[User:RexxS|RexxS]]:</span>

@RexxS: Did you get a ping from me posting this message? If people haven't noticed, there are some new options in Preferences, see H:PN. I have the following ticked under Web: Mention + Failed mention + Successful mention (I will probably untick the last when it irritates me too much). When I recently sent a ping I received a notification saying "Your mention of Example was sent." Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And when I saved the above edit, I saw this section as normal, but I also received a notification: "Your mention of RexxS was sent." Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Bish/RexxS/Any talk page stalkers. If I am reading the phabricator request correctly, all you have to do is make any change in your user preferences, and you will be able to receive pings again. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

(1) Any change? Even to something unrelated? (2) Should this fix not be sent to every editor, via a mass message delivery? (3) How did we communicate before the "ping"? I've been here 11 years, but I don't remember .... lol. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, any change. The VPT report contains a link with full information. In essence it says that a maintenance script recently broke the preferences for over a thousand enwiki editors, and the breakage causes notifications to be ignored because the system believes the preferences say that notifications should be ignored. The developer who found this has prepared a fix that he hopes will be deployed on Monday, so by next Tuesday there should no longer be a problem. Re (3), history is fake news which is only recorded at loser websites like Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sad! Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bishonen - I assume you're watching it but just in case: can you check out the latest post on the Demitz AFD? An ip has shown up and posted a wall of text claiming to be Demitz - don't they need to verify that somehow before we take their word for it? There's also dome vague reference to having emailed some people to ask them to intervene in the AFD. I didn't think this whole thing could get any messier but I guess I was wrong... Fyddlestix (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the IP is the real thing, Fyddlestix, but I agree we should ask for verification. I'll do it if you like. As for e-mailing people to interfere in the AfD, I don't think he meant that. Not sure what he did mean by the sentence about "having a link emailed", admittedly, but surely not that. Perhaps it actually referred to identifying himself? Anyway, I'll post something at the AfD. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

That's correct. I wrote to them to identify myself. Only that. Regards, Jacob Truedson Demitz "Lars Jacob" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.109.2 (talk • contribs)

Great! I totally misunderstood that part of your comment, sorry! Fyddlestix (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi. Im sorry för the pseudo debate in the deletion discussion. That was not my purpose. I just wanted to be transparant and show here that I asked others on svwp agree Other sources. This because I know from experience that all I write on svwp is checked and often tried to be used against me on discussions here. That makes it hard sometimes when my Only purpose is to make a Good thing here. (It also makes me angry upp sometimes when He Always talks about me as haunting him. But I Will not step Into that trap again). Best regards Adville (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, if you avoid those traps and keep your cool, nobody will have any reason to talk about you, I hope. And, as I said, I'm sure you edit in good faith, to improve the encyclopedia, and also that you spoke in good faith at the AfD. Bishonen | talk 14:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC).

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

Thank you for the atmospheric welcome, and coming over to talk, and "crying is okay here". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gerda. Ha, look at the American Black Bear! I'm not sure if it's more scary or more wonderful. Here's hoping MONGO didn't go as close as it looks. Bishonen | talk 10:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC).

Yes, wonderful but would be scary if real. He got close, also in naming mother and child. The fire is scary and wonderful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

One more: teh poem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Another likely Purty sock

Hello, since you've had recent dealings with Biswajeet34, I thought it easier to just bring this to your attention on your talk page. Neurotm (talk · contribs) is a newly created account whose first edit was to restore Biswajeet34's edits on Ho people. Thanks.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 09:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Likely, yes, William Thweatt, but they didn't restore exactly the same list, so a little more rope, perhaps? I'm a softie, what can I say. (Going out for a few hours now, but if there's a storm of edits and reverts from them in a short space of time, I'm sure another admin will get it. Hello, little talkpage stalkers.) Bishonen | talk 10:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC).

Bishonen, you gave me final warning of blocking without even trying to see what I edited. FYI: I just made letter 'a' of Ashram capital in my latest edit. Why this much aggressive behaviour? Suhani 10:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I wasn't talking about that edit, but about this. I think you knew that. Bishonen | talk 13:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC).

Asaram

I've blocked both TruthSupporter and ItsMonika for being sock puppets of one another. The similar edits made here and here (where the content is almost identical but not perfectly so) shows that this isn't an undo that restored anything; it's a clear case of one person using two accounts to try and add the same content to the article. I saw your final warning left on TruthSupporter's talk page, so I figured I'd message you and let you know. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Osh. Bishonen | talk 12:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC).

You bet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks re this. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocking idiots like that is one of the satisfying things about being an admin, DBaK. You'll notice I didn't give them a talkpage notice; I don't want to dignify them with the attention, and I prefer not having their username in my contribs list. Thanks for reporting. Bishonen | talk 23:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC).

Good points, thank you. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

whatever happened to Willy on wheels?

Found this lying around, but not on wheels. Wikipedia:April_Fools/April_Fools'_Day_2005/Willy_on_Wheels_for_adminDlohcierekim (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose we all have to get old and tired some time. Bishonen | talk 06:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

No, we don't.

Oooh, look - sturgeon! --T-RexxS (rawr) 22:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Letters from the Portuguese (actually, Brazil)

I was sitting here wondering what I should do with these, and then i saw our name and said,"aha"! I've deleted 4+ user pages with innocent sounding names and text in Portuguese referencing ext. links. Here they are:

RobtSteffey107 https://namoroagora.com.br

PabloOsgood5 http://formulanegocioonline

TrentStelzer0 http://queromeudinheiro.com

LasonyaHarbison https://namoroagora.com.br

I just deleted 'em. I feel unsettled, like I should do something more. Is there something more I should do? Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I hate to admit it, Dlohcierekim, but I've actually read the Letters from the Portuguese, in the course of a misguided dive into late 17th c lit. Crazy stuff. I feel unsettled too. Those are spam links, and did you notice Robtsteffey107 and LasonyaHarbison both registered at 22:40, 18 October, and both also posted their userpage text at 22:40, 18 October? They all talk Portuguese, and hawk books/internet services in Portuguese, but LasonyaHarbison says they live in the Netherlands and PabloOsgood5 in Poland. Why did you think of me, exactly..? I mean, I think its a spambot and they should all be blocked, but I dunno much about such things. Did you say there were more similar accounts? Maybe post on ANI, with links, and find somebody more expert? Bishonen | talk 07:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

Thanks. FOr a reason now forgotten, I thought of WoW. I remember seeing at least one now deleted page before it was deleted. So I searched and found WoW for Admin. (Wikipedia was more fun and frivolous back then.) I saw your comment and realized I could ask you. Thanks for the advice. Yes, I did notice the striking similarities among the "accounts". Off to block.13:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal and clarification

Hello, I would like to know how to proceed. The New York Times premier article about Breitbart News, which is entitled "What Is Breitbart News?", characterizes Breitbart News as conservative-leaning [57]. Thus, the lede of the Wikipedia article about Breitbart News is in clear violation of WP:BALANCE. How should I proceed? Thank you in advance for your direction. Técnico (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Your contributions show an overwhelming interest in Breitbart News. On 30 June 2017 you were topic banned for one month. Since then your only contributions have been to post a message at Talk:Breitbart News#New York Times Main Article About Breitbart News Describes It as Conservative-Leaning a few days ago, and now here. Experience shows that single-purpose accounts are usually a source of unending trouble with very little commensurate benefit. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

How should you proceed? Well, there are currently 54,500 stubs related to plants, 749 stubs related to dogs, and 149 stubs related to woodworking. Any of those should do just fine. GMG^talk 10:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I will have some comments for you in a few hours,Técnico, I'm busy right now, sorry. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

• Reply to Técnico: the NYT piece that you have linked to so many times, Técnico, and that you based you argument on in the ANI thread I closed, and again based it on in your recent post to Talk:Breitbart News, was published in August 2016. I'm sure you know that Breitbart and Bannon are more famous now. In the development of recent American political history, a year is a very long time, and if you're really planning to continue your campaign, you need to look for newer descriptions. Picking one from over a year ago seems like obvious cherry-picking to me. I know you ascribe some special status to the NYT article as being a "main article" and a "highly prominent source for what Breitbart is", because of the article title ""What Is Breitbart News?". But that doesn't hold water IMO. No, it's actually a prominent source for what Breitbart was, over a year ago. There has been so much water under the bridges since then! In August 2016, the NYT thought it useful to explain what Breitbart was to their readers. I haven't seen them do that recently; my opinion is that they now assume that their readers know what Breitbart is. Whether or not, I've only seen the NYT refer to Breitbart is passing, as something previously known. Like here, five weeks ago: "Writing last week on the far-right website Breitbart News, Mr. Kobach asserted" etc etc. My bolding. If balance and NPOV are what you desire, Tecnico, you need to update your argument and your sources. (A better idea, IMO, would be to find a new interest on Wikipedia, but that's just advice.) Of course sources a year or two old, or more, are often perfectly fine for Wikipedia; it's all according to context. Your "New York Times Main Article About Breitbart News" is, in the context of your argument, badly out of date. You're likely to get topic banned again, for much longer, if you continue to gnaw that old bone. PS, I have however removed DrFleischman's collapse of the thread you started on the talkpage, because it wasn't a breach of your topic ban, as he apparently thought. Your topic ban was only for one month, from 30 June, so you don't need to appeal (?) it to me. Bishonen | talk 15:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

Sorry, upon review I guess I did misread the duration and scope of the topic ban. That being said, Technico's recent comments here and at Talk:Breitbart News are more than just "the kind of disruption described by the community at ANI" for which they were topic banned. They are a continuation of the exact same campaign of disruption that prompted the ban. Same arguments, same sources. Evidently Tecnico sees the topic ban as just a pause in the action. They need to be disabused of that notion. An extended topic ban seems perfectly appropriate in this circumstance. And while I appreciate your very good points Bishonen, the last thing anyone wants is for Tecnico to pick a new single source to hang their hat on and then resume the IDHT campaign where they left off. If Tecnico is going to continue railing against Breitbart being described as "far right," they need to come up with a credible and substantially different argument that has not already been rejected by the community. That's not easy to do, since the issue has already been hashed to death. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Diwali and today's traffic

Happy Diwali....! (should have added this image earlier)

Bish / others: Today is Diwali / Tihar, a major festival there in India / Nepal / Mauritius / etc. The wikipedia article typically sees very high traffic (>200,000 views). There is a few weeks old new account too busy repeat mass deleting sources and sourced content. I have left them a note on their talk page, and invited them to the Talk:Diwali page. Their edit summary and edit hints this account may be someone blocked previously, but I have not done the digging. The article may benefit from a watch today and tomorrow for disruption. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I have a certain sympathy with their removal of overly feelgoody text, Ms Sarah. But certainly the user should participate on talk, and I see EdJohnston has warned them about that. Man... Diwali... that takes me back to my carefree Wikipedia youth when User:Giano and I used to vandalise Christmas. We never removed things, though, we added, er, some good stuff. [Drifts off into a reverie. Wakes up. Hastily:] Sure, I'll watch the article! Bishonen | talk 19:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

Thanks Bish and EdJ. My dear Bish vandalised Christmas, don't believe it! But maybe there is this dangerous part of you (and Giano), I have yet to discover (or maybe better not!). The Diwali article is indeed not in the best of shape, but it is not too bad. Some large sections such as regional practices are unsourced, which is bothersome too. But that lead and main text, built up by earlier editors reads better than the newbie's replacement text. Will add it to the to-review list. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, if you look way back Before The Dawn Of Time this was on the main page (admittedly only for one minute). Those were different times. ‑ Iridescent 21:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

......and very happy Christmases they were too. Alas, Cecilia, a traditional Sicilian Christmas goat, in all her finery clutching her Gucci handbag, was deleted a couple of years ago for being against the rules. Rather sad really. Giano (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, wot larks! I know you miss Cecilia, as do I, dear Giano, but I think some of the baby Sicilian Christmas goats (Santa's or Satan's goats) are still frolicking at, well, in some little-known corner of Wikipedia. You can probably find the place — I won't imitate Mr Iridescent's indiscreet linking. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC).

Oh look! Sweet! I have just found one of the stray kids. Apparently in the 12 years since we last saw it, it has been visited just once - by someone who thinks it's a good image to be copied to Commons. That's nice.

No, sadly,I can't link to any of them; they all wandered off years ago, as poor, sweet, little goat kids do when unwanted and unloved. Wikipedia is cruel place and that's to those writing it, to little surplus fluffy animals is it positively carnivorous. Giano (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

However, I have no such scruples about linking, Excellency. May I direct your attention to User:Bishonen/Archive 9 #Favour? and User:Bishonen/Archive 9 #Why a picture of the monument is called for? There's an interesting thread on 'Zilla's origins in there as well as some more goat-related threads. For the talk-page stalkers, there is also this early Xmas treat: User:Bishonen/Sicilian Christmas. --T-RexxS (rawr) 12:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, those links made me quite sad. All those (at-the time-funny but now meaningless) in-jokes and references to some great editors who are no longer here. Eleven years ago and most of them gone. Bunchofgrapes and the great Filiocht and, of course, Geogre and all the others, perhaps one day they might come back - it would be nice to think so. Giano (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It was never my intention to make you sad, Excellency. But rather you should rejoice that once upon a time you were part of Wikipedia's own Camelot.

The weight of this sad time we must obey;
Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.
The oldest hath borne most: we that are young
Shall never see so much, nor live so long.

I too miss so many wonderful editors, although you will be pleased to hear that Geogre does come and visit us from time to time, disguised as a refugee from Utopia. --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

About missing editors (I didn't want to start a new thread for another memory), that I said: Go meet Bishonen, and your life on the project gets bearable! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Help needed with newbie

With apologies for usurping this place as a general noticeboard, can anyone help me out at User_talk:Sitush#Kumar_Vishwas. A relatively new contributor who isn't understanding what I am saying. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That's funny, I've given Dipupandey80 a couple of discretionary sanctions warnings and am just typing a warning to CreativeEdit. But I have to go out now, I'll take a better look later. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC).

Thanks, Bish. I am getting a headache from hitting a brick wall. - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You haven't touched the other sock -- CreativeEdit. —SpacemanSpiff 11:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did warn CreativeEdit. Oh, I see they've been CU'd now; check. All over. Well, till the next sock. Bishonen | talk 13:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC).

So much of my time is wasted on this crap. It creates a sort of paranoia and makes me suspicious of pretty much any new account that appears likely to be based in India, which is obviously unjust stereotyping. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if the bad apples are beginning to glimpse yet that it's a bad idea to attack you on your page? You see how I and others knew about it before you came here. I'm kind of busy, but if nobody else has done the SPI by the time I get my head above water, I'll do it. Bishonen | talk 14:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC).

Template Keep local

It looks like the file deletion police are attempting to do another end-run to subvert Template:Keep local. You may be interested in seeing how a file with the template on it has been nominated for deletion with the rationale "unused locally/already on Commons, Wikipedia is not a web-host, no reason to retain local copy" at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 23 #File:Lightnings sequence 2 animation-wcag.gif. Sounds familiar? --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That file might could be useful anywhere. At the same time, for files preferably kept only on Wikipedia (the Bishzilla portraits come to mind), I prefer to use Template:Esoteric file. Do you know if they've ever tried to delete an image tagged with that, RexxS? But I agree, that move to Commons —> delete on Wikipedia pas-de-deux is, yes, an end-run.

That Demitz guy

Hello Bishonen ! Long time no see. I don't really understand what has happened with Demitz. Are you about to recreate the article once more ? Perhaps some people cannot differ between Serge and Demitz. 6-7 "voters" had less than 250 edits here. Unfair, doubtlessly. Now swWiki has opened up for further deletions here. The principles were not considered, in my opinion. Thanks for your efforts, and I hope some article can be restored. Thanks! Boeing720 (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Boeing720. Recreate it? No, I can't do that. Were you reading the deletion log at the redlink Jacob Truedson Demitz? There, you can see me both delete and restore the article on October 16. But all the actions I did there, including the recreation, were purely technical, for the purpose of moving SergeWoodzing's draft over the original article and then merging the histories of the two pages. The only "real" action was by BD2412, who closed the discussion on 23 October and found "substantial consensus" that the article subject didn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and then deleted it. He's right, you know. There was substantial consensus. Speaking personally, I'm pissed off at the amount of notability we demand for people like this, when I compare the kinds of sources we treat as reliable for some types of BLPs, such as say porn stars. I clicked on one BLP at random in the porn stars category, and found that Xbiz, Fangoria, AskMen, the Howard Stern Show, Badmouth interviews, Klixxx.com and Glamourcon are apparently OK sources with a reputation for fact-checking. But Borlänge Tidning and Dala-Demokraten are dubious, "local", etc. That's simply anglocentric. Or maybe porn-aficionado-centric.. grumble. But you know how it goes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS yada yada. There was consensus. And most of the deleters' arguments were, properly, about notability, certainly when they re-posted in the second round. Bishonen | talk 08:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC).

Well I think this is a very sad story. Initiated by someone at s. Huge thanks for your efforts anyways. Thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

For Britain

Hello,

Why did you remove my addition to the For Britain entry? Your comment stated that Youtube is not an "acceptable or reliable" reference, but the Wikipedia guidance permits Youtube references subject to restrictions such as copyright and authenticity. Since Anne Marie Waters is a readily identifiable public figure, and the video shows her explaining the launch of her new party in front of its banner, it would seem spurious to suggest that the video could show anything other than what it purports to show.

Paul Paulddaellis (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Paul. Solely you-tube videos alone isn't reliable. Rarely, at least. Haven't you got some more source (I'm not up to date with the matter, but have recently experienced the same). But look here Erich_Linemayr - "orchid task", first reverted, but you-tube together with an other source might just do it. Best of luck Boeing720 (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Paulddaellis: Bishonen didn't remove your addition. She only set WP:pending changes for the article For Britain. Your edit was reverted by Velella. In any case, the problem is not that Wikipedia forbids the any reference to YouTube, but that you doubled the size of the article based on just that YouTube video. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and we require that articles are primarily based on secondary sources, which generally means sources where an expert is giving an analysis or summary of something, We won't base large parts of an article on primary sources like that YouTube video. What you should be looking for is a report or analysis of Waters' speech in a quality newspaper, for example, where we have the benefit of a respected journalist and editor drawing whatever conclusions are pertinent. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you RexxS for your response, and apologies to Bishonen for misrepresenting their action. I have now redirected my original query to Velella.

Since the length of my addition was not mentioned by Velella as their reason for undoing it, may I ask how you (RexxS) conclude that that was the true reason for its deletion rather than the stated reason, the nature of the source?

Since the subject of the article is a very new political party with virtually no history and predominently negative media comment it seems reasonable that the article should at some stage mention what the party itself states that its purpose is. How else might that be achieved but by quoting from the launch speech, the principal available source?

From their manifesto, which is surely by definition going to be the definitive source on what any political party claims to stand for? ‑ Iridescent 07:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but what a party claims to stand for is supposed to be a very small part of their Wikipedia article, if any, Paulddaellis. If you look at the articles about other parties, you'll see that they're based on what reliable sources say about the party, not on their self-description. That's how Wikipedia does it. Why, you may ask? Because what a political party, or a commercial company, or a pop group, or a person, says about themselves generally sounds great. It tends to promote them, and be slanted in their favour, whereas articles in an encyclopedia are supposed to be neutral. Bishonen | talk 10:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC).

How very dare they! Britons never ever shall be youtubers, slaves, or indeed married to a mermaied at the bottom of the deep blue sea! Angles, Jutes and Saxons go home!!! . . dave souza, talk 13:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, sometimes it's hard to communicate, but wee Brits have non-understanding down to a fine art. May I commend to all your readers the Parable of David Davis – don't know if you've read any of the previous epistles, but the author is clearly in a state of Grace. . . dave souza, talk 23:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

From s -wiki etc

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndardiskussion:Skottniss#Ingen_DANs_p.C3.A5_rosor.2C_men_tillsammans_.C3.A4r_vi_starka.21
You speak Swedish I presume ?
Look how Advile and an other admin "are strong together", also mocking Dan Kohel, and the fact that he was blocked - a whole year, I believe.
Now they are attempting to take over here as well. I really felt sick when I read it. This isn't a just question about Dan - or Serge/[redacted].
Adville has now gone to French Wiki (in English!!), in order to delete Demitz there as well. As an administrator. If possible, have a look here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swedish_Wikipedia#Can_we_use_Wikimedia_.3F
This is kind of "my" fight. (I'm not asking for favors, but please have a look.)
But also see this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Relationship_between_different_Wikipedias_and_the_foundation_.3F
JimmyW takes over the reply. I guess he has a little knowledge about s wiki. But how to get him to realise better ?
I know we have had our battles, a rather long time ago now. But that was different, and you were correct. Serge might give up... Any ideas ? - I have a wikiml. Sometime somehow I feel something must be revealed somehow....
Thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Boeing, without commenting on the rest of this: it looked like you were drawing a link between someone's wiki account and a real life identity here - not sure if that was your intent or not but I redacted it as a precaution. See WP:OUTING. And for what it's worth, if that was your intent I'm 95 % sure you're incorrect about who the person behind that account is. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've commented at Talk:Swedish Wikipedia #Can we use Wikimedia ?. In brief, you can use self-published sources as sources on themselves, subject to five conditions. If you keep it very simple and avoid drawing conclusions, you can use such primary sources. --RexxS (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Skottniss was reelected as admin. I congrats him. One year ago Skottniss was outed and called a lot of things by an old user which led to a block and it was not sure he wanted to proceed. Now he has been reelected. I am happy. He needed to hear we are strong together (that means if someone calls another user psycically ill and should not be allowed to be an admin then we other admins suport that user who is called things). Adville (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, this was not about anything of that. (neither about the receiver) But as of NOW I just want to end 'a greater matter'. Hopefully that is already done/solved. Boeing720 (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Radha Soami

Bish/others: The Radha Soami article needs some attention. It was recently checked and cleaned up by Diannaa for copyvio issues. I thereafter added RS and RS-sourced summary. Now a hopping IP, 47.8.14.* and 47.8.15.* is edit warring it back to non-RS website, deleting RS and sourced content, leaving sweet edit summaries such as "are you an idiot or stupid" with the disruption!? I twinkled their talk page, invited a talk page discussion yesterday, but all that is going nowhere. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi,Ms Sarah. Well, it's just two IPs, 47.8.14.41 and 47.8.15.205, and luckily they're on quite a small range, which can be blocked if needed. I see @Huon: is talking to them (very patiently), and they have said they'll refrain from editing the topic further. If they come back with more edit warring and fresh insults, I'll warn, unless Huon does. Bishonen | talk 19:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC).

SailingOn

Is this an appropriate username? Thanks! Wasn't trying to be disruptive or anything. Sorry for the hassle.

Cheers, User:SailingOn

Yes, that sounds OK. Per the block message I gave you, it's OK to create a new account yourself, so I think we're all good. Note, you can sign your talkpage posts by typing four tildes, ( ~~~~ ). That will be automatically converted to your username + a timestamp. Happy editing! Bishonen | talk 21:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC).

How do I make this message more indented than the previous message? Your help is much appreciated! ( SailingOn (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC) )

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) @SailingOn: the number of colons at the beginning of a line determines how many steps (virtual tab-stops). I believe this originated as an ‘off-label’ use of a feature intended for glossaries and such, like this—

Term

Definition of the term.

—but without the semicolon that marks that line as an entry with boldface. Where the indentation in a long thread has grown annoyingly deep, but you want to directly address the last point made, you can use {{Outdent}} to maintain the threading, like this:

so as to start again from the left margin.—Odysseus1479 22:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen @Just Chilling I was pretty salty that my account was banned(despite only making positive contributions to the site) so I filed the appeal, then I just decided to make a new account. Forgive me though, thanks for everything. I still don't understand what was so bad about the "WikipediaMadeMeChangeMyName" username. Again, sorry for the hassle.

Cheers, ( SailingOn (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC) )

Edit: I just saw your post on my talk page. Thanks! I'll ask their instead. ( SailingOn (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC) )

Thing is, SailingOn, you're horribly wrong about "only making positive contributions to the site" with your previous account. Of your 16 edits to article space with your previous account, 7 of them were edit-warring to (i) insert "atheism" as a religion three times into British Jews, and (ii) to insert the words "Italic text" and a link to a YouTube video four times into John Charles Daly. You are really going to have to figure out how to avoid edit wars if you're hoping to keep your editing privileges here. Best of luck. --RexxS (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

RexxS Please keep in mind I was correct about the John Daly article, if you actually view what I added(his educational background) you will see that. Using YouTube as a source is permissible under certain circumstances which this video fulfilled. ( SailingOn (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC) )

@SailingOn: no, you weren't correct about the edit you made four times to John Charles Daly. First of all, the show is undoubtedly the copyright of CBS TV (1960). The copyright in the USA is described at Copyright Act of 1976 and Copyright Term Extension Act and you need to read and understand those before you start making reckless claims that a TV is "in the public domain". The copyright term for works of corporate authorship is 75 years after publication, and you can work out when the copyright will expire on a 1960 TV show. So you were linking to a copyright violation. We don't do that. Secondly, you inserted the words "Italic text" at the top of the article four times. Don't you even look at the edits you make? Haven't you learned where the preview button is yet? You really need to shape up or ship out. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It's in the public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_My_Line%3F#Episode_availability http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/List_of_TV_series_with_episodes_in_the_public_domain?View=embedded%27 The copyright on the series was never renewed, look into the Berne Convention. You're wrong. Please continue this debate on my talk page. I'm not the most proficient at Wikipedia and I'm trying to get better at it, sorry. Please review my recent contributions if you're concerned. RexxS ( SailingOn (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC) )

@SailingOn: You've offered absolutely no evidence that the copyright on What's My Line? has expired. The Wikipedia article What's My Line? #Episode availability lists episodes that still exist – that meaning of "availability", and says nothing about the copyright status of the show you linked to on YouTube. The Project Gutenberg source looks reasonable, until you realise that the title is actually "Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing Press". All of the content there is self-published, or user generated content. Go ahead and check the description of "World Heritage Encyclopedia" content at the bottom of the page – it's all UGC. The page is littered with errors, such as the muddled headings for Venezuela, UK, etc. Frankly, if that's what you're relying on for your contention that What's My Line? is public domain, I suggest you start saving up for your legal costs now, as your ideas on copyright are sooner or later going to prove very expensive. Check the precautionary principle to understand why Wikipedia takes a very conservative line on copyright.

And what about the edit-warring to keep on inserting the words "Italic text"? Do you have anything at all to say about that? --RexxS (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I find the out-of-copyright claim fairly plausible, because in that era the US made authors jump through notice & registration hoops to secure their rights, and there exist many works that have fallen into public domain due to defects in this regard. However, I also agree the anonymous evidence above is insufficient to satisfy the precautionary principle. There are some denizens of c:COM:VPC who know where to look up the copyright status of pre-1989 works; it might be worth asking for help there.—Odysseus1479 19:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Bishonen:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Linguist^unEins^uno 19:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

strangeness

Pelicans! the MONGO version catch more fish, me thinks.

List of analog television stations in the Philippines appears to have PD-1 on it, but the protection log shows nothing... that seems a little odd, does it not? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Very odd. Yeah, it does have PC1. I mean, it's not just that somebody put a PC icon on it. And yet nothing shows in the log. I'm very touched that you turned to me in my quality as technical expert! Try the Village Pump, perhaps. Unless one of the little talkpage stalkers has an explanation to share? Bishonen | talk 17:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC).

The protection logs are here: [58]. The page was moved. Still a puzzle, though, because either the logs should have moved with it (I think), or at least there should be something in the move log for this name. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I've seen this many times when a page is moved post protection; the article remains protected but the log entry is blank.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

See, young Aunva, my page is after all the best place for reliable information! ;-) And you get cool pelicans, also. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC).

ah, yes, that explains it. it's quite helpful to know *why* a page was protected when reviewing... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry+Thanks!

I'll act on this issue next week. Thanks for the reminders :) UnangKarlito 21:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

LTA help

Hi Bish! I've created an LTA page for a globally locked editor who returns virtually every day as a different IP. It's basically only Justlettersandnumbers and I who chase him. A lonely job . It would be helpful to have his modus operandi recorded for other editors to use and indeed other Wikipedias. His cross-wiki abuse with IPs, especially at Simple English Wikipedia, is appalling. Anyhow, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson, and if you think it's appropriate, change the status parameter from pending to active in the infobox at the top? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

These things have status parameters? Sure I will. (Ah, the young hippopotamus and its mother! So cute!) Bishonen | talk 08:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC).

Thanks! Yes, I think they added that "status" thingy to prevent abuse of... er... long term abuse. The trouble is, no one really patrols or clerks there on a regular basis and mine had been languishing for two weeks. Although not as long as this one. And complimenti on the cute hippos! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Mind you, I don't see any suggestion on the page or in the template that it has to be an admin that activates it, still less a designated "clerk", as long as it's not the person who filed it. Just anybody respectable. (I don't understand why Jayron first begged at noticeboards, etc, instead of just doing it.) Bishonen | talk 10:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC).

How about anyone unrespectable, like MONGO!!! (oh and hey when did a drawing of mommie hippo an her calf get attributed to the dreaded MONGO???)--MONGO 17:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps indiscreet? I know the little MONGO is quite secretive about his engraving career in the 1870s. Our image page even lists the author of the charming mother-and-baby piece as "unknown". ("Calf" is a pretty charmless word, please don't use it!) Bishonen | talk 17:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC).

Ah, good thing MONGO not call the mommie by her accepted name!!!--MONGO 18:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ghost of xmas past?

Hi, a while back you declined an unblock request from Special:Contributions/Dapi89 here: [59]. An IP has recently brought the matter up, stating that the block was at my "insistence" and alluding to my "agenda": [60]. I wonder if there may be a connection, as Dapi89 frequently brought up the topic of agendas; sample: [61].

The thread in question is here: Talk:Werner_Mölders#Deletions_of_details. Could you advise? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, K.e.coffman. I've taken a look, and commented. There's certainly a likelihood that an IP who is extremely interested in a) you, b) Dapi89, and c) Dapi's block in April, is being used by Dapi89. I can't be sure, though, and there's not much I could do about it if I was. Anyway, whoever it was, I'll eat my banhammer if it wasn't someone with an account, that they preferred not to use. That much is obvious, and is pretty cowardly in my book. I was surprised that the anonymous attack had been simply left on the page by the people who watch the article, and have said as much. If it had been on a page where I was more at home, say WP:ANI or WP:AE. I would have removed it myself, but when I come as a guest, I daren't quite.

Also, I noticed another attack on you close by the IP post that I thought pretty unconscionable, from a MILHIST coordinator, and have posted on their page to say so. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC).

You've got mail!

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 06:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Marvellous Spider-Man 06:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"H*Tl^r" is not a group.

Are you sure? I woulda sworn they played downstairs at the Rat...Anmccaff (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

On a more serious note....

I was editing a new section when a small power surge hit (I'm guessing, based on the wind gust). The surge protector of the UPS tripped, and took down the CPU. When I logged back on, Firefox reopened the editing window, but the edit went through not for a new section, but for the entire talk page. I suspect this is something that could cause other problems. Anmccaff (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure it wasn't a broad hint that I need to archive? As for H*Tl^r, if the past few years of looking stuff up on Wikipedia have taught me anything, it's that everything's a group. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC).

Some students at USUHS made a t-shirt that kinda summed up the place: a caduceus (a pun, BTW; cad-USUHS. (I didn't say a good pun...)) with a rifle (? sword?) and syringe crossed over it, or thereabouts. Within a year, there was a garage band called the War Doctors.... Anmccaff (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

An apology

I apologize for being childish, disruptive, and disrespectful.141.213.172.73 (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

I really don't understand why rollback still doesn't come with a confirmation button. GMG^talk 11:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

...because it's for such egregious cases of vandalism and violations of legal import that it doesn't need thinking about for a second. Presumably, of course, designed in the days before wanky mobile phone screens that stay still long enough to persuade one that it's finished loading, only to suddenly jump again. Ambush! — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre.} 11:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

... or because you can customise your own. Start with: User:Zvn/confirmwatchlistrollback.js. --T-RexxS (rawr) 13:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Uhh... that looks like computering. I'm not very good at computering. But if someone who knows what they're doing want to add that to my thingy-ma-bob so that I get a popup, they're more than welcome to. GMG^talk 13:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: No-one can edit your .js files but you to prevent abuse that could harm your computer or interfere with your access to the site (except admins, technically, but we're really not meant to). Having said that, installing this is very simple. Go to User:GreenMeansGo/monobook.js and simply add importScript('User:Zvn/confirmwatchlistrollback.js'); on a new line. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought admins could edit other's settings there. At any rate, it doesn't seem to have worked. Still managed to rollback about a dozen of my own edits on my sandbox from my watchlist with no confirmation button. GMG^talk 13:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Bish, I'm a fan of the bird picture today. Really nice. GMG, are you using Vector or Monobook? This script is for monobook. Also, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi there is some setting in preferences that requires confirming on mobile. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Look!

Cranes are way cool altogether, Tony. See their ecstatic mating dance at Hornborgasjön. Bishonen | talk 22:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC).

Bish: Lovely are their dances indeed! A 2 minute video clip. MONGO: another lovely photo, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yo TonyB, still not receiving pings. Bizarre. Took longer than a week to get rollback too. Less bizarre :p — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre.} 15:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

No idea. I've only ever messed with that kind of thing once, to add the AfD helper, and only because someone was on IRC holding my hand as I crossed the street. I am fairly well aware of where the boundaries of my circle of competence lies, and this ain't it. GMG^talk 13:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) @GreenMeansGo: I just added your sandbox to my watchlist, then tried to rollback your last edit(s). I got a nice popup asking me "Are you sure you want to rollback this edit? OK / Cancel". You could put the importScript into User:GreenMeansGo/common.js instead, if you wanted it to use in any skin. I seem to remember it didn't work for Giano initially, then it suddenly started working after a time. Possibly a page needs purging, or something is cached. You will certainly need to reload your watchlist before it can pick up the hook from the JavaScript. HTH. --T-RexxS (rawr) 13:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey. It worked. Awesome sauce. And it looks like we've managed to turn an accidental missclick into a permanent improvement. Thanks all around. GMG^talk 13:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I honestly just disabled rollback on my watchlist. only use rollback on the diff, prevents many issues. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

2nd opinion

drake6789 paid? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Assuming you mean this guy, I'd say no; that looks like an admirer (or possibly an over-enthusiastic volunteer or service user) rather than a spammer. ‑ Iridescent 18:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. lacked certainty -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this, @Dlohcierekim and Iridescent: Notice the "we". Bishonen | talk 19:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC).

Yeah. The sum total of the edits has a greasy feel. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

That's just a cut-and-paste of the first line here - it's possible that it's a clueless but good faith newcomer trying to create a new page. If it is a spammer, it's a very odd thing to be spamming; if there's one company that we can safely say knows how to do search engine optimization both well and discreetly, Google is surely going to be it. (Plus they pay the WMF millions of dollars a year; if they wanted a change made, they have access to the back-channels.) ‑ Iridescent 22:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this racism?

Hi Bishonen, sorry to bother you. The editor called Zaffar.awan started his career with this edit. After many discussions and warnings and more, he opened a new account and ended with this. Is this enough rope? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes. Blocked. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC).

Unrelated comment by TPS: 1) I love the horses today. 2) In response to your edit summary: technically a cassock or a chasuble, though he was a Jesuit, so you never know... TonyBallioni (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hey, Kautilya3! After I'd posted a nice offer to the user to help them with the unblock request, I noticed they had, just before, posted the sentence "tery kaali bunnd mei Bishonen ka lund" higher up on the page. Google translate doesn't know what it means; do you? Tony: a dress is a dress! Bishonen | talk 16:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC).

Yeah, more obscenities. I will spare you. Best to revoke the talk page access as well.

Hmm. Those horses mysteriously appear! Nice! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)--Have already reverted and emailed oversight.They are usually lightning fast at their job:)Winged Blades ^Godric 16:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

And that will be UTRS, not OTRS:) We at OTRS can mediate unblocks, if there is one sent to us but UTRS is a better avenue by miles!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, thank you. I was actually going to revert you, and leave the comments on the page for the reviewing admin to feast their eyes on, but it's up to UTRS now, as I think I have enough info about it. Though socking is surely more likely than an unblock request in any form. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC).

Happy Thanksgiving

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A little early, but still... Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness. If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, Winkelvi! Celebrating Thanksgiving isn't part of my culture, no. So you want me to pass on the turkey to someone else..? [Pets the turkey.] No, I'll set it free! :-) Bishonen | talk 08:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC).

Yes, by all means pardon the turkey! I had no idea you weren't American (pretty arrogant for me to assume, I guess). That's what I get for trying to get a jump on the holiday greetings this year - last year, I only returned Wikipedia Christmas and New Year greetings to folks who had given them to me. This time, I wanted to make sure I sent holiday greetings folks in the community who had been quite decent to me during this rough year for me Wikipedia-wise. Guess it kinda backfired! Thanks for being kind in your response. I'll catch you again around Yuletide! :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Winkelvi, please don't be apologetic about sending me a friendly greeting with some cool old art on it! It didn't backfire — I did appreciate it. Bishonen | talk 14:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) Gosh - I literally misread that as "cool old tart" first time round. I was just going wtf when I realized. I really don't know whether I should book to see an optician or a psychiatrist first. Maybe there are multidisciplinary ones who do both for a discount. Sheesh, sorry. Happy everything, anyway. DBaK (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The shorts do look rather skimpy though, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered! Patient Zero^talk 12:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

thank you for Happy everything, can't say it better (I tried, see my talk, wishes for everyone, no cards ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving...not

Hi Bish! I was gonna wish you a happy Thanksgiving, but apparently someone beat me to it (I read the post above mine lol. It's all good).

Anyway, I was wondering if you would like to help me with an issue I first broached to you a couple of months ago. It concerns the move of James Mattis to Jim Mattis. You said I had a good case of getting it moved due to the strong impeccable sources I provided and suggested that I bring in to the talkpage, which was exactly what I did Talk:James_Mattis#Long_overdue_to_move_this_page_to_Jim_Mattis. Unfortunately, the talk page discussion quickly devolved into name-calling and a discussion about the "length" of my block log without any discussion about the merit of the move. An editor who disagreed with the move told me to "get off his lawn" in his edit summary and suggested that I "leave" Wikipedia altogether [62]. Only 2 other people weighed in and the discussion has died. I'm pretty disappointed by this outcome and I'm wondering if you could perhaps weigh in if appropriate.

As always, thank you SO SO much! You literally saved my wiki-life and I'll always be thankful for that (I know you said you don't celebrate Thanksgiving but still). It's like you're Dr. Dre to my Eminem, I Need a Doctor-style. Sorry I digress. But anyway, I would really appreciate it if you could take a look and perhaps make a determination on what should be done.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Boney, my man! Good to see you. Yes, I remember about Jim/James Mattis, and I do notice that you give sources and the other people don't. Chris Troutman's comment to you was certainly unkind. "We'd be fine if you left Wikipedia altogether"? That's terrible, and so is the "Get off my lawn" thing, which sounds like classic WP:OWN. However.. I can understand that people felt somewhat provoked when you started with "I'm going to go ahead and move it again". I think you did mean to start a discussion and seek consensus before doing anything — otherwise, why would you go to Talk at all? — but you put it a bit... hmm... overbearingly. I don't think that's a good excuse for starting up about your block log and saying Wikipedia would be better off without you, mind you. No. I might have commented, if I'd seen it at the time, but it was 12 days ago. We shouldn't, any of us, start complaining about anything in such an old thread, and I won't. I hope you have a great Thanksgiving yourself! Bishonen | talk 16:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for the advice, Bish. RexxS was kind enough to step in and I'll accept whatever outcome that comes out of it. Just a sidenote: I raised valid questions to Alex Shih on his ArbCom election page last night, and he responded by insinuating that I was "trolling" [63]and that the "community" was on his side. Can you ask him to retract the personal attack? I don't want to go anywhere near his talkpage due to bad blood with him and other members of the Ideogram fanclub a decade ago and I don't want to bring this to AN/I and blow the whole thing out of proportion, but I object to anyone baselessly calling me a troll.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

No.. I don't think I can do that, Boney. The bar for things you can say on these pages is pretty high. He should answer your follow-up questions, but I'm assuming he will. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC).

@Boney: Being older, I'm not so worried about time as 'Shonen, so I've gone ahead and make a requested move at Talk:James Mattis #Requested move 23 November 2017. That will be advertised more broadly than to just the folks who watch-list the page, so may attract more comments. I've notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history as well to get a few more opinions if possible. Please comment as politely as you can – in other words, take the high ground and pretend the prior ad hominems didn't happen – and then be prepared to accept whatever conclusion is reached over the course of the next seven days while the requested move should be left open. If you wish, I'll look for an uninvolved editor with some MilHist or Bio background to do the close in a week's time. You might have to remind me, though. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much User:RexxS for stepping in! Happy Thanksgiving :-)--Certified Gangsta (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Need talk page protected

Is there a way that you can get my talk page protected? I'm getting sick an tired of an anonymous IP user making stupid posts on my talk page telling me to do this, that, and the other on another wiki site that I administrate. This has been going on for several months and I'm tired of it. King Shadeed 1:40, November 26, 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello King Shadeed. I semiprotected your user talk page for three months. You can also request this kind of thing at WP:RFP and any admin can respond. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, EdJohnston. I appreciate that. King Shadeed 00:08, November 27, 2017 (UTC)

Sumple/PalaceGuard008 personal attack against you

Hi Bishy! I figure I should start a new section since this is a new issue I've come across and the previous section was getting too cluttered.

In the process of gathering evidence and re-familiarizing myself with Alex Shih/AQu01rius' past associations as part of my in-depth investigation into his arbcom candidacy (still waiting for him to answer my follow-up questions...), I noticed that User:PalaceGuard008 has re-introduced personal attack against you and User:Geogre on his talkpage in November 2012 [64] (the attack is directly copied from his previous account User:Sumple. I would have noticed this right away if I were active at the time). As far as I know, consensus has changed and such objectionable material is no longer permitted on userspace on the principle that Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground (a good example is my old userpage getting MFDed despite numerous consensus to speedy keep Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Certified.Gangsta in the past in both AN/I and MFD).

Just to refresh your memory, this individual originally added the personal attack on his old Sumple account 10 years ago and there was quite a bit of a drama at the time on AN/I [65] that resulted in him getting blocked for disruption by Geogre and then he almost immediately abandoned his old account in favor of a new (in my opinion, a sockpuppet) account PalaceGuard008. He abandoned the Sumple account on 12:38 May 27th, 2007 and the PalaceGuard008 account was created less than 24 hours later on 8:11 May 28th 2007. Nobody knew he was secretly editing under a new identity until more half a year later on January 15th 2008 when he tried to pass himself off as a neutral observer and attacked my userpage on AN/I [66] in violations of multiple Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts. His cover got blown and his old account was indef. blocked for being a sockpuppet by User:Nlu, but was later unblocked on a technicality and on the condition that he publicized his old identity on both his old userpage User:Sumple and his new one User:PalaceGuard008.

Anyway, long story short, the point is the personal attack against you and Geogre had NEVER been on his new account until November 2012, more than FIVE years after the initial conflict, and it took another five years for me to notice. He also reneged his pledge to publicize his identity on his userpage somewhere along the way [67]. In fact, I didn't notice until 2 days ago. I removed the attack [68] and he restored it [69]. I just removed it again, but obviously this is an untenable solution. I'm wondering if you could perhaps get involved yourself (or get 'zilla involved :P) or bring this to AN/I to get a sense of where the community's consensus is on this issue (I would love to bring this to AN/I myself but I think people would just end up attacking my record instead of the merit of the issue). My understanding is that the community no longer tolerates such objectionable, low-brow contents on userspace in 2017 and it irks me a great deal when you get personally attacked like this. If he had attacked me, I would just make a persona non grata list on my own talkpage and put him on it. But you deserve so much better and NO ONE should personally attack you like this, especially some casual POV pusher with a political agenda and a net negative to the project. Let me know what the next step is and what I can do to help resolve this issue. Thanks as always :-)--Certified Gangsta (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, Boney, but I don't care about nonsense like that. WP:DENY is best way to deal with trolling. Declaring a user who left the project 8 years ago (Geogre) as persona non grata? Pfft. Please just let it go. Bishonen | talk 10:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

Nuztas revisited

Hi Bishonen, re this at Nuztas1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): FYI see LA144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same content, same articles. I already have reverted the remaining edits. And created this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nuztas1986. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, DVdm, what a surprise. Blocked and tagged, SPI closed, Nuztas indeffed. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

Thanks. I guess I'll keep these pages on my watchlist for a while . - DVdm (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Deez nuts? Drmies (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry...

...but could you take a look at this, this and this? I wouldn't admin-shop like this but honestly I think this is one of those situations where a stern warning from someone with teeth would save everyone a whole lot of the stress that would come from opening some kind of formal request for sanctions of some kind, and your name sprung to mind since you were the one who weighed in on that ANI thread back in May. (Actually you lost a coin-toss against Yunshui, who weighed in last time I was accused of "vandalism" for adding a maintenance tag to an article.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No.. I'd really rather not. Sorry, Hijiri, but a) TV series I've never heard of (shown only in countries where I don't live), b) Marvel comics movies, and c) enforcing WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, are some of my major non-interests on Wikipedia. The mere thought of combining all three makes me want to take a break. Hey, maybe Yunshui likes and enjoys all of them? Are you sure that coin you tossed was properly balanced? Bishonen | talk 23:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC).

No, that's fine. It was an unreasonable request to begin with (hence the upfront apology), and that was before I knew about your aversion to a, b and c. I dunno, I guess I'll just forget about it this time.

Honestly, the only reasons I was looking at those articles is because (i) I was on a Marvel kick this week for various real-world related reasons and (ii) writing 70+ Japanese poetry (etc.) articles for WP:WAM has me kinda burned out on "serious" topics at the moment.

But being burned out on the reason I edit Wikipedia should probably be addressed with a short wikibreak rather than delving into to pop culture firepit: I'd happily invite your talk page stalkers remind me of this "epiphany" if they see the same thing happen again. (Not because I plan on asking you to intervene again, just because I know you have a lot of talk page stalkers, some of whom I'm pretty sure are also my talk page stalkers and would therefore likely notice.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)there's always drmies or floquenbeam. although drmies kinda does it full time now...maybe take it to WP:MEDCOM or WP:DRN? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aunva6: Thank you for the advice, but I think even if I hadn't decided on a different approach (see my response to Bish above) I probably wouldn't follow it. Thing is, last time a comics-focused editor was harassing me I did ask Drmies, and while he dealt with it appropriately, he did not do so before Floq (apparently a talk page stalker of Drmies) commented that his preferred solution in such situations would be to block both of us (and presumably see whose appeal seems more genuine). I've seen Floq make similar statements elsewhere. And while it may be true that that would solve the problem (even though it's not a two-party dispute), and I don't doubt that it is a legit method (Floq is a good admin who's helped me out with non-CIVIL/NPA stuff in the past), I really don't want to be blocked. The above-proposed wikibreak would be at most a day or two, and after that I wanna get back to giving the Kakinomoto no Hitomaro treatment to another dozen or so articles. WAM was fun, but it effectively forced me to put all serious editing of pre-existing articles on hold for the last month. Most of the interesting topics already have articles. Even if many of them are sub-stubs that an admin once told me he'd happily TNT-delete -- that's why I never mainspace sub-stubs anymore, as I had done with an earlier, long-gone, version of Utsunomiya Yoritsuna. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88, I'm not half the admin Floq is. Seriously. Or Bishonen, for that matter. I barely know how to dougie. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih's arbcom candidacy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Bishy! Thanks for taking the time to raise this [70] to User:Alex Shih on his arbcom question page. I just saw that another editor has confronted him on his talkpage as well [71]. By the way, I really don't appreciate the sarcastic, condescending, passive-aggressive tone he answered your question [72], especially the way he highlighted the word symphasise and assuming. Very uncalled for and classless! Hopefully, the community will see such conduct (and the fact that he continues to dismiss valid concerns about his record as "polemic" and "trolling", lash out against my record when I'm not even running for arbcom, and past membership in the "Ideogram fanclub" [73]) as disqualifying. Thanks again :-)

P.S. I dig the Little Chief Mountain image when I post on your page. I'm thinking about stealing it haha (with your permission, of course).--Certified Gangsta (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

One of MONGO's great images, Boney — you'll see another one soon, so steal it while you can! Never mind the tone — I think you may be reading more into that than I do — I don't see much tone — but it wasn't classy to ignore you without even an "I'm not replying to you because", nor to deal with the issue on IRC, out of sight, a fact that was furthermore only revealed when I, not you, asked a question. But never mind, it told me a good deal. Bishonen | talk 11:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC).

P.S. On second thoughts, I'm changing your header to something more neutral; hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 11:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC).

Yup that's fine. Thanks again for your help!--Certified Gangsta (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (haven't read Bish's reply yet) (talk page stalker) (although I won't pretend that my happening to have this page on my watchlist is what caused me to notice this) As someone who was recently accused (on this page) by an unambiguous troll of being a Chinese nationalist POV-pusher with whom Alex Shih has a history of fraternizing (the above diff is a relatively civil example -- I picked it because it was the last time he did so logged in -- but some people feel so sensitive is a specific reference to me and Alex, and how we supposedly share anti-Korean Chinese nationalism), I gotta wonder if Certified Gangsta (talk · contribs) would be willing to name names regarding the "several unsavory characters", or if doing so would open them up to accusations of blatantly and baselessly attacking Wikipedians in good standing. I actually know very little about Alex Shih's history outside his interactions with me, so it might be fair to call him a Chinese nationalist POV-pusher who is cozy with other nationalist POV-pushers, and that might be a perfectly acceptable question to ask an ArbCom candidate (I know precisely nothing about ArbCom elections), but I'm curious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That said, after drafting the above I did check, and of Alex's top nine most-edited articles, only two -- Battle of Wuhan and Chinese Expeditionary Force -- relate to Chinese external conflicts. This is true even if one assumes Taiwan and China are separate countries, as most of them relate to the Chinese Civil War before the Kuomintang withdrew to Taiwan. This is not the case with CG, whose user page explicitly identifies him as a nationalist lists as one of his views on "ethnicity, nation, and race" a quotation that essentially amounts to "China sucks", despite six of his top nine pages relating to China and collectively accounting for about a quarter of all his mainspace edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's address this point-by-point. 1. I'm not familiar with the Korean user you have disputes with since I don't edit any Korea-related articles. 2. I've already named the "unsavory characters" Alex Shih patrionized by name in my arbCom questions to him Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Candidates/Alex_Shih/Questions#Question_from_Certified_Gangsta with numerous supporting diffs (Ideogram, HongQiGong, User:Blueshirts, a self avowed supporter of the fascist Blue Shirts Society, etc). 3. The fact that you called Culture of Taiwan, Taiwanese Americans, and Takeshi Kaneshiro "relating to China" put your objectivity into question. I have no interest whatsoever in China-related articles unless they pertain to the irredentist concept of Greater China (IMO no different from irredentist concepts like Caliphate and Megali Idea), namely their goal of invading/annexing Taiwan. 4. The high edit count on Taiwan-related articles is skewed by the fact that community-banned sockpuppeteer (Ideogram), who Alex Shih patronized (and supported in his arbCom case), baited and trolled me ten years ago, as summarized by admin User:Jehochman here [74]. My more recent contribution show a wide range of mainspace interests, most of which has nothing to do with Taiwan vs. China. Like Alex Shih, I have been largely inactive in the past decade. 5. The "nationalist" infobox on my userpage has American flag on it. Clearly, I identify as an American nationalist, not a Taiwanese nationalist, so you're sadly mistaken. 6. I harbor no animosity toward Chinese people and I'm not here to push a Taiwanese nationalist POV. My only concern is upholding and maintaining NPOV. The fact of the matter is most editors who gang-patrol Taiwan-related articles (even some of the admins) are Chinese nationalists that either explicitly/implicitly support the Chinese Nationalist Party (aka Kuomintang) or the Chinese Communist Party and the annexation of Taiwan. Their goal is to de-emphasize or (better yet) completely shut out the views of Taiwanese nationalism in the mainspace or even dismiss the fact that it is a force to be reckon with (funny because the dominant party of Taiwan, Democratic Progressive Party, is a Taiwanese nationalist party). Alex Shih was right in the thick of it and he made his own pro-China bias clear [75]. Bishonen knows my heart is in the right place and she probably summarized my position better than anybody with this quote "One basic disagreement is whether the ethnic distinction betrween Taiwanese and Chinese is a matter of self-identification or of biology ("blood"). CG says the former, his opponents the latter. Thus Ben Aveling: "Even if every Taiwanese citizen stopped speaking Chinese they would still be ethnically Chinese (aboriginies excluded). It's in the blood."[138] As far as I know, CG's opposite view of ethnicity is the dominant one today, when we don't talk so often about what is and isn't in the blood. See Ethnic group#Ethnicity, nation, and race: "While ethnicity and race are related concepts (Abizadeh 2001), the concept of ethnicity is rooted more in the idea of social grouping, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal affiliation, shared genealogy/kinship and descent, religious identification, language use, or specific cultural and traditional origins, whereas race is rooted in the idea of a biological classification." [76]. The so-called "China sucks" quote was taken directly from the source here. 7. I'm not running for ArbCom; Alex Shih is. Therefore, my track record is irrelevant while he has voluntarily submitted himself to community scrutiny by running. But feel free to shoot the messenger. I have yet to see any merit-based opposition as to why my questions to him are inappropriate, which is unsurprising given the detailed diffs and impeccable evidence I provided.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

1. That's fine. I never implied you were/did, just that your using the same language makes me very skeptical about your claims.

2. Maybe. I'll check those later. Per AGF I'm required to assume they are not unsavory characters who share Alex's nationalism until I see otherwise, and that's really peripheral to the point I was making above anyway.

3. Culture of Taiwan is a fairly short article given its topic, clocking in at a little over 3,200 words, of which 55 are either "Chinese" or "China". Ditto Taiwanese Americans, though it's a little less clear since it's only 40 words out of 3,474. Takeshi Kaneshiro is an article on an actor who apparently speaks three languages with native-level proficiency, of which two are Chinese topolects and the third is Japanese, which I can assure has no accepted genetic relationship to either the Sinitic languages nor any of the indigenous minority languages spoken in either Mainland China or Taiwan, and whose best-known film appearance outside Asia was probably House of Flying Daggers, a Chinese film in which he portrayed a character who was not implied to be anything other than Chinese. For me to claim these articles "relate to China" is not in any way subjective or controversial; for you to claim otherwise (read: that they have no relation to China) rather would call your objectivity into question if it wasn't already so.

4. Don't care. Irrelevant. You are allowed hold a personal grudge against Alex for something you say happened ten years ago if you so choose, but I am allowed to say it would be in the community's interest if you'd drop it. Your recent contributions (327 edits in the last eight months and nothing for more than four years before that) are so few as to be statistically insignificant.

5. Nothing mistaken about it. I saw the image in the nationalism infobox, as well as the Trump userbox and interpreted them both accordingly. Read my above comment again and you will see that I never called you "a Taiwanese nationalist". (Your putting words in my mouth like that makes me all the more skeptical of things you say that I don't already know are counter-factual.)

6. I harbor no animosity toward Chinese people The quote on your user page, and the heading you placed it under, indicate otherwise. I have no idea how this diff makes anything "clear" -- did you cite the right one? Either way, it is from more than a decade ago. If you have any recent examples of disruptive behaviour or nationalist POV-pushing from the candidate, you should cite those.

7. Yeah, but you are the one who voluntarily posted a string of really bizarre non sequitur attacks against him. No one forced you to do that. His agency in his ArbCom candidacy and your lack thereof in your own hypothetical candidacy for something have nothing to do with. Your repeatedly doing so in multiple fora (including a well-watched admin talk page) opens you up to the same kind of scrutiny, and I was triggered by the incredible similarity of your attack against him and some allegedly pro-KMT editors to another user's attack against him and some allegedly anti-Korean editors (namely me and a few other commenters in that ANI thread).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

If you're gonna keep ignoring evidence and insist on saying stuff like "don't care. irrelevant" and dismiss legitimate concerns as "peripherals" and "bizarre non sequitur", then I'm gonna treat your post as deliberately trolling/baiting and won't even dignify it with a response. Are we clear? If anyone has violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, it's you. I'm using this page to communicate with Bishonen (and only Bishonen) and you're the one who chose to inject yourself into this discussion and baselessly attack me with name-calling and ad hominem attacks while ignoring all evidence that contradicts your pre-existing bias.

Your lack of objectivity continues to appall me. It would be one thing if Alex Shih has been active for the past 10 years and demonstrated that he has turned over a new leaf, but he has not. Frankly, he pretty much disappeared after obtaining adminship 10 years (many candidate guide writers have noted that) and has been just as inactive as me since our dispute ten years ago (when he and others from the "Ideogram fanclub" ganged up against me in our arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram as documented by admin User:Jehochman here [77] and Jehochman subsequently blocked User:Dengero and others in the same pro-China clique for harassing me). So yes, his conduct 10 years ago is entirely relevant and it is fair to question if he has an ulterior motive in running for ArbCom after only 4 months of hyper-activity following a 10-year hiatus, whether you like to admit it or not. What made it even more glaring is that the first thing he did after he came back was to REMOVE my name from the list of participants in WikiProject: Taiwan [78]. Does that seem like turning over a new leaf to you?

I don't care about your view on Taiwan since it is irrelevant to the issue at hand because this isn't a content dispute. I'm raising a behaviorioal issue. That's it. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of Taiwanese people do not self-identify as Chinese, especially younger generations and people who grew up under the Empire of Japan and most of them consider China (whether ROC or PRC) foreign invaders. It's also irrelevant how many time China/Chinese were mentioned in Culture of Taiwan and Taiwanese American. Both of them those articles need a lot of work (I haven't edited them in over 10 years) and frankly reeks of pro-China POV with little or no representation of the Taiwanese POV. On the Culture of Taiwan article, the lede used to read like this [79] when I was involved. But I'm glad you're also making your pro-China bias clear and perhaps that's why you're so worked up and emotionally invested in defending Alex Shih.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Alex Shih is actually the fairest and most neutral administrator I've seen in several years on Wikipedia, so I'd take these foolish accusations with several teaspoons of salt. Softlavender (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @User:Softlavender Just because your personal interaction with Alex Shih has been positive doesn't make my well-researched accusations (with countless supporting diffs) "foolish." Way to AGF.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I neither mentioned nor implied personal interaction with Alex Shih. What I stated was, and I repeat, Alex Shih is actually the fairest and most neutral administrator I've seen in several years on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
      • You're entitled to your opinion; I'm entitled to mine. If you don't want to look at the detailed diffs/evidence I posted, that's your choice too. Regards--Certified Gangsta (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I was gonna point this out preemptively but decided against it. Softlavender has anything but a personal bias in favour of Alex. My first (I think?) interaction with the latter and my most recent (I think?) interaction with the former was in a context in which the two were on polar opposite sides, namely this ANI thread and its fallout. And as I said above, yes we are all entitled to our opinions, but not our own facts (I'm neither a Chinese nor Korean nor Japanese nationalist, and my multifaceted edit history bears this out; the same appears to be true of Alex), and sometimes the public expression of our opinions can run afoul of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as it appears to have done here, and again if it wasn't for the very specific context of an ArbCom election I would say the question of hard sanctions or at least short blocks should be brought into play. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You want to talk facts? Let's talk facts. The only FACT is that I'm the only one who has provided evidence/diffs regarding Alex Shih's controversial ties to the Ideogram/HongQiGong/BlueShirts clique [80] in my questions to him while Alex Shih and his allies choose to ignore the issues I've raised and instead launch a smear campaign against me with no research/evidence/diffs whatsoever. I'm not Taiwanese myself, either. My only concern is upholding NPOV. Given the large amount of quality evidence I put forth in my questions to him, it is fair to ask if he's willing to recuse from future Taiwan/China cases due to conflict of interest. If you don't think arbCom candidates deserve scrutiny, then you're free to file dispute resolution against me and take me straight to arbCom.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a smear campaign going on here, but you seem to be mistaken about who has launched it. —Kusma (t·c) 08:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

And your own past involvement [81] Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram#Statement_by_Kusma? You're hardly a neutral voice as you (just like Alex Shih) ALSO made one-sided statement and "evidence" in favor of Ideogram, who was later community-banned by User:Jehochman [82] where he was found to have baited and trolled me), in the very same ArbCom case. Coincidence? I think not. If anything, you're just reinforcing my point that this is a concerted smear campaign. If he doesn't want to answer legitimate, well-researched concerns from established editors, just say so. Don't shoot the messenger.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A coupla quick questions (for CG, not Kusma): What good would Alex's recusing himself from cross-Strait issues do? (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "China/Taiwan", and not every topic related to either one.) What does that have to do with his ArbCom candidacy? Are you planning on opening a China/Taiwan Arbitration case as soon as he is elected to test this? Or do you mean he should simply accept a self-imposed TBAN from all edits related to the topic even though it has nothing to do with his being on the Committee? What do you mean by "conflict of interest? If you simply mean "editorial bias and personal opinion", that is not how that term is normally used on Wikipedia.

I'll admit that I could identify several editorial biases in at least one member of the current Committee, and these biases have not apparently affected their Arbitration work in the slightest. Having never interacted with you before the past 24 hours or so, I think I've successfully identified a bunch of your biases. We all have such biases, even if some of us are more competent in picking them out than are others.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

If you think any current arbitrators have "editorial biases", you're free to ask them about it when/if they run for re-election. It doesn't mean Alex Shih should escape scrutiny. Two wrongs don't make a right. As far as I know, NONE of the arbitrators that have served during my eleven years at Wikipedia have shown this level of editorial biases, blatant off-site stealth canvassing, and so little experience in the form of FA/GA contribution and dispute resolution. Even many of the candidate guide writers have rightfully noted that his sysop status is essentially grandfathered in and he was barely active for ten years until a major spike 4 months ago. These are all legitimate questions. When you run from arbCom, you're voluntarily submitting yourself to community's scrutiny. Are you implying that Alex Shih deserves to play by a different set of rules and that only softball questions are allowed to be raised?--Certified Gangsta (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88 Is it really necessary for you to leave this parting shots in the edit summary [83] while REDACTING your own post? Kinda defeats the whole purpose of redacting/disengaging, don't ya think? Here's some free advice: Do yourself a favor and leave Bishy's talkpage alone. If you have a problem with me, we can take it to my page. And for the record, I've removed the "nationalist" and "Trump" userbox since they don't accurately represent my views and do not want further misunderstanding. I rest my case.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please just drop it already. You came back, almost a full day after the rest of us had already taken Bish's advice to leave it alone, and posted multiple long comments that didn't seem to bear any relation to what I asked you about, and you vandalized my signature. I restored my signature, but felt the need to state why I wasn't going to respond to your comments. Now you've come back again three days later: why not just drop the goshdarn stick already? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88 So on top of calling what I wrote "nonsense" and implying I'm too "stupid" to comprehend what you wrote in your edit summary [84], now you're baselessly accusing me of "vandalism" against your signature? That's a step too far. Please retract. And again, take it to my talkpage if you have any further comments and leave Bishy's talkpage alone. Thanks--Certified Gangsta (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Everyone cut it out, please. Note I wasn't myself commenting on Certified Gangsta's criticism of Alex; I was merely opining that he, Alex, would have done better to show CG the respect of replying, at least briefly, to explain why he wouldn't respond in detail. I'm quite keen for us to have arbs that treat everyone the same, even people who do have a chequered Wikipedia past. Think Newyorkbrad. Bishonen | talk 09:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC).

I'm going Zen, Bish, and will not be saying anything more about this subject. As I predicted, the discussion has quickly devolved into a concerted anti-Certified Gangsta smear campaign with people like Kusma (who wanted to me to be indef. blocked 10 years ago) popping out of the woodwork. Very disappointing but it is what it is. Thanks!--Certified Gangsta (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2017 (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.

}

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bishonen. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Could you take a look at this SPI that I have been mysteriously included in. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kurtan~enwiki. Based apparently on a !vote at a AfD for C. Johan Masreliez. I have no association to that account and I learned my lesson years ago. As I have no association any IP connection should be easily established. I find this very odd.BabbaQ (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2017)

Sorry to have taken so long, Babba. I see it went fine without any input from me, and your name has been cleared. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

Deprod: Lucidity (festival)

Hello, I have deprodded Lucidity (festival), because 1) it has been to AFD before, and 2) it had recently been updated to add a lot of promotional garbage, which I have reverted. If you still believe deletion is appropriate, please bring it back to AFD. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 06:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

SEO Island

Your message at User talk:SEO Island has been replaced by more advertising. Would you mind removing talk page access? -- John of Reading (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ha, you have to be impressed by that amount of nerve. Thanks, John. Bishonen | talk 21:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC).

just watch, now the UTRS team is going to be getting all the spammail. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Peeta Singh

Hi, in addition to this, please see the account User:Focus007. Its been almost a year since Peeta Singh's topic ban from Punjab related articles but his problematic edits are still being restored. Its really tiresome to time after time again to revert the same edits that are coming from a plethora of user accounts that have done absolutely no other edits outside of restoring Peeta Singh's POVs. (Check Portal:Punjab/Intro's history for some examples) Regards, --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a little too much for me, Salma Mahmoud, since User:Focus007 makes so many edits I have trouble finding the relevant ones. Would you like to file an WP:SPI? (Note, you'll need to provide diffs.) It's easy if you've got Twinkle, not so much if you don't, I guess. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

Please?

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.

---

Bish, they did not merge - they deleted - I'm telling you the truth. They did not merge anything per AfD merge consensus, and held a local consensus instead that has yet to come to a fair conclusion of what to keep or delete - their local TP discussion is to delete all of it and not merge anything and that flies in the face of the resulting AfD merge consensus. There is no policy or guideline that I'm aware of that instructs us to ignore an AfD consensus to merge and simply delete everything instead by pretending to discuss what to merge at the TP and then suddenly informally deciding to do whatever they please which was to override consensus and delete all of it. They failed to request a review of the close if they opposed it, they failed to relist the article at AfD if delete was the result they were after, and they didn't even offer to call an RfC for wider community input from uninvolved editors which is what I did. Bish, they deleted the actual merge twice, so nothing was merged. You've warned me on my TP - I voluntarily relented after your warning and removed that article from my watchlist - it's simply not worth my getting into trouble over. Bish, I just wanted you to know what actually happened - I read the policy & guidelines carefully, please believe me - I followed the procedures. Don't be angry with me over this because I was not the one adding the redirects or causing disruption before a proper merge discussion had been held per the guidelines of AfD merge for controversial articles. I will heed your warning. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, everyone but you is following standard MERGE principles (which are exactly the same whether the agreement to merge comes from a WP:MERGEPROP or an AfD close result): propose sample(s) of text to merge, and ascertain consensus on the sample(s). That has been done, and of the two samples proposed (Neutrality's and Ca2james's), the one with the overwhelming consensus was implemented. No one deleted the source article; only an administrator has the tools to do that. At the AE a week ago you were officially warned against WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior [85], but your behavior since then has been nothing but battleground. You are perilously close to being topic-banned from American politics, as Bishonen proposed a while ago on this talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This was a "proper merge discussion" which had strong consensus, and which was obviously going to be closed and implemented very soon. (In fact, it was closed and implemented a few minutes after you posted the RfC.) That's why I say the RfC you opened, apparently to chew the whole thing over one more time, was mere filibustering. Thank you for walking away. I wish you knew to do that when consensus is against you, without having to be warned by an admin first. Bishonen | talk 22:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC).

For the record - I went by the following "established practice on some aspect or aspects of Wikipedia's norms and customs": WP:Merging#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion

Merger proposed after a deletion discussion
Merge is one of the outcome options that can be considered at a deletion discussion. See WP:ATD-M. Deletion discussions generally reach a broader spectrum of editors than a particular talk page. As such, talk page merger requests proposed after a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion, where the merge outcome option was raised by someone participating in the deletion discussion, should identify and overcome the reason(s) listed in the deletion discussion when requesting an action different from the outcome of that deletion discussion. This does not apply if a merge outcome option was not raised by someone participating in the deletion discussion. Alternatives to talk page merger requests that follow a deletion discussion include formally relisting the page for deletion through an appropriate deletion discussion venue or posting a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Bish, consensus was to merge and based on PAGs, consensus is policy. Nothing was merged and after I read Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus which clearly states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, information pages and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay." my conclusion was that the editors at the TP were attempting to "override consensus on a wider scale" per our policy. They chose "locally" to not merge despite the wider consensus at AfD. Say what you will, but I was not filibustering. I was following consensus policy. If you are telling me that local consensus on the TP overrides the wider consensus to merge at AfD, then simply tell me because that is exactly what happened, and it is not how I understood our policy. I just need to know so I don't repeat the same mistake at another article. That's all I'm asking of you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

^{In case you're hungry, I just served up a plate of ham, eggs and grits at another user's TP. Atsme📞📧 01:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)}

I think you are confused on what that passage you quoted (and by the way, that snippet is only a small portion of that entire page) says. It does not contradict anything that we've tried over and over and over to tell you: When the AfD close is to merge, the specific text of the merge is decided by consensus, which was exactly what was done. But you have been consistently unable to hear that or drop the stick. Please see Aircorn's comment at the RfC discussion [86]: "Redirecting, especially if it is the result of talk page consensus, is often the best (sometimes only) option for a merge close at Afd. No one in the discussion mentioned what should be merged and neither did the closer. Merge !votes without specifying these details are not terribly helpful and it is up to the people doing the merge to decide what should be taken from the article. Nothing is a perfectly valid choice, especially if it leads to WP:undue concerns at the target article. See WP:Merge what for more thoughts on this matter." -- Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) @Atsme: I understand your frustration. From your point of view, you split off an article on a notable subject and it was immediately taken to AfD under the pretence of requesting a merger; and following the merge decision its content was deleted and nothing was merged into the parent article. However, if you look at what happened from the other side's point of view, they saw an unnecessary POV-fork and so requested that it be merged back into the parent article; after that they examined the content of your article and found very little that they felt was WP:DUE for the parent.

Let me try and be helpful: no matter how much policy you have on your side, you won't get your way when you are outnumbered, so the best thing is to walk away. If you insist on pursuing this, then you either have to challenge the AfD outcome with a WP:Deletion review (which I think won't go anywhere); or you have to go to the talk page with a proposal for an additional piece of sourced text and make your case for it. Win or lose, you then make your next proposal for an additional piece of sourced text; and so on, until you've brought up all of the content you feel was lost by the non-merge. That may lead to some content being added to the article, or it may not. Either way, you've done your best to improve the article as best you can under the circumstances. At that point, it really is time to walk away. If your arguments were good, you'll probably have other editors supporting inclusion of your text and that's the best you can hope for in the long run. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, RexxS - I have walked away from the article, and it's almost completely out of my head now. The only reason I brought it up here is that I believed my understanding of policy was on the mark. Maybe you can figure out why all but one editor voted either to merge or keep - only one redirect straight-up and not one delete - and then turn around at the article, stage a quickie local consensus despite my opposing it based on policy as I understood it, and end-up a day later not merging anything despite the merge consensus, especially in light of comments at the AfD like this one. I also never imagined an AfD or RfC that was closed by an admin could be overridden so easily by local consensus on the TP, but apparently that is acceptable as evidenced by what just happened to me. We're talking a short few days that this all took place. I'm keeping this discussion handy for future reference - makes me wonder why we even have a consensus policy. Past experiences taught me there were procedures to follow if I happened to disagree with a close (RfC or AfD) - #1 formally challenge the close; or #2 relist it at AfD after a reasonable amount of time; or #3 discuss on TP, then call for wider community input via an RfC. Apparently that isn't the case after all. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, RexxS - it is much appreciated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see Aircorn's comment at the RfC discussion [87]: "Redirecting, especially if it is the result of talk page consensus, is often the best (sometimes only) option for a merge close at Afd. No one in the discussion mentioned what should be merged and neither did the closer. Merge !votes without specifying these details are not terribly helpful and it is up to the people doing the merge to decide what should be taken from the article. Nothing [merging nothing at all] is a perfectly valid choice, especially if it leads to WP:undue concerns at the target article. See WP:Merge what for more thoughts on this matter." (bolding and bracketed comment mine). Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, in WP:Merge what: If information you merged gets removed this should not generally be considered as going against the AFD consensus as it has now become part of the normal editing process. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• I tend to edit various areas in bursts. One of those areas is working on Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion although my last burst was a good year ago. I essentially emptied the category from a similar size that it is now. The majority of the merges I did at the start were simply redirects.[88][89][90][91][92] [93][94][95][96] So I expanded on WP:Merge What? in an attempt to get editors to think of what a merge would actually entail and the effect it would have on the target article. Given the current size of the category it didn't really work, but I stand by my position that redirecting is a valid outcome from a merge close. AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but you’re citing essays not policy. If you’re advising me that merge means delete, than please show me the policy that supports such an action, that’s all I was asking. I was warned, and local consensus was accepted over consensus policy - end of story. RexxS explained how it works. I will review the diffs Aircorn provided but I’m still of the mind that when editors participate at AfD, they should at least read the article, and determine before casting their iVote if the article should be deleted or merged, and if they choose merge, they need to know if doing so would create UNDUE because if it does, then they’re making the wrong decision. UNDUE actually supports the keep argument and why WP:CONTENTFORK is encouraged per WP:SPINOFF. As we now know, that isn’t what happened. After the holidays I may revisit Consensus policy with intentions of doing what I can to help eliminate issues like what just happened in my case. Maybe a Villiage Pump survey will produce positive results. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, do you really still not understand the difference between deletion and redirection? The article you created was not, repeat NOT deleted. All of its text and iterations still exist in the edit history. Please stop making this false claim. And please stop claiming that there was a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the Matt Lauer talkpage; you don't understand the meaning of that term. There was a standard merge discussion in which you were repeatedly invited to participate and suggest options. And WP:MERGE has never ever meant automatically "merge in toto" -- if you believe that, please cite the policy that states that. Lastly, a POV-fork such as your spin-off article creates as much of a WP:POV issue as UNDUE weight in the parent article would; see WP:NPOVVIEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And even if they were once under the impression that merge did mean "merge everything," they were, I think, disabused of the notion some three days ago. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, she's been told that a dozen times by now, but chooses not to listen. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, you told me at my user talk about this discussion, so I looked here. In my opinion, what RexxS said is very good. And in any case, it's important to remember that there is nothing personal about content decisions. In other words, nothing in the consensus of one group of editors or another is anything personal about you. Even Bish's warning is not, in a sense, personal about you. It's not a statement that you are a bad person or anything like that. It's a statement that the best way to get peaceful editing is for you to leave it to others, as in fact you are now doing. It's only a website, and frankly what our articles say matters a lot less than what most editors think (but don't tell anyone I said that!), --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Tryp - I tried to end it before Softlavender started yelling at me. She has an issue comprehending what I actually say vs what she thinks I said. The merge I executed to the target page per consensus is what I was referring to as being deleted, not the article itself so I don’t know she’s talking about. The merge was actually deleted (reverted) twice before a speedy local consensus decided not to merge anything. I challenged that decision after explaining the essence of the merge & keep comments, and the rest is history. Happy Holidays to one and all. Spike the eggnog really well, and make merry. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No, Atsme, you have stated that your article was deleted instead of merged several times; on this page: [97], [98]; on the Matt Lauer talkpage: [99], [100]; and on Northamerica1000's talkpage: [101]. Please do not misstate the case. If you mean "redirected instead of merged", say "redirected instead of merged", or "redirected without including any of the article's content into the target article". Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Come on, let's not be coy about this. When you mean "all of the content overwritten by a redirect, and nothing merged into the other article", just say "deleted" because it comes to the same thing. --RexxS (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you really not understand the difference between deletion and redirection? They are two massively different things. In deletion, all of the article's content is wiped and is no longer visible. In redirection, all of the article's content is preserved, including every single one of its edits and iterations, and its entire user edits; they are all preserved in its edit history. That's why AfD !votes for Delete versus Redirect are two drastically different things, and why only an administrator can delete an article. It does not at all "come to the same thing". Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You are being very combative, SL - please stop. You are incorrect about what I stated - your first clue: I never said "the article was deleted". I've grown weary of your relentless condescension and battleground attitude over your own misinterpretation. For the love of Pete, stop kicking the carcass - the horse is dead. Not one of the diffs you linked to actually support your argument. My statements are very clear, and a good example is the diff you provided regarding my statement to Northamerica1000: "the merge was deleted after a #redirect was added, so I'm reverting my redirect." What part of the merge was deleted are you not understanding? I'll type it slower...the. merge. was. deleted. Full translation: the merged material I added to the main article on December 9th was deleted twice on December 9th. It first suffered deletion by a thousand cuts by Galobtter, [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108]. He self-reverted at my request [109] - as you can see, the character count adds up to the merge count, shy 50 characters. It was deleted again in its entirety [110] along with a few more characters by Ca2james, who refused to wait for a proper consensus and wanted it gone right then. Are you now able to distinguish between deleting the merge VS deleting the article? Turn the computer off, go fix yourself a cup of tea, and relax. It's all good. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

On this page you stated "Bish, they did not merge - they deleted - I'm telling you the truth. ... They failed to request a review of the close if they opposed it, they failed to relist the article at AfD if delete was the result they were after" [111], and "If you’re advising me that merge means delete, then please show me the policy that supports such an action ... I’m still of the mind that when editors participate at AfD, they should at least read the article, and determine before casting their iVote if the article should be deleted or merged" [112]. On the Matt Lauer talkpage you stated "Those participating in the AfD did not vote to delete it - they voted to merge it. I merged it with what was there already. It was not a "merge discussion" - it was an AfD that resulted in merging because they chose to NOT delete" [113], and "You are the one continuing to argue against CONSENSUS which was clearly to MERGE, not to delete." [114]. On Northamerica1000's talkpage you stated "ignoring the current consensus not to delete but to merge which apparently means nothing." [115]. In all of those comments you are conflating/confusing redirection with deletion, or with a "Delete" !vote/outcome at AfD. Please stop equating/conflating/confusing the two. Please learn the difference between them so that you do not continue to represent redirection as if it were the same as a "Delete" outcome at AfD. If you mean "redirected instead of merged", say "redirected instead of merged", or "redirected without including any of the article's content into the target article". Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2017 (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.

IPV6 Range Block

Hi Bishonen. We are having some issues with a block evading disruptive editor who has used the following IPs.

2600:1702:B20:3240:5CAA:D417:1174:D644

2600:1700:E5D0:A9A0:14B3:AC2F:BB54:1E15

2600:1700:E5D0:A9A0:F0A7:CE09:7604:F425

When I ran this through a range calculator it gave me... 2600:1702:b20:3240:5caa:d417:1174:d644/30. However I am concerned that this may be too large and have temporarily removed the range block for fear of excessive collateral damage. Alas range blocks are not my forte, especially IPV6. Is this a workable range? I don't want to block entire continents. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Using {{blockcalc}} gives:

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
16G /64	16G /64	3	2600:1700::/30	contribs
2 /64	1 /64	2	2600:1700:e5d0:a9a0::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1702:b20:3240::/64	contribs

which includes contribs links which can be investigated to decide how much collateral damage would occur. The second of the above /64 ranges is blocked so only the first needs to be checked. Johnuniq (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

John, you're brilliant, thank you. I checked the last fifty contribs by 2600:1700:e5d0:a9a0::/64 quickly; they're not editing in a field that I'm knowledgeable about, to put it mildly, so there may be something subtle to do with sources, but to my untrained eye they don't look disruptive. It's weird how fast they're editing, but I don't otherwise see anything wrong. You may want to look too, Ad Orientem, but my impression isn't that that range needs blocking. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC).

Ok. I just blocked the latest IP and I will leave it at that. I had gotten a complaint from an editor that he was unable to edit while logged out (why they would be editing while logged out was a question I chose not to ask) but in any case, I think I will just continue to play wack a mole for now. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Ad Orientem: The rule of thumb is that an IPv6 /64 range is usually a single allocation, so blocking 2600:1700:E5D0:A9A0::/64 is almost certainly blocking a single person. The same would go for 2600:1702:B20:3240::/64 (which could, of course, be the same person using a different connection). Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to say. If there are moles to wack in 2600:1700:e5d0:a9a0::/64, just block it, even if many contribs look harmless (to me). It's all one person. Bishonen | talk 09:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC).

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Alamatp2 (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's closed now ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, Ealdgyth. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC).

The years pass quickly, so it's....

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme📞📧 12:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
	Time To Spread... Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Wishing you true peace & joy and a prosperous new 2018!! 🍸🎁 🎉

• Thank you, Atsme. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC).

Sockpuppet

Hi Bish, even though I did this in the past, how do I start an SPI investigation? Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC))

(talk page stalker)with twinkle. using the ARV button. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, things like that (SPI, AfD, ANEW, Speedy, Prod) are a lot simpler with Twinkle. Bishonen | talk 09:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC).

Well I don't have Twinkle, whatever that is. I already opened an SPI myself so nevermind. (N0n3up (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC))

WP:Twinkle explains what it is. It's worth having because it ensures that you don't miss any steps out when making reports, etc by automating the process for you. You'll find that so many people use it that you can be pretty certain it works as expected. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• WP:Twinkle is a bit instruction creepy, though. N0n3up, you can also just go to your preferences and look in the tab "Gadgets", and find Twinkle under "Browsing". Tick it and you will have Twinkle. That means you'll se a bunch of new buttons, different depending on which page you're on. For instance, it you're at an article, you'll see csd (for "nominate for speedy"), prod (for nominate for proposed deletion) and xfd (for nominate at "Articles for deletion"). Choosing one of the buttons will give a popup window that guides you what to do next, and does much of the technical stuff. You can always try it out, it's easy to untick it again in Preferences if you don't like it. I probably shouldn't tell you this, but the first time I used Twinkle, I nominated WP:ANI for deletion. (I've never got so many thankyous!) But it turned out to be easy to get the hang of it, after that start. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC).

Thanks guys! (N0n3up (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC))

"tis the season...."

Hello Bishonen: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ―Buster7 ☎ 21:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

• Hi, Buster! Happy snowshoeing and best regards to Buster 3.5! Bishonen | talk 16:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC).

Hello Bishonen: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

• Thank you, Winkelvi! Bishzilla sends you Christmas greetings, too! Bishonen | talk 16:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC).

Christmastide Greetings

My dear Mrs Bishonen, once again it is that joyous time of year when those of us with very developed social consciences are compelled us to think of the less fortunate, so you immediately sprung to mind. As I sit here in the great hall of Scrotum Towers beneath my 7m Christmas Tree (with non-drop needles), listening to the village children's choir serenading me from the snow outside (I can't permit their cheap, little snowy shoes on my priceless Bokhara rugs) only the seasonal sounds of the 2nd footman wassailing the 3rd housemaid on the backstairs interrupts my flow of good thoughts and seasonal wishes to all the editors of Wikipedia, wherever they may be, scattered throughout the most far flung outposts of the Empire and Commonwealth.

As one reviews the past 12 months, it has been an interesting, but taxing year for me, as I am now forced to spend so much time in Washington, advising dear Donald on foreign policy. So many World leaders have said that they can now detect my perceptive influence, which I feel can only be a good thing. As a Christmas gift, I strongly advise all editors (looking for a long term gain) to buy real estate (which has not already been bought by De Burgh Holdings Inc.) in Jerusalem, which returns me neatly to my Christmas message; surely were the Christ child to be renaissanced it woudl surely be in Washington among all those dear little Amish, Mammarieonits and Armageddons and Whatnots, surely that is the new Holy City, the Lord is shining down upon it - unlike London (which I am ashamed to call home), it can only be minutes before Mr Corbyn and the Bolsheviks storm Buckingham Palace and I am erecting barricades before my own London home. However, I expect shall survive, I usually do. Now, it is time for me to dress for dinner, so I must leave you, but I wish you all a deeply holy Christmas. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Auguri!

May you have very Happy Holidays, Bish ...

and a New Year filled with peace, joy, and ricciarelli!

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Bishonen!!


Hi Bishonen, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 00:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2017

Hi, Bishonen,

Is there a messaging platform on which I can contact you to ask a question? (E.g., email, Facebook, etc.?)

I made an adit to "Jews for Jesus" to indicate that it is a Christian Evangelical organization (that targets disaffected Jews); it is NOT a Jewish organization. Nor has it ever claimed to be. It was founded by an Evangelical Christian minister, and the organization's stated goal is to eradicate Judaism. The source for my change is THE ARTICLE ITSELF.

The article states: "On several occasions leaders of the four major Jewish movements have signed on to joint statements opposing Hebrew-Christian theology and tactics. In part they said: "Though Hebrew Christianity claims to be a form of Judaism, it is not ... It deceptively uses the sacred symbols of Jewish observance ... as a cover to convert Jews to Christianity, a belief system antithetical to Judaism ... Hebrew Christians are in radical conflict with the communal interests and the destiny of the Jewish people."

Why did you delete my edit? Was it because I entered it incorrectly? Or because you believe that JFJ is a Jewish organization?

If you agree with me that Jews for Jesus is NOT a Jewish organization (nor has it ever claimed to be one), could you please make the correction?

If you disagree, could you help me understand your reasoning? I don't understand how a Wikipedia article can be allowed to be logically contradictory with itself.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THERE IS AN EASIER WAY TO COMMUNICATE. Is there a messaging functionality in Wikipedia? I'm also Jonathan Rotenberg on Facebook & LinkedIn.

MANY THANKS for your care & interest.

Kind regards,

Jonathan JonathanInBoston (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Jonathan. I hope you'll enjoy the fifty spam newsletters I just signed you up for. Just kidding, but please don't put your email on a Wikipedia page if you don't want that to happen.

Secondly, stop shouting or find out how your caps lock works. We don't do ALLCAPS here.

Thirdly, the content you changed at Jews for Jesus was sourced to a reliable source; yours was not.

Finally, have considered the possibility that people could be Jews (an ethnicity), without subscribing to Judaism (a religion)? Granted, the two concepts are strongly related, but Messianic Judaism is an obvious example of some Jewish people who don't follow traditional religious teaching. We all understand that many Jews don't accept that someone who converts to Messianic Judaism can retain their Jewish ethnicity, but that is a contested view and there's no way we're going to be stating that in Wikipedia's voice. --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for communicating with the user Bishonen (talk · contribs). Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, Jonathan. I've answered on your own talkpage, both about your concerns above and about your biography Jonathan Rotenberg. Please let's keep further conversation there; I hope you'll find that an easy way of communication when you get used to it. The user talkpages are our messaging functionality. Bishonen | talk 23:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC).

Merry Christmas!

Hello Bishonen: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 ^{Merry Christmas!} 01:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas to all the senders of pretty Christmas cards

🎄

Thank you very much all, we enjoyed the fine images and greetings! Now please all dance around our Christmas tree!

• 美少年 | 自分の会話
• bishzilla _ROARR!!
• bishapod splash!
• darwin^fish
• darwinbish, her mouth full of Voceditenore's delicious ricciarelli, ^BITE ☠

Merry Christmas

A blessed feast to you and yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Tyagi

Hi Bish, I notice that you have been around today. Any chance of tying some festive ribbon round Tyagi? I'm not sure whether semi-protection or pending changes would be best but something needs to happen because the anons and newly-registereds are a damn nuisance there. Brahmins are supposed to be the educated elite, at least historically, but they show nothing but ill-informed self-promotion etc at that particular article. Peace and goodwill only extends so far with me. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Semiprotected till midsummer. Happy holidays, Sitush. Bishonen | talk 18:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC).

Thank you, and my best wishes to you also. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

S. Janaki

Vanamakan (talk · contribs) is repeatedly attempting to usurp the S. Janaki article at the moment, seemingly to pursue their goal of spamming a book/author. I've left notes on their talk page, opened a thread at the author talk page and also spoken with Insertcleverphrasehere on their talk page. Not sure what to do next because they're clearly pissed off. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

IMO, the edits at S.J. are straightaway vandalism and blockable.He seems to have taken a hiatus, after being notified about 3RR and if he's going to resume, I'm off to 3RRN.Winged Blades^Godric 11:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

They're pissed off? I'm pissed off. Indeffed. Clearly only here for self-promotion. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC).

Thank you both. - Sitush (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Jagat jit singh

Sorry, me again. I reported Jagat jit singh (talk · contribs) to WP:AN3 on 23 December but it was archived before anyone commented. They're back doing exactly the same poor edit, both logged in and logged out, despite me yet again referring them to the article talk page discussion that I had opened. The issue of the article subject's Sikhism etc has been discussed on that talk page in the past (archives) and, as my latest thread indicates, the contributor is actually misrepresenting the source anyway. I can't keep reverting them and they're plainly not listening. - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sitush

dear Sitush (talk · contribs) sikhism has been mentioned in a source given along with it. you are just creating a false attitude that it has been not mentioned in a source. please don't create an edit war.--Jagat jit singh (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jagat jit singh. This is my talkpage, not Sitush's. If you wish to contact Sitush, please write on his talkpage, User talk:Sitush. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC).

I'd rather they didn't, though! I've had five or six messages from them since 22 December but the correct venue is Talk:Bhagat Singh, as I have told them again and again. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I figured you might prefer it if they didn't ;p, though I hadn't actually seen they'd already posted on yours. I thought it was a genuine misunderstanding. They're blocked now anyway. (And have been yet again told off about the article talkpage.) Bishonen | talk 15:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC).

You know me too well! - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)By the time, I managed to bring back the template code to my memory successfully and post it, you have blocked and posted an additional note:) Err...The timing was horrible!Winged Blades^Godric 15:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

sorry

hi Bishonen, i am literally sorry for creating disruptive activities. but to clear it, it has mentioned that "Bhagat singh a sandhu jat" although i agree that he later on become Atheist. the "Jat" is divided into three categories Sikh jat, Muslim Jat and Hindu Jat. where as Bhagat singh was a Sikh jat. Here are the sources which clears it, please see --Jagat jit singh (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Jagat jit singh, Sikhism is a religion while Jat, I think, is an ethnicity. When a Sikh becomes an atheist, they are no longer a Sikh. They do, however, retain their Jat identity. You can say "born to a Sikh family" but cannot call Bhagat Singh a Sikh. --regentspark (comment) 17:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

yes, i agree with you. but we cannot too call Bhagat singh a jat because he never too claimed that he was a jat and saying "Bhagat singh a sandhu jat" creates misleading among readers. so, we have to change it by editing he was born in a "sandhu sikh jat family" along with the sources given above--Jagat jit singh (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Jagat jit singh, I'm glad to see you have now posted your arguments on Talk:Bhagat Singh, where they belong. They don't belong here or on any other user talkpages. Sitush has replied to you on Talk:Bhagat Singh. If you're not satisfied, please reply to him there in turn, and explain further. More editors will see the discussion there, and if enough of them agree with you, your version will go into the article. That's how it works. Bishonen | talk 17:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC).

Bishonen Thanks for your acquaintance, i will keep on replying till the truth comes out. but i want to ask whats your thought about it ?--Jagat jit singh (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

My main thought about it is that it's important for you to listen to Sitush, who is something of a specialist in sources in this field. (I'm not, but even I can see your sources are weak.) Your latest response to him on Talk:Bhagat Singh is frankly disappointing. Please try altogether to focus more on learning from the advice you get from experienced editors, who are trying to explain how Wikipedia works. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC).

i don't think that he is more experienced and specialist in sources ( infact I am giving reason with a source and he is coming with an excuse ) . if he is then he would now have changed the article because bhagat singh never mentioned that he was a sikh ( i agree ) but he never too claimed that he is "sandhu jat" and saying "Bhagat singh a sandhu jat" (what thus it means) in more misleading. yet, but he was born in a sandhu sikh jat family and we can write it. here are the another sources which clears it (as you are founding above sources weak). please see--Jagat jit singh (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear. Don't discuss the sources with me, here on my page, discuss them on the article talkpage. I have no specialist knowledge in these matters; I have only acted in them in my capacity as administrator. Please take a hint, now, and stop posting here. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC).

References

Happy New Year, Bishonen!

Happy New Year!

Bishonen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for this dumbness. My only excuse is that IPs adding or removing countries (especially US) from lists in that article, without edit reason, is the most common form of PoV editing. Should have thought more about this one!Pincrete (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pincrete: it's the kind of thing that happens. Thanks for getting back to me! Bishonen | talk 11:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC).

Things and stuff

I'm just gonna drop this here. [116] [117] [118] If I would've known I might've tried to steer things in a different direction. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I'm sad. :-( I hope everybody will still enjoy MONGO's photos in my edit notice. Bishonen | talk 12:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC).

T/p Protection

• Just noting that user-t/p can't be ever sysop-protected on own request. Winged Blades^Godric 12:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

And what exactly did that have to do with their conversation? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Good pt.Winged Blades^Godric

Maybe B. had forgotten :) 14:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I don't read the policy that way. Also I don't care, and am not in the mood for this. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC).

Not to quibble, but the full protection has me hesitant to add a post urging MONGO to appeal to AN. They have a good case as I believe Sandstein acted poorly here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be better not to, NeilN, especially since I just removed a post from a well-wisher who got there before the protection. If an admin posts now, that person might take offense, I feel. I'm glad you've made your point here, Neil; another good place for more eyes might be Sandstein's page. With e-mail to MONGO, perhaps? Bishonen | talk 14:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC).

Posted on Sandstein's page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• User:Winged Blades of Godric, please leave it be. Bish acted appropriately and in good faith, and is understandably unhappy with MONGO's leaving, as am I. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Help me avoid AE (again)

Lengthy explanation follows, not because you can't figure it out, but to save you time We have here an editor whose primary purpose appears to be highlighting violence targeted against Hindus, and minimizing that against Muslims, in the Indian subcontinent. That in itself may not be sanctionable. But, despite being notified about ARBIPA, has taken quite inappropriate actions in the last 24 hours. They reverted a CSD#G5 tag on four articles (which I then replaced). Following that, they have claimed to be "taking responsibility" for each of those four. To me, this means they need to be held accountable for the content in those articles. Take the revision they claim to be taking responsibility for. It includes a claim that a Muslim mob murdered two policemen (when the source clearly says that the circumstances of the death were being investigated). It includes the claim that "two radical Muslims" were shot dead (when the source says nothing about "radicals", or indeed about any political leanings). It includes seven sources, all of which contradict each other significantly: thus the article itself contradicts its own sources on a number of points. This particular article is just an example: they have done the same thing here, the problems with which I outlined here. As always, if you can't be bothered, I understand, and I will take this to AE. Vanamonde (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Just use the discretionary sanctions then block or topic ban? - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Precisely what I'm asking for: can't do it myself, I'm involved. Vanamonde (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if the block log there is particularly relevant, but might be worth contacting an arb to see if there is anything else going on or conditions to the unblocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Vanamonde93 you are only casting WP:ASPERSIONS here, since your first 3 sentences have no diffs and they sound superficial. But it is apparent that you have vendetta against Raymond despite he has been correct over you most of the times. I would mention a frivolous SPI that you had filed against Raymond.[119] You had also displayed WP:IDHT on an AFD,[120] by arguing against the scholarly and legal definition where he was involved and you had also threathened to "seek a topic-ban" against him[121] there despite AFD result and most votes favored him. 2006 Bhiwandi lynching meets WP:LASTING like Raymond has said, see [122], when it comes to deleting the article, we see the notability and the major issue here is speedy deletion tags over which you are edit warring. You need to sort out your content dispute yourself on the appropriate talk page and at least notify Raymond30233 while you are reporting him. Capitals00 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 should consider spending some more time on talk page than reporting without necessary diffs and without notifying me. I had already left 2015 Rampur riot[123] but as for other 3, there has been no indication why they should be deleted and not kept when they meet WP:LASTING and WP:GNG. As far as I know, WP:BANREVERT can be applied on G5 as well but unlike Vanamonde93 I didn't edit warred and contested on talk page instead. And @TonyBallioni: I had been blocked twice but those blocks were ultimately false that's why I was unblocked. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested that if there are issues, it might be best to contact an arb. They know the situation. We don’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) I'm not thrilled with any editor fighting to keep what look like a serial sockmaster's low-quality articles in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)X2 @Tony Ballioni: I have: an arb told me that the first was a successful appeal, the second a benefit of the doubt with respect to the CU findings (or at least that is how I understood it). Capitals00: any comments on my conduct are irrelevant here. If you think them sanctionable, feel free to report me. ARBIPA requires editors to be scrupulous with the content they create or otherwise take responsibility for. Raymound failed this requirement, as I demonstrated (a demonstration which had nothing to do with notability). What to do about that is up to uninvolved admins, such as Bish. Vanamonde (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  (Added after EC1); I am not formally "reporting" anyone, and am therefore not required to notify anyone. I am asking an uninvolved admin to take a look at something. Yes, Raymond "left" the Rampur riots page; but this only proves my point. He reverted a a G5 tag on a shoddy article claiming it had lasting coverage, then claimed to take responsibility for it, and only when I pointed out it's inadequacies did he investigate the topic in enough detail to realise that he had been wrong. IE he reverted a G5 tag without investigating the topic, or the article. Which is precisely the point. Vanamonde (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No, both of the blocks were ultimately false. I don't think anyone would disagree that you are here seeking sanctions against me. Yes you should notify me when you are reporting me because even in edit warring and ANI noticeboards you "must" notify the person who you are reporting, then how come you don't need to notify or ping me here? You can't expect everyone to be perfect all the time, just like you had been totally wrong about things as well. Just say that you are not taking time to discuss things and have been too hasty, you can't use admin pages just to get rid of your opposition, but you have to show the actual disruption and this report certainly speaks much about you. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, for someone with ca 1500 edits you seem to have got a good grasp of arcane aspects of Wikipedia legalese etc but a less good grasp of how to represent sources. I've just reverted you here. I don't have a problem with you mentioning the mob but do not say that the mob did it. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I never made that edit you mentioned, I had only added a category and removed G5[124] which was reverted. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You are not and never have also been John Jaffar Janardan. My mistake then, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Raymond3023: Please explain how the first two references here back up article content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

My major aim was to rescue the article, that it meets WP:LASTING and WP:GNG. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Raymond3023: Not nearly good enough. You took responsibility for the entire article, including the falsely sourced material. Unless another admin objects, I'm thinking of implementing a three month topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)