![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Hi Admin, can you please have a look at the edit summaries used in this page history -->> [1] ... Also your input will be welcome in this discussion too . thank you.. -- Adamstraw99 ( talk) 13:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
This article has been recreated, Priya Varrier. You were the closing admin at the AFD and the deletion review. --Let There Be Sunshine 10:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you the same Bishonen who, once upon a time, a long long time; did something which was later known as Bishonen's empirical thing? —usernamekiran (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
But only thing I could register from wp:blockabdicate, and
that is that you are a lady! I always thought of you as a guy.
Apologies. —usernamekiran
(talk)
18:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
WHY'D YOU TAKE DOWN MY CONTRIBUTION! Heather Clark is a real person and Ms Hathaway and Summer Hathaway are characters from the musical School Of Rock! 28-Meme-Wounds ( talk) 14:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, any chance of you keeping an occasional eye on the activity of Rajshekhar Reddy Arya? They're writing spiels of caste-centric stuff on article talk pages without any supporting sources and quite often using bellicose phrasing. Several people have left them notes on their own talk page, of which I am the latest. - Sitush ( talk) 12:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I was not intending to suggest that some immediate action was required - my note and those given by others previously should have sufficed at that point. But now they have said this. In the world of things caste on Wikipedia, it isn't extremely derogatory etc but it is yet again someone writing sort-of inflammatory comments without providing any supporting evidence. This is the type of thing that often spirals out of control on such talk pages and it bothers me that they are still not getting it after you and I had our say on their talk page. AS you intimated, I really should avoid dealing with this sort of thing at the moment! - Sitush ( talk) 09:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. I don't think they are listening. - Sitush ( talk) 17:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
[2] and [3]. Friends might be reading it. In any event, no good reason for anyone to have to read it. Thanks in advance to you or another talk page watching admin. --- Sluzzelin talk 15:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about my finger trouble over at AN...(I wanted to undo another edit on my watch list,( on Khirbat Lid) and undid yours edit on AN instead, Again, sorry! Huldra ( talk) 20:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
...because I just read this, and laughed out loud. Vanamonde ( talk) 20:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC) |
Hello Bish. A few days ago you blocked Blomsterhagens ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit-warring on Oeselians, but he's at it again, repeatedly making POV edits that aren't supported by reliable sources, and also aren't supported by a consensus on the talk page (see Talk:Oeselians#Ethnicity & language of Öselians and page history of Oeselians). So would you mind taking a look at it, because this is becoming a huge time sink, with anything other editors say being totally ignored by an editor with an obvious lack of competence, not being able to understand simple things, in spite of having them explained to them multiple times (such as mediaeval mentions of "Estonians" not possibly being references to the modern Estonian people, since neither the Estonian people nor the Estonian language existed back then, that we can only use reliable sources, and that we can't present claims in a paper written by a student as if it's the university they're studying at that says it...). Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
"A report published by the University of Helsinki finds the expression to support the identification of Oeselians as a Finnic language group"to the article, without explaining that the source (which shouldn't be presented as "a report published by the University of Helsinki", since it's not an official comment by the university, but a paper published by people active in "Folklore Studies" at the University of Helsinki...) is commenting on a document about a single event in the 13th century, and thus refers to that event in that period of time only, which is grossly misleading in an article that mainly focuses on the Viking Age, that is several hundred years before the event commented on, and is being used by you to support claims you're pushing on other articles about there having existed "ethnic Estonian Vikings"... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Bishonen | talk 19:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC).
@ Thomas.W and Blomsterhagens: Sorry, I can't face immersing myself in this. The subject is too complicated as well as too uncongenial to me. I also don't think it's ready for ANI: it would probably be blown off as a content dispute. How about trying Wikipedia:Third opinion? There are obviously too few people on article talk. Try inviting some more. Winston Churchill talk. 14:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC).
Here's the first sock of Rameezraja001. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello I have been topic banned on that for years and I would like to KEEP that ban, please. Unfortunately, I discovered some potentially dangerous outdated information quoted by the CDC which has since changed (also by the CDC) to the exact opposite of what our article currently says. Not sure how to proceed as I am aware that I am banned on talk pages as well, and the talk page in question has no traffic anyhow-thank you TeeVeeed ( talk) 21:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
More info. so the article itself is not directly ABOUT vaccinations so I think it is safe to say here that it is the Immunocompetence article. What happened was that I noticed recent better definitions of contraindications precautions and safe to give/when to some types of vaccines and "altered immunocompetence" was listed for something and I wanted to look it up so I landed on our page there. The cite is from around 2011 and there is another one from 2016, (from same source CDC)- that says the opposite of what our article says. Thanks again TeeVeeed ( talk) 21:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I just want to say thanks for annotating my block log-book. I would have said it earlier, but I got scare when confronted the lizard. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 09:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your message on my talk page: It should not be necessary to go through an elaborate talk process to amend text which is clearly and obviously POV. "Trump is bad, Trump lied, Trump is racist, Trump is not as rich as he claims, etc." Not a single good point appears in a prominent position. But, hey, that's what Trump does to people, even to experienced wikipedia editors, they lose their independence of mind. The text of the current article is so blatantly a hit-job, which is unworthy of wikipedia. We are not CNN, but nor do we want to be Fox. Somewhere in the middle would be nice. And those responsible for this bias are attempting to maintain it by inserting "DO NOT CHANGE" commands within the text. Some serious and systemmatic rebalancing work, including a thorough line by line examination for bias, conscious or otherwise, needs doing on the article, including an examination of the tone of the article in general. How should we go about that? Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 13:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
"Trump is bad, Trump lied, Trump is racist, Trump is not as rich as he claims, etc."I searched the entire article and couldn't find any of those statements. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Any chance of you having a word with Sardar Jay Khan? This latest edit is fairly typical and they've had a bunch of warnings about edit warring, sourcing etc. I first came across them at Sudhanoti District. - Sitush ( talk) 09:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I have a question on how to move forward with this. I was reading a random anime article and found the grammar to be atrocious. I started looking into who had left it in that state and I came across an editor who's grammar leaves much to be desired, often introducing typos or converting English words into Japanese. I've left a message on their talk page in the hopes that they respond, but given how they removed a warning about a copyvio by dismissing it... I'm not hopeful. Their edit count isn't huge, but it is causing damage to quite a number of articles. What do you suggest? -- Tarage ( talk) 21:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
an editor who's grammar leaves much to be desired– Oh, Tarage! (See WP:TARAGESLAW2.) E Eng 19:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's what I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Nanashi_II&oldid=865267107 I just spent nearly 30 minutes trying to fix this summary, and I don't even know if it's correct. There are so many issues with wording and grammar that anyone trying to read it would be incapable of understanding what's going on. And if it took me this long to fix just one, imagine how much work it's going to take to fix all their edits. I really am not trying to discourage them from editing but this isn't helpful to Wikipedia. This is really bad. This is their most recent edit. I didn't even hunt for it! -- Tarage ( talk) 20:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
...I'm afraid they've resumed adding bad grammar into articles. I'm all out of ideas. I think it's time for a block. -- Tarage ( talk) 06:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
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.
The article is under consensus required. Just an FYI. PackMecEng ( talk) 15:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
"Some pages and topics on Wikipedia are authorised for Arbitration Discretionary Sanctions (DS). Users editing these pages may be alerted that discretionary sanctions are in effect. You must use this template to do so"and WP:AC/DS #alert.dup:
"Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. It is a sanctionable offence to deliberately or carelessly notify a user about sanctions that they are clearly already aware of. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template messageI did not place a formal Ds template here since they would clearly be aware of the sanction they railed against in the past. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
"Users editing these pages may be alerted that discretionary sanctions are in effect".I don't believe it's possible to read your post as anything else. If you'd prefer, I could test opinion at ANI – when you get sanctioned as a result, you'll know I was right. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, Bishonen is certainly aware of the American Politics Discretionary Sanctions as they have issued sanctions under them. But this is beyond stupid; "consensus required" doesn't prevent someone from removing an obvious mistake first added to the article this week. No admin nor the community would ever do anything about this even if you found some rule-lawyer way that it is not allowed; WP:IAR is a rule too. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Too lazy to fill out the WP:AE templates and such. The personal attacks here and here are quite obviously enough for a block, but he's also vio late ed his TBAN. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 17:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
A thread at BLPN: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Milo Yiannopoulos. The editor is name calling (calling me a communist and "unbalanced"), lying through their teeth (I laid it out in my first comment there), accusing me of using personal attacks and Masem has apparently decided to encourage their trolling. I have no idea why, but now that they've gotten some encouragement, this is likely to never stop. Note that this is the user who once told me that "Liberalism is a form of mental illness, you will never see reality though its haze...." because I tried to explain how basic statistics work to them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Bish. Would you mind hiding this farewell message of theirs on their talk page, and remove TPA? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Becky Sharp (character) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Becky Sharp (character) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CapnZapp ( talk) 08:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record, I appreciate you objecting to Lourdes' threat in that close. Lourdes' threat seemed so over the top that I briefly considering asking for the block, just so I wouldn't have to listen to the hysterics in that threat any more. Seeing that several other editors also took issue with that threat was quite encouraging. Seeing you come along and add your note was a reminder that not all of the pointless drama has to end with things worse than before. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm presently mentoring pre-university students for Wikimedia's participation in Google Code-in 2018. I'm teaching them the Lua programming language used in Wikipedia pages. Unfortunately one student has created two identical pages in the Module: namespace. I've moved one of them to the proper place, but to keep things tidy, the other needs to be deleted G6 (housekeeping) as it's merely a duplicate. Sadly, you can't mark module pages for CSD because they won't accept a template.
So, would you be kind enough to examine
Module:Sandbox/Safan41 (the right one) and delete
Module:Sandbox/Safan41/Safan41 as a duplicate, please? The extra text is mine, trying to stop Safan41 from using it. This is one of those exceedingly rare occasions that I could really use admin rights, rather than bothering others with a simple job that I'm not allowed to do.
--
RexxS (
talk)
10:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen
SergeWoodzing has asked me to contact you regarding their stated intention to eliminate errors made because of Swenglish translations whereverer I can and no matter how far they have spread. [7]
The problem as I see it is, these errors seem to include terms that have spread to common English usage. That seems to be what no matter how far they have spread means. So by the practice and policy of English Wikipedia, they are not errors at all. And SergeWoodzing claims to have "corrected" hundreds if not thousands of them.
Are you willing to become involved? Andrewa ( talk) 09:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. No. Non starter. Crashed and burned before. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 12:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke talk page access.-- Cahk ( talk) 12:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I've now edited four times since I decided to stop. I've read your essay. Would you please block me and my main account? Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Objective3000: "We are all just prisoners here, of our own device".-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 12:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you very kindly helped a week or so ago when someone was randomly reverting my edits, especially those on the page for Heaton Moor. You also kindly invited me to mention here if it started again. It has - three reverts today, including two of my edits which were fixes for obvious vandalism. Are you able to help again? Many thanks. C0pernicus ( talk) 14:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
There's only one candidate at the moment, (and they have negligible recent experience). Would Bishzilla consider running? She would occupy all vacant seats by herself; problem solved. Vanamonde ( talk) 17:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, is there a goodreason to retain this local copy, when there were 2 other versions, in higher quality and higher resolution versions on Wikimedia Commons?
There's absolutely no issue in retaining versions like this though, I was just puzzled that no-one had noticed before now. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 23:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
bishapod talk to your inner fish needs to be encouraged to develop. Bishapod gets my vote. Has the required intellect for ARBCOM or DEFCOM or whatever it is. I will vote Bishapod. Suggest campaign slogan Bishapod is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills - but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones that allow Bishapod to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Bishapod apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendants, the four-legged vertebrates - a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals and humans. Bishapod knows where you are coming from, don't matter your species. Vote Bishapod, the inclusive one. Simon Adler ( talk) 04:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
"'Zilla have own sockpuppet: Bishapod a k a Little Stupid. Irritating little user, very stupid, always embarrass 'Zilla, regret creating."As for needing to develop, the first thing he did after he had developed slightly was create the regrettable Darwintwins, over whom he has no control. (Don't suggest they run! For good reasons, they're not allowed in Wikipedia space!) Diversity is not everything. (PS, I think some of the italics may have been unintended, fix.) Bishonen | talk 12:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC).
Hi. Thank you for protecting Angus Gardner ten days ago. I saw that at the WP:RFPP page you mentioned protecting it for 3 months [10], but the protection at the page is set for 1 year. [11]. I am not sure if that was intentional or not. Personally I would be happy to see every current referee protected for as long as they are refereeing, so I was very tempted to ignore this (partly why I am so late in bringing it to your attention). However I feel something like that should be intentional so thought I would double check. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=868697100&oldid=868695887 This is pretty unambiguous. I asked them to retract it and they refused. Given that they are already banned from commons for... legal threats... I think a block here is needed. -- Tarage ( talk) 21:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The e-mail is about a creep on Wikipedia who uses it to target victims. Lolifan ( talk) 20:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for responding, Bishonen. I'll let ArbCom know. Lolifan ( talk) 21:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Per this section, do you think that you might also want to full-protect his talk page for the duration of his block, if he wants to stop his interaction? It's probably OK if you don't, but we should let his talkpage go silent. Semi Hypercube ✎ 23:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Bishonen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I posted information on the page of Stefano Gabbana. The information is confirmed by The Guardian, NBC, CNN, SCMP, etc. The modification is NOT vandalism. Please read the news and do not keep deleting the information and covering the truth. Jensonw ( talk) 01:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Bish, I saw your name at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Once I finish up what I feel I need to do on Wikipedia (within the next couple, few or several months), will you consider indefinitely blocking me? I think I've had enough of Wikipedia, and one way to ensure that I don't return is indefinitely blocking this account. I won't be tempted to create another; my whole identity on Wikipedia is with this one. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Bishonen. Seasons greetings. Could you help me? I am trying to reorganize Planet Nine to have logical sections. What’s there has grown chaotically as discoveries were published, resulting in a convoluted mess. I need the eye of a non-astrophysicist. Lurker comments are welcomed. Jehochman Talk 17:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Jehochman: Well, I think I'd better put my observations here for your consideration, since I'm speaking as a 13-year-old reader (I think that's supposed to be Wikipedia's ideal reader), and I don't want to be torn apart by grown-up astrophysicists on article talk. So:
Better not say "the clustering of the orbits" as if that's something known to the reader. The "clustering" needs to be mentioned/explained in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what it means to say that it was "scattered" onto an eccentric orbit. I mean, it's supposed to be big and round and whole — not scattered. Is it a term of art?
I agree the TOC needs to be clearer and tighter. Specifically, how about "Origin" —> "Possible origin", and "Alternate hypotheses" —> "Alternate explanations for the effects" ? It's true that "Previous models with additional planets" wouldn't fit into that, but then it already doesn't fit. Shouldn't it be its own top-level header? It's history, so it should theoretically be high up, though the trouble with that is that reading about the historical background is a lot less interesting than reading about the Superearth itself. Maybe shorten it drastically (since there are "main articles" that cover it) and move it up?
It would be nice if "Searches for additional extreme trans-Neptunian objects" could also be packed away somewhere where it doesn't interrupt the main narrative as much.
(So are you following the fates of InSight?) Bishonen | talk 18:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC).
Hi Bish: some young fans of Bishzilla want to know if she has a twitter account (they apparently searched for it already and couldn't find it, I was going to send you an email about this but must blame distractions). The two kids are super impressed by her fridge and the cozy pocket! On a less serious note, I was trying to change the title of the Kama Sutra article, one I am reviewing and updating these days. The title that is predominantly found in the RS is Kamasutra ( [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] etc), consistent with the title of the original text. The word split and capitalization of the second part is uncommon. I tried to move it. The message I get is this move needs some admin action. FWIW, I checked the archives and talk page, there is no relevant discussion on why Kama Sutra, rather than Kamasutra as the title. I see Hijiri88 created a redirect in 2006. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 13:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Одни правила Википедии прямо противоречат другим, и выполнение одних правил всегда приводит к нарушению других, что не является нарушением правил. Так, например, наличие административных прав позволяет одним участникам принимать решения без консенсуса с другими, что приводит к возможности злоупотреблений, а разрешение игнорировать все правила (пятый столп, или викиидеология - либеральная пятая колонна) приводит в том числе к нарушению этичного поведения и к конфликтам. Блокировки участников и удаления страниц снижают популярность проекта в обществе и качество материалов. Одним из сомнительных факторов в русском разделе Википедии является так же оплачиваемое участие.
Жёсткие правила не являются недостатком, если все участники их придерживаются, но поскольку правила противоречат друг другу и сами себя нейтрализуют, то фактически начинают действовать другие, не оглашённые закономерности, основанные на произволе участников, ограниченном их уровнем образования и нравственности, техническими условиями ресурса и законами окружающего мира. При этом малое количество участников с дополнительными правами ограничивают добавление информации, иногда вопреки улучшению статей, но не могут осуществить полный контроль над проектом, поэтому в остальной части Википедии большинство обычных пользователей могут бесконтрольно добавлять всякую информацию. В основном люди делают больше хороших правок, улучшающих статьи, именно за счёт этого Википедия и развивается.
В общем и целом, правила вторичны по отношению к целям Википедии. И это означает, что для достижения цели все средства хороши.
Одна из проблем Википедии - это подмена истинности и объективности информации на авторитетность.
Абсолютная истинность - это идеальное состояние, которого нельзя достичь в силу разных ограничений. Но это вовсе не значит, что не нужно стремиться к истине.
Истина имеет уникальное свойство: если люди стремятся к истинности и объективности, их субъективные мнения всё меньше отличаются и содержат меньше противоречий. Люди, ищущие истину, рано или поздно приходят к единому мнению. В споре рождается истина.
Если участники спора не могут прийти к единому мнению, это может означать:
Недостаточный уровень знаний. Участники могут имеют недостаточно знаний в данной области. Наука открыла ещё не все законы, и мы многого можем не знать. Чтобы преодолеть это, нужно получать образование, учиться и познавать новую информацию об окружающем мире и его законах. Недостаточный уровень нравственности. Некоторые из участвующих в обсуждении могут не стремиться привести своё субъективное мнение к объективности. Следует учитывать, что доказательство не обязательно предполагает истинность. Доказывать можно и нечто, не соответствующее истине, причём вполне успешно. Но к истине это отношения не имеет.
Если по каким-то причинам не удаётся преодолеть противоречия в различных вопросах, в этом случае нужно придерживаться правил этики, чтобы избежать конфликтов, и попытаться продолжить поиск истины. Если нельзя достичь истины сейчас, это не значит, что её невозможно будет достичь в будущем. LllKSTlll ( talk) 21:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) I'm sure it was well-intentioned. To save everybody else from having to Google translate, here's what it says:
Wikipedia Rules
Some Wikipedia rules directly contradict others, and the implementation of some rules always leads to a violation of others, which is not a violation of the rules. For example, the presence of administrative rights allows some participants to make decisions without consensus with others, which leads to the possibility of abuse, and permission to ignore all the rules (the fifth pillar, or wikideology - the liberal fifth column) leads, inter alia, to the violation of ethical behavior and conflicts. . Locking participants and deleting pages reduces the project’s popularity in the community and the quality of materials. One of the dubious factors in the Russian section of Wikipedia is also paid participation.
Strict rules are not a disadvantage if all participants adhere to them, but since the rules contradict each other and neutralize themselves, then other, non-announced laws based on the arbitrariness of the participants, limited by their level of education and morality, technical conditions of the resource and laws, start to act. the world around us. At the same time, a small number of participants with additional rights restrict the addition of information, sometimes despite the improvement of articles, but they cannot exercise full control over the project, so most ordinary users can uncontrollably add any information to the rest of Wikipedia. Mostly people make more good edits that improve articles, it is due to this that Wikipedia is developing.
In general, the rules are secondary to the goals of Wikipedia. And this means that to achieve the goal all means are good.
One of the problems of Wikipedia is the substitution of truth and objectivity of information for credibility.
Absolute truth is an ideal state that cannot be achieved due to various limitations. But this does not mean that one should not strive for the truth.
Truth has a unique property: if people strive for truth and objectivity, their subjective opinions differ less and contain less contradictions. People seeking the truth, sooner or later come to a consensus. In a dispute, truth is born.
If the parties to the dispute cannot reach a consensus, this may mean:
- Insufficient level of knowledge. Participants may not have enough knowledge in this area. Science has not yet discovered all the laws, and we may not know much. To overcome this, you need to get an education, learn and learn new information about the world and its laws.
- Lack of morality. Some of the participants in the discussion may not seek to bring their subjective opinion to objectivity. It should be borne in mind that evidence does not necessarily imply truth. You can prove something that does not correspond to the truth, and quite successfully. But this has nothing to do with the truth.
If for some reason it is not possible to overcome contradictions in various issues, in this case, you must adhere to the rules of ethics to avoid conflicts, and try to continue the search for truth. If truth cannot be reached now, it does not mean that it cannot be achieved in the future.
Fascinating essay, and quite unrealistic. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not see the warning this until after the last edit. At the end of the BLP I said there doesn't appear to be a BLP issue here and that I would continue the conversation as far as LEAD and NPOV goes. Nobody there objected to that plan. I'm not sure I understand how I "severely or persistently violated Wikipedia policy". I asked you this initially and received no clear response. WP:BLUDGEON is not a policy. I've participated on a number of 3rd opinions and have seen some pretty lengthy and heated exchanges over seemingly trivial details. Based on my experience, I would not consider this talk page a lengthy discussion nor an example of WP:BLUDGEON, but I could be wrong. I felt I was understanding the others position and we were actually making progress, having a WP:civil discussion, following the guidelines of WP:TALK#USE, WP:TPG#YES and WP:TPNO and moving towards a consensus without edit warring. Had you let things play out a little longer I think you would have been surprised. Perhaps the fact that this article is somewhat political there is a different standard. I realize you are probably very busy, but I would like to discuss this a bit further. Dig deeper talk 02:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Bish! After years of being busy along with maintaining a technologically bereft state, I am ready and willing and ABLE to throw some time into this project again. I am looking for a sponsor in good standing to nominate me for administrator responsibilities. You are the first person I have asked, but I plan to let Slim V and DMCDevit know that I am "back" as well. It's been awhile, but after some English Lit. credits, my writing style is MUCH better than it once was. You could also count on my continued stalwart attitude concerning the improvement of the project through reversion and cleanup of vandalism, and the kind of guidance I have been able to provide to newbies and certain problematic editors who I think I was able to help become productive and genteel in their editing here. In short, I wish to be the kind of admin I always was. Questions, comments and ideas are appreciated. Talk to you soon... Best Regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 19:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Can you explain the appeals process for this post-1932 politics topic ban? Thx. KidAd ( talk) 04:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
For your reply over this edit :-) ∯WBG converse 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC) |
I saw your comment at ANI (it's suppressed, so I can't link to it, but I read it). I went and looked through HF's talk page and re-read the BN discussion (which I had just glanced through the first time). I was thoroughly unimpressed by Leaky Cauldron's comments, and I think it's quite understandable that Hamster Fan's a bit miffed. If I'd seen that beforehand, I'd probably have just dealt with the vandal and more or less ignored ANI. That said, I think the tone at ANI at the point that I had pinged you was not nasty: do you disagree? I can't fault you for not wanting to step in, but I wasn't sure if your comments about biting were directed at me or at Leaky Cauldron and Iri; if it was me, I'd like to know. Best, Vanamonde ( talk) 15:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Re Sandeep7422. You topic banned them from Rajput related articles a couple of years ago but they seem to be back in action again (see [20]). Could you take a look?-- regentspark ( comment) 17:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I won't be editing anymore. I want people to leave me alone and stop posting on it. If I don't edit there's no reason for the talk page to be unlocked. I want to be left alone. -- Tarage ( talk) 19:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Could I beg another favour please? I'm currently mentoring a bunch of youngsters for Google Code-In. One of the tasks I've set them is to copy a piece of code from Module:Sandbox/RexxS/SayHello into their own module sandbox and then make a small modification. Naturally, Sod's law comes into play and several of the students have been modifying Module:Sandbox/RexxS/SayHello instead of their own copy. Page history.
Do you think you could protect Module:Sandbox/RexxS/SayHello in its current state until 12 December (the end of Google Code-In), please? It really doesn't need editing in the meantime, honest. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Could you possibly use your magical powers and see if you can find a stubby article I wrote and illustrated years ago called Broxwood Court. It seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth. Perhaps I misspelt the title in the original. All very odd. Giano (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The brow is smooth, and the mind is clear and placid. Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 22:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC) |
I read above that you are not feeling well, so I just want to let you know that you are appreciated and respected here. I hope that you feel much better soon. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe this IP is being used by " Rameezraja001" in order to evade his block.
Exact same concerns ( promoting non-neutral Indian POV on articles, anti-foreign influences), same target articles, same proficiency in English, never capitalizes letters, etc. The IP also has the "trademark" habit of cluttering talk pages of Rameezraja001's interest with WP:FORUM-like WP:OR theorycrafting (i.e. Rameezraja001, [27] IP in question [28]). - LouisAragon ( talk) 17:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Would you be willing to please block my account for 6 months? Seraphim System ( talk) 00:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Christmas! | |
Hello Bishonen, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD| Talk 08:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
![]() |
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. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 20:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC).
Hello Bishonen: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
22:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! |
Ah, it's the little Coffman! Merry to you too!
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
|
Hi Bishonen, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
Have you checked that Darwinbish is properly vaccinated for the shopping-returns season?
This comment is possibly due to a rumour I read that I like to pedal fish. Just thought I'd see if en.wp had any extra stock photos, and I discovered tex! ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c 23:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas from London, Bish ...
and a New Year filled with peace and happiness (and grapes, tangerines, panettone, ricciarelli, pan d'oro, and ciocolattini).
Best wishes, Voceditenore ( talk) 08:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Austral season's greetings |
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
Merry
Rexxmas
2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
Cinadon36 ( talk) 11:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure this anon is just out to vandalise dates. I've reverted a few but have to go out now. - Sitush ( talk) 10:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Blocked by JamesBWatson, and another that turned up was blocked by MaterialScientist. - Sitush ( talk) 13:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Vfrickey's user page strikes me as somewhat polemical. You and I are specifically mentioned, and I am attacked as making a discussion "political" by, if I recall the context correctly, calling Breitbart.com an unreliable source of information. I was gonna just blank the portions that explicitly referred to me, but thought it best to ask your opinion of the matter first. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Blocking a user for yelling Vandalism to try to "win" a content dispute. The rule that the baseless allegation of vandalism is a personal attack has always been on the books but is seldom enforced. It needed to be done in this case (and some others). Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
Is there any way that you can get Chekaun to understand why a source written in the 12th century is not reliable? They came off there block and just went straight to my talk page with basically the same question I'd already answered there at least twice just before their block; then they waited a few hours and have posted this. The source they are wanting to use is Periya Puranam. - Sitush ( talk) 14:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
(
edit conflict × 4) You need to have Preferences → Editing → Enable the editing toolbar
ticked to see Sitush's toolbar. Your old toolbar can be returned by unticking that preference and ticking Preferences → Gadgets → Editing → Enable the legacy (2006) editing toolbar. This will be overridden by the "Enable the editing toolbar" option in the Editing tab.
Not my fault there are so many. --
RexxS (
talk)
22:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
There are three toolbars that you can enable from Preferences. One is on the Editing tab and two are in the 'editing' section of the Gadgets tab. Play with ticking/unticking them and saving (at the bottom) each time. See which one(s) you like - you can't have both of the top ones at once. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Coming full circle, please, please can you bring down the hammer on them? What a timesink, per their overnight edits to articles and their own talk page. - Sitush ( talk) 13:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, someone has just moved Muthuraja to Muthu Raja without discussion and, I think, in violation of WP:COMMONNAME. I thought I was now able to move such things back after a recent change in user rights but it seems not. Can you or one of your watchers please oblige. Rationale is "undiscussed move, seemingly contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. See WP:RM". Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 11:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Since the expiry of DS protection imposed by Spiff at Kongu Vellalar, the article has become a complete mess again. I've just issued a couple of sanctions notifications to recent edit warring contributors but, honestly, the thing has been trouble for years, in particular from a long-standing sock farm. Can anything more be done? I suspect Spiff would have reinstated the protection had they been active. - Sitush ( talk) 07:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I've also had to revert recent edit warring at Muthuraja, which involves some of the same contributors. - Sitush ( talk) 07:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I've now asked for the Kongu Vellalar article to be semi'd indefinitely via WP:RFPP. However, there is still the issue of continued edit warring and one character, in particular, is making all sorts of other mistakes, ie: Jkalaiarasan86 (nopinged because they also don't seem to understand appropriate talk page usage & you can probably do without them here). - Sitush ( talk) 10:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
During the 7th to 8th centuries, the Mutharaiyar served as feudatories of the Pallava dynasty and controlled the fertile plains of the Kaveri regionisn't own work, even though I haven't tracked it down yet. - Sitush ( talk) 17:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Sitush:, @ RexxS:, @ Bishonen: Hi, I would like to add some context to the recent edits in Muthuraja and Kongu Vellalar articles. To cut to the chase, as Sitush rightly pointed out, it is generally the tendency to portray one's own caste as superior. In this case the edit wars were started by Jkalaiarasan86 ( talk · contribs) when he made this edit [30]. This is confirmed by a user of the opposing team [31]. The varna Sudra is perceived as derogatory and lower in status than Kshatriya. So the users of Kongu Vellalar page reviewed Jkalaiarasan86's contributions and assumed that he belonged to the Muthuraja community and started edit warring in that page. That being said, the version that was being reverted to, by Jkalaiarasan86, was in fact the version as edited by me. I've spent considerable amount of time doing some research and made some genuine edits to the article after collating the refs. So please use your discretion when you revert the article to some stale version. Thanks, Nittawinoda ( talk) 17:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke talk page access.-- Cahk ( talk) 10:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Symbolic gesture, really, but would you be willing to block me until 15:33, 2 February 2019. I'm going for the same reason MjolnirPants did, and I'd like to be blocked for the same period. I'm not sure if you accept "self-block renewal" requests, but if so: three weeks is a really short time, so after that three or six months or whatever your standard offer is would be fine.
And I'm sorry for an additional request but it would be a tremendous help if you could wait until about 24 hours after someone gets back to me on this (or if you know the answer you could get back to me?) so I can clean up some other stuff first.
On a basically unrelated note, I'd like to apologize for all the trouble I brought to your talk page over the years, but I want you to know I really appreciated all the assistance you provided, even when it wasn't exactly what I "wanted" to hear.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
11:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I want to reinstate the page for Grace Akinlemibola, Chicago born but who is also Nigerian and Israeli, for a few reasons. I think the issue before (aside from unnecessary heckling) was that there were not any media posts, although I had already pointed to a few. I'm now showing a few posts about her, including the following: (1) "Why Grace Akinlemibola is God" ( https://news.softsolutionslimited.com/2018/11/24/7-reasons-why-grace-akinlemibola-is-god/); (2) a Chicago artist painted her as God ( https://nypost.com/2017/05/30/uproar-over-artists-painting-of-god-as-a-black-woman/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons); (3) a scrutiny of her business ( http://www.marketpressrelease.com/The-ins-and-outs-of-Grace-Akinlemibolas-billion-dollar-business-1542253842.html); (4) lashing out at fraudulent media ( https://news.softsolutionslimited.com/2018/11/17/ex-rahm-emanuel-staffer-lashes-out-at-fraudulent-media/); (5) she's anti-Beyonce ( https://news.softsolutionslimited.com/2018/11/16/grace-akinlemibola-is-not-a-fan-of-beyonce-knowles-2/).
Aside from this, she will also be releasing a book called THE LION KING with Austin Macauley Publishers, who have written about her and confirmed on social media. The book is said to be sold in over 7 different countries, including South Africa, China, UK, and Japan. She is also a screenwriter for Usher Raymond IV. She also filed the Anti-Corruption Lawsuits and has been a dominant figure behind-the-scenes, and/or apparently, in the Anti-Corruption Movement, where an African television producer has a program about her as well. Quite frankly, I think it's a bit ill-willed the way things went down the way it did with her prior Wikipedia page because treating someone like that is not deserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiKing7 ( talk • contribs)
Per WP:WHEEL, when another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, the same action should not be reinstated without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. Page logs for User talk:Tarage shows that you have reinstated an admin action that was reversed by Swarm. feminist ( talk) 05:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Bishonen and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, feminist ( talk) 13:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The IP at List of James Bond villains, who you've blocked twice under different addresses, appears to be back, making the same disruptive edits again, but now adding pointless anchors to Skyfall as well. I don't what you would want to do now, but I just informing you of what's happening. -- Ted Edwards 12:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Not too late, I hope ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for the present drama. I don’t even care about that damn talk page, I was just trying to do the right thing. In hindsight, coming to you first would have saved people a lot of time and energy. If you still feel that it is the right thing to do, please feel free to reinstate the protection. It’s all good. Hope all is well. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 17:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
"Yeah, I'm way ahead of you. I just woke up and went to reverse my action. I'll do it now."Isn't that what "way ahead of you" means — that I'd already decided? It seems odd that everybody at the RFAR is saying that I decided to self-revert because of feminist's note. I wonder if I used the idiom wrong (I'm not a native speaker), or if simply nobody believes me. Anyway. Shrug. OK, since we have had this mini-discussion, and you have so nicely let me decide, I think I will reinstate the protection. Thanks, Swarm. Bishonen | talk 19:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC).
In response to this request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has determined that arbitration is not required at this stage. While the Committee takes community concerns about wheel-warring seriously, they agree that in this instance the issue has already been resolved by the parties, and does not require further examination. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv 🍁 15:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
that I think Sitush would make a fantastic admin?-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 04:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
If
Hello Bishonen. Please can I request a IP6 range for this IP range [33]. They are repeatedly making unsourced edits to WWE events. The pattern of edits seems similar to a user I requested a range block of before (see [34]). The user has been warned under various IPs in the same range (see [35], [36] and a final warning [37]), but continues to make similar edits under a different IP in the same range [38]. Silverfish ( talk) 13:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts here - there's another account that's just popped up making the same edits after the semiprotection (MrTinchuri) if you're up for banning another one. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 20:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for popping up here, but I doubt anyone bothers to watch my page these days (profuse mutterings of contradiction would be nice), but I need a justifiable reason to upload the image here for a new page I am starting to write about Edward VIII and his psycophnantic friends. Anybody know how to get round copyvio on this before that Stan man or one of his sidekicks object. Giano (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
minimize the total number of times items of non-free content are included, so you might be reasonably limited to one such image; if you find a better one, the article content might need adjusting.On a lighter note, great subject; I recently covered some of their...other friends ;) take care! —— SerialNumber 54129 21:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I have a quandary with which I am unhappy, and as I always come to you in these situations: here I am. I need the advice of your cosmopolitan salon. My lovely new page is coming on nicely, but by necessity, as this angle of the abdication has not really been that well researched most of the reffs were written before 1980, when attitudes and tolerance were less widespread than today - and people thought quite differently. So while it's Ok to explain why the older royals had Victorian views, is it OK to say this [40] even though it is said and reffed in the forward to the book Rat Week? Is it even true, I woudl have thought a homosexual would understand love as well as the next man, but then perhaps in 1936 they wouldn't have? I don't know. But I don't want the force of Wikipedia's modern thinkers coming down upon me - if I put it in main space. Do we have any opinions here? Giano (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I took my concern to both AN & ANI, because 'sometimes' you've got to go to more then one place, to get the attention of the right folks. GoodDay ( talk) 21:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
you see that there is general agreement that raising the same issue in multiple places muddies the waters of consensus. So what you have to ask is how does asking the same question on both AN and ANI improve the encyclopedia? If the answer to that is "it might reach a different/broader/more knowledgeable/etc. audience", then you can see why IAR doesn't apply. IAR has to be reserved for cases where the improvement to the encyclopedia is not only obvious to all, but also direct, as the consequence of invoking IAR for hypothetical improvements somewhere down the line would be to give disruptive editors a licence to ignore any rule at their whim.Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus
I think IndianHistoryEnthusiast is retaliating for my comments etc at Talk:B. R. Ambedkar by moving articles from mainspace into draft, such as M. S. A. Rao. I could revert them but it will just extend what I think they perceive to be a battle. - Sitush ( talk) 12:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Is this some sort of a sick joke? Why does the Draft:Anand Ranganathan doesn't get to be an article while M. S. A. Rao gets to be one? I have merely applied the same standards there? @ Bishonen: IndianHistoryEnthusiast ( talk) 12:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I didn't realise you were a magician. Is there no end to your abilities?
AGF seems to have gone out of the window, and your last reply has been followed by someone who is likely to find themselves at ANI before too much longer: all comment, no action. - Sitush ( talk) 12:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Bishonen, I have been following this discussion over at ANI. I just wanted to encourage you to continue with your good practice of issuing self blocks for other editors since I agree with Dlohcierekim's edit here that it works out in most cases, and I think the system just got taken advantage of in this one particular case.
Also, I see here that there are actually quite a number of other admins who perform this function as well. I noticed that Beeblebrox has an effective looking list of conditions that you may wish to borrow some ideas from if they will permit it. I hope you find this to be helpful. Thanks. Huggums537 ( talk) 06:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
1) You do not comment on Arbcom, RFA, or ANI.
2) You do not edit any topics to do with project space.
3) You do not contact any of the editors that you previously had issues with.
Unfortunately, Betty Logan's ping of me never showed up, or I probably would've commented earlier; I hadn't realized a discussion had been prompted by the comments left on my page. I only noticed today because I was, in all honesty, looking into Huggums537's edits after their bizarre appearance on my talkpage, which made me suspicious. The absolute irony of the user who offered those ridiculous comments on my talkpage apparently busily doing the exact same thing in stalking Hijiri is blowing my mind a bit. I'm bothered by the discussion here, and a similar (shorter) one that occurred at Ivanvector's talkpage which seem to be overly focused on looking for all the different ways in which one can skirt interacting with Hijiri as closely as possible without technically interacting; it's not a good sign, or a good look. Grandpallama ( talk) 21:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Not yet, perhaps, but very soon it looks like the attentions of an admin may be needed regarding goings-on at Vanniyar, which has long been a target for the caste glorifiers etc. The to-ing and fro-ing is obvious in the recent history but Talk:Vanniyar#Consensus on Adding "Origin" Section is the crux of it and I'm now being accused of favouring one POV even though the "alternate" involves sources that the WP community has long regarded as unreliable. They've reverted even after I posted this, the last in a line of explanations of policy etc. - Sitush ( talk) 16:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
What do you think about the possibility of Andyudeydry being a sock of Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. Former turned up two days after you topic banned the latter and has a similar obsession with the Koli people, including some cross-over at articles such as Juna Padar. They're using equally poor sources (although that isn't uncommon) and they've created a couple more useless articles about subclans to add to the rubbish that Thakor was creating. I suppose it could be a meat thing if someone has been ranting on a Koli community web forum or similar. - Sitush ( talk) 04:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Their edits at Mazagon Fort are pretty much identical - [41] vs [42]. - Sitush ( talk) 04:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh no! There is also Suttoo Deshmukh doing broadly similar stuff. This could get messy. - Sitush ( talk) 04:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Compare this to the warnings and alerts on their talk page. They're not going to give up ignoring WP:V etc. - Sitush ( talk) 05:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Please reduce the protection level :) SheMoveItLike ( talk) 16:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
AsOd19 ( talk · contribs) has just gone too far at the Baidya article, I think. They've had the notifications but have warred the stuff in again. - Sitush ( talk) 16:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Periodically, and usually because someone rants on a community forum, we get a series of anons and newly registered accounts going mad at articles relating to the Nair caste. There have also been some checkusered sockfarms in the past.
They seem to be active at the moment, eg: at Nambiar (Nair subcaste) and Nayanar (Nair subcaste). I could ask at RfPP for temporary semi or pending changes protection but the former will not resolve the long-term problem and the latter is dependent on the reviewer actually checking the sources, which in my experience often does not happen. Is it worth putting 30/500 on those two articles, as has been done at the main Nair article? As it happens, they may have a point at the Nayanar one but the solution to that is to engage on the talk page, where I have started a thread. - Sitush ( talk) 06:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you aware of your topic ban on Padmanabhanunnips ( talk · contribs) being lifted? They returned during my last long-ish absence and I've only just spotted what they've been doing, eg: I have just had to revert all of their edits to Pushpaka Brahmin (which seemed then to encourage others to amend those changes) and at Ambalavasi. Suspect I will have to revert everything they have done, everywhere, since their return to caste articles. - Sitush ( talk) 23:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Bish, would you (or some helpful stalkers) be willing to apply some revdel at Shehla Rashid Shora? Some of the revisions are egregious BLP violations, others are less egregious but still violations, and as I'm involved I don't want to make the call about which to delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 04:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I just asked the user to please stop sending me e-mail (I've already received two). I don't really have anything else to say except what I said at the SPI. HJ Mitchell knows more about this master's behavior than I do. So does Nableezy, but I can see why in this particular instance they might be biased.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I could ask at Talk:Thomas Dixon (nonconformist) but it would likely sit there for years without a response, so here goes.
Thomas Dixon (nonconformist) is one of those awful copy/paste jobs from an old public domain source. Worse, it is a copy/paste of a public domain source via a third-party transcription, ie: Wikisource. It is inevitably crap - people who did that sort of thing back in the day didn't even bother to wikify and comply with MOS, let alone attempt some basic checks on what is said. Anyways, the article actually covers two Thomas Dixons, father and son, which is a little clumsy for linking from articles such as Bank Street Unitarian Chapel, where both of them served as ministers. It would, in my opinion, be better if the two guys each had their own article but that then makes for some decision-making regarding what titles should be used.
We could do dates, ie: Thomas Dixon (1680-1729) and Thomas Dixon (1721-1754), or we could do Thomas Dixon senior (nonconformist) and Thomas Dixon junior (nonconformist) - or some combination of those two styles. Or there may be better alternative, of course, including just leaving it as it is. I suppose I could also create redirects from those redlinks back to the existing article but that is really clumsy, imo, and I think someone who has an interest in disambiguation and redirects would scream at me.
I know I will have to propose any split etc at the article talk. What is a reasonable amount of time to wait for responses before being bold about it? I can't even make my own mind up! - Sitush ( talk) 06:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Your edit seems to exist in the world of the Asura (Buddhism). :( Mrspaceowl ( talk) 16:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
Hi Bishonen I've recently come across two accounts, of which I have no doubt they are the same person (they edit the exact same topic areas). However, the second account was created about a day after the first account stopped editing after making about 130 edits (and has not edited since). As I cannot see any malevonence behind this sockpuppetry (there don't appear to be any disputes, blocks etc.), but it does not seem to be a WP:CLEANSTART, due to the accounts editing the same topic areas, should I report it? I can, if you like, email the usernames of the two accounts. -- Ted Edwards 19:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Is this sort of thing really acceptable from someone who has been here for years and has in the past held "high office"? I am assuming that the Twitter account, whose profile/description aligns with that of a registered account here, is not in fact a fake. - Sitush ( talk) 10:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, just seen this ANI thread about someone else, where there is an allegedly similar situation and the person I am thinking of above has commented! - Sitush ( talk) 11:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
You may remember CEngelbrecht2 from such hits as Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction, Blocked or the rockin' classic Blocked again. Well, they have returned to their hobby of spewing forth hyperbolic and demeaning rhetoric at the Aquatic ape hypothesis talk page again, calling it a "warzone" where sources supporting the theory are "censored away" and declaring that "Any and all edits, that doesn't scream the knee-jerk assumption, that any version of aquaticism in recent hominin evolution is psychotic lunacy gets deleted within hours as a matter of course." Complete, of course, with bloviate quotes from well known scientists and all the same attitude of "I'm so much smarter than the rest of you" that led to his initial topic ban. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Not even a week since your self-requested block expired, you mean, young Pants?Yes, indeed. It's making me wonder if coming back was even worth it, but I suppose my addiction must be fed. In all honesty, I don't think a warning will get the job done, but I've been wrong before, and this is something it's better to be wrong about, so fingers crossed.
Hi there, this user User talk:NagarjunaSarma is vandalizing Kamma (caste). They have made plenty of POV edits and they have already breached the three revert rule. Please look into their edits. Thanks. Sharkslayer87 ( talk) 22:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I can say the same for you User talk:Sharkslayer87. Firstly, I have used only credible sources and mostly direct quotations for both these articles. How is it showing my POV when I have literally quoted verbatim from these sources? Did I write those books and papers? NO! Many of them, including Thurston and Yamada Keiko have been used before on the Kamma Wikipedia. Now why is it wrong to provide readers with additional information from these professors and researchers. Moreover, your claim that British Raj articles are unreliable is factually wrong when you consider how many articles and researchers, including caste ones cite them. In regards to the Raju caste article, I added a mere one quote that backs up information already present in the article, and it was from a respected British source. What we have here is that you, Mr. Sharkslayer87, for some reason don’t like what these credible sources have said so you are creating unnecessary drama. When looking at what editors, like User talk:Sitush , have said about you, I’m not surprised. It's clear you are from the Raju community and trying to push an agenda. If you must know my caste, I am a Telugu Brahmin, and I have no connection to either of these castes, so I am neutral arbitrator to provide factual information from other researchers. Also, I just checked the Raju page and I see quite a few British era articles and pages cited, so I really don't understand why you are vandalizing other people's work with no cause or reason. Moreover, it looks like you have been banned and reprimanded for caste promotion on Wikipedia. I sincerely request the administrator reviewing the case to consider Mr. Sharkslayer87's previous wrongdoings involving caste articles (He was just recently unbanned from caste articles), and I 100% declare that I was just minding my business by researching with verified sources to contribute to the Wikipedia community, until Sharsklayer87 unjustly pulled me into this mess. NagarjunaSarma( talk)
In regards to the reliability of British Raj documents, Kamma Caste and Raju Caste article already utilized these British Raj Sources way before I started editing. In fact, I made sure to exclusively reference Thurston because he was also used. He was one of two Britishers I used. Additionally, Ms. Yamada Keiko, a professor at a Japanese University, and other modern researchers often cite Mr. Thurston's work. This isn't just a willy-nilly picking. There are countless books that cite Mr. Thurston's work and if it's good enough for college professors and their research, Wikipedia audience should benefit from it. Moreover, why would the Kamma and Raju Caste articles already cite British Raj material without any editor removing It or causing a fuss. You can't pick and chose what British Raj articles are reliable, especially when entire college textbooks and professors constantly cite them. In fact, I just cited the British Raj work that was already mentioned through direct quotations. Since caste is such a volatile topic, the British Raj documents have been the foundation basis for many reliable books discussing caste. Finally, I also cited modern documents and college trained professors or historians, like Mr. Tyagi, Ms. Keiko, and others in my edits. Sharkslayer also vandalized those. It's clear that his intentions and previous caste based drama, which got him banned until quite recently from editing caste base articles, is the problem. Not the British Raj sources, which I ensured were used by modern scholars. I sincerely request the administrator viewing this case to review in detail the usage of Thurston's work and how college professors consider it reliable. Furthermore, I request that Sharkslayer87 not be allowed to edit caste-based articles and his ban be restored. It's clear based on my interaction with him and other editors, that he is still promoting the Raju Caste on Wikipedia. Gives me no pleasure in saying it. We should all be working together without an agenda to provide knowledge for people. Instead, Sharkslayer87 has created unneeded drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NagarjunaSarma ( talk • contribs)
UPDATE: In order to end this conflict, I have found modern citations for the one or two citations that was purerly British Raj documents. These direct quotation citations come from modern authors and researchers who say the same thing as Thurston with verification. I hope this will resolve the source conflict, and there is No POV conflict because I used direct quotations and cited from two or three different authors. NagarjunaSarma( talk)
See this revert by me. That contributor is becoming very disruptive now. I know that the Dirks source they removed mentions it, and the very first source in that list they removed says "The Maravar and Kallar, who mainly inhabit the dry zones of Ramanathapuram and Pudukottai, acquired ill repute as thieves and robbers perhaps from the early medieval times". You might argue that quote is slightly ambivalent compared to the statement we made, because of the use of perhaps, but Dirks is adamant and there are loads of other sources I've seen that say it. - Sitush ( talk) 08:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
An IP user is harassing me. This has been going for a long time at the greek wikipedia (el.wikipedia.com) and now he is here. The specific user got an indefinitely ban from el.WP and now is using an IP address. The last few days, he expanded his hunting in en.WP as well. His modus operanti are major reverts in the articles that I have contributed ( History of anarchism and Michael Bakunin. His IPs: 94.66.56.226 or 94.66.56.96 or 94.66.56.211 or 94.66.56.72 or 94.66.56.138. You may ask at el.WP ANI for his case. Can we do something to deal with this sort of problem please? It is really frustrating the way he reverts, reverts reverts. (He is also keen on personal attacks). Thanks Cinadon36 ( talk) 19:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Total affected |
Affected addresses |
Given addresses |
Range | Contribs |
---|---|---|---|---|
256 | 256 | 5 | 94.66.56.0/24 | contribs |
192 | 64 | 2 | 94.66.56.64/26 | contribs |
128 | 3 | 94.66.56.128/25 | contribs | |
67 | 1 | 1 | 94.66.56.72 | contribs |
1 | 1 | 94.66.56.96 | contribs | |
1 | 1 | 94.66.56.138 | contribs | |
64 | 2 | 94.66.56.192/26 | contribs | |
5 | 1 | 1 | 94.66.56.72 | contribs |
1 | 1 | 94.66.56.96 | contribs | |
1 | 1 | 94.66.56.138 | contribs | |
1 | 1 | 94.66.56.211 | contribs | |
1 | 1 | 94.66.56.226 | contribs |
Had to mention you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Sitush, sorry. - Sitush ( talk) 10:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
There is another user from el.WP who is utilizing WP:POVRAILROAD against me. It has been going since November, but it reached a peak today, two days after an article I have re-written.
History of Anarchism (and Talk)
The above are his today's comments. The accussarion of propaganda or censorchip goes way back.
There are more p. attacks and pov railroading in other articles. ie notable At Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests he is attacking me and Czar that we are censoring him.
This has to stop Bishonen, what should be done?ps-I informed Αντικαθεστωτικός [58] Cinadon36 ( talk) 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
For my contributions before two/three months i apologize (and i think i apologized again, but i am not 100% sure). For this month, i don't addressed to this user, but i just say that there is a POV situation and this is caused by the sources and from the users. If there is a user that i have offended (this month) is only user Czar, but this is a history conflict, and there is a sad situation here, when phds that are not fond of anarchism is not allowed to became a citation. Sorry about my bad english.
P.S please check what i am saying as examble:
here. I can bring more if you wish.
Αντικαθεστωτικός ( talk) 16:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Mr./Ms. Administrator, this user User talk:Sharkslayer87 is vandalizing Kamma (caste) and the Raju Caste and essentially cyber-harassing me. This user has deliberately deleted the work that I have placed many times because he said it was my POV. However, I directly quoted almost all of the content I added, and I made sure to cite them properly. I also verified the credibility of those sources. If a source from the British Raj was already used in that caste article, used by modern college professors and authors to cite their work, and the source is derived from a reputable man, what harm is there to provide the Wikipedia audience with direct quotations, with no influence from me? These quotes also don't say anything that is outside the norm for the topic in terms of what is already present in the article. Sharkslayer87 already has a history of caste based editing, which got him banned until very recently. Other editors, like Sitush, have commented on his talk page about his lack of credible source and vandalism. It's clear he is unfortunately engaging in it again. Please see to this. Thanks and god bless all of you. NagarjunaSarma( talk)
hi,
my edits in the article 'Rum' which was backed by RS has been reverted, there is also an issue with article Falooda where persian users have reverted my RS there, and have imposed their persian blog source which is about faloodeh, a persian dessert and not indian falooda and its not an RS. your intervention is needed falooda and rum, regards. 175.137.72.188 ( talk) 06:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Not that I myself have been exactly Christ-like in this, perhaps you could have a word before the phoenix immolates himself in flames. [60] E Eng 00:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
didn't realize it was EEng, who has his own, admin-approved MoS; do forgive me. As for the underlying typographic question, see (both already cited by me to Jfrb) MOS:SUFFIXDASH and CMOS's explanation that
The en dash can be used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements consists of an open compound or when both elements consist of hyphenated compounds. (An open compound is a compound that contains a space.) E Eng 03:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Groan. Hyphen, and course-correcting? I'm busy. I'll take a look later, unless some kind tps has taken care of it, HINT HINT. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC).
I'm sorry that your talk page has been tainted with this trivial nonsense, Bish. You can unlock the MoS page if you're so inclined. I've no intention of making further edits, null or not-so-null; excuse me, not–so–null; oh, fuck it; not—so—null. I know the difference between a hyphen and a dash, and that's good enough for me. Joefromrandb ( talk) 15:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Possibly the best solution would be a line at the beginning of each article containing a couple dozen commas, and also some semicolons, quotation marks, and so forth. The reader could then be instructed to mentally sprinkle them throughout the text in whatever manner she finds pleasing.[62] E Eng 16:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Kindly review my edits carefully. I have made edits on topics of science, Regions and Comics as well. I have made many many edits on subjects like DNA, Suppandi, Cities like peddapuram , comics like tinkle, champak
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=DNA&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peddapuram&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tinkle&action=history
Also I do lot of discussion, put in academic sources and get concensus from other editors. Sangitha rani111 ( talk) 23:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Sangitha rani111
See here. I've left them a note. - Sitush ( talk) 17:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
"I'm aware that you're both Indians but please keep your feelings out of this ..."Is there a word for projecting your own prejudices onto other people and getting it comically wrong? If not, we ought to invent one. I'm going with 'lumixosity'. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
See this at BN. Surely someone is making a mockery of adminship there? Can CIR be applied without evidence of current incompetence? That is, because someone who has been an admin for so long but with so little activity cannot reasonably be expected to be competent as an admin now due to the numerous changes to policies etc in the interval? I'm not suggesting that they should be blocked, of course, but they have no obvious use for the extra bits. - Sitush ( talk) 13:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The problem we're encountering is that the admin group has become much more like an American college fraternity than anything else. It started off as easy to get into, and the difficulty has steadily increased over the years until we now require the inductees to go through a hazing process during 'pledge week' and overcome multiple bars and obstacles, which will vary at the whim of the gatekeepers. Once accepted, of course, the member is there for life, barring some egregious action. It's hardly surprising, therefore, that most members don't want to run any greater risk of having to go through the pledging process again. And who could blame them?
As for asking for the tools back after a period of inactivity, my view is "why not"? We trusted them with powerful tools before, surely we are going to trust them to use them carefully once those tools are returned? -- RexxS ( talk) 22:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
AP2 t-ban. Atsme ✍🏻 📧 20:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
(comment moved to Admin Noticeboard) Sotuman ( talk) 05:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, an editor you blocked has made a new account ( Luciusfoxxx ( talk · contribs)), and I believe may be editing from an IP as well 124.171.23.173 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'm heading out, but they appear singularly interested in my edits. :/ — Locke Cole • t • c 19:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
trolling and I would remind you, as a very senior editor, that we are all supposed to assume good faith. Having watched for an hour with mounting astonishment at the behaviour of all contributors edit warring over a blocked editor's TP, I said what I felt was needed. In fact, I didn't even realise that you had edited through full protection to interject with humour which some people might regard as grave dancing. Whatever it was, it wasn't appropriate in the middle of that dispute at that time. I suggest we go our own way. Should you wish to reflect and apologise, you know where I am :) Rgds. Leaky caldron ( talk) 22:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I wrote a longish edit to be placed on MPants’ page titled “For fuck’s sake” asking him to grow up, explaining exactly how he is of great value to this project, adding that some of us have enabled his dark side (which Tryptofish has more than touched on) , reminding him that he knows full well how to respond to an unblock request, suggesting that he understand that the average human IQ is only 100, and suggesting he shut up and wait six months, mellow with age, and respond the way he knows how to respond. Then, the Chardonnay faded and I deleted the intended edit. As I said before; what is best for him is best for him. If participation here causes him problems – let us wait and not try to force him to participate. (And yeah, I saw the oversighted stuff and a not surprised folks tripped over themselves deleting it. Also in his favor.) (And yeah. Quotes about cynicism are hilarious.) O3000 ( talk) 01:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Is there a CIR problem with this user? On my talk page and at the ANI thread about VM on the AE thread his commentary seemed totally disconnected from what was actually happening. I see this now on his talk page regarding the current AE thread. Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I opened a DRV as you suggested. Would you be willing to temporarily undelete User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles or should I make that request through the DRV page instead? – dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen! User:Cinadon36 keeps folowing my edits in English in various articles of EN:Wikipedia and reverting them without any explanation. Please i need your help, i think that i followed your instructions and i never insulted him again, from your last warning.
Now my alert button is full of notices of reverts of my edits.
Please check that in many articles he didn't wrote anything. He just follows me and revert me. 1 2 3.
What i can do?
Αντικαθεστωτικός (
talk)
14:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Cairn info is a RS while that bunch of links you presented is notis in no way a personal attack.
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended. —— SerialNumber 54129 14:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The user follows me, and keep reverting at once my contribution. p.e Christos Tsoutsouvis in the content of the article he is not described as an anarchist. But someone have put him in anarchists category. So i removed him from this category with the proper explanation (not an anarchist. Left terrorists group during 1980 was socialist and nationalistic like Revolutionary Organization 17 November, and he reverted me 2times with this the 2nd time as an explanation Tsoutsouvis is linked to anarchism by some,! Is it possible to write by some? Who are they? It is not my problem to justify that he wasn't an anarchist, but it his problem to justify that he was a one. (Just for the record the previous organisations of this anarchist Revolutionary People's Struggle). Αντικαθεστωτικός ( talk) 15:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I did answer at the first time, asking for citations, but then I was thinking, "if someone goes to a Talk Page and state his opinion, isn't that a forum?" per: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." ( WP:TPNO- it 's circular to WP FORUM) I have seen it many times, users going to articles like atheism, trying to explain the fallacies of atheism, how atheists get it wrong, and their edits are deleted due Wikipedia is not a forum. Lets break down Αντικαθεστωτικός comment (3 sentences)
Which of those 3 sentences is about the article?. He is not discussing how to improve the article. He is projecting his own opinion on RUIS. On the other hand, Αντικαθεστωτικός keeps complaining of censorship, (he is continuing the censorship campaign I told you Bishonen before [66]). Noone should have a free pass or not have his edits checked by various other users. That wouldn't not right. Instead of asking me what the problem is, he is trying to initiate a battle. Cinadon36 ( talk) 10:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Please note that I have opened a request for clarification from the arbitration committee that involves you. I would be grateful if you would give your views at WP:ARCA#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Gun_control. GoldenRing ( talk) 15:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bish! Please take a look at everything that's transpired since your last block here: User talk:VwM.Mwv/Archive 2. Some highlights:
Bish, that was just part one.
That's just the last few days. If you look at the user talk page and archives, you'll see that a number of our fellow editors (you're one of them) have very generously spent an inordinate amount of time trying to help this editor contribute constructively. Unfortunately, this editor doesn't seem to listen to any of them. I'm concerned about how many different editors have been disrupted by this one user. I was preparing an ANEW report and realized that the other non-EW-related diffs didn't really fit; so I thought ANI; then I saw your name as the last blocking admin, so I thought I'd dump this in your lap. :-) I'm not sure what the best way forward is, but I look for your advice as to whether I should "take this somewhere" or "leave it alone" or what. Thank you! Leviv ich 23:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I added something to this essay. If you'd prefer me to write my own essay, feel free to revert. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I think I'm having a little difficulty. I will have this content in bold and I hope you agree with me that it's not needed when it comes to specific countries at the FIFA World Cup.
The FIFA World Cup, sometimes called the Football World Cup or the Soccer World Cup, but usually referred to simply as the World Cup, is an international association football competition contested by the men's national teams of the members of Fédération Internationale de Football Association ( FIFA), the sport's global governing body. The championship has been awarded every four years since the first tournament in 1930, except in 1942 and 1946, due to World War II.
The tournament consists of two parts, the qualification phase and the final phase (officially called the World Cup Finals). The qualification phase, which currently take place over the three years preceding the Finals, is used to determine which teams qualify for the Finals. The current format of the Finals involves 32 teams competing for the title, at venues within the host nation (or nations) over a period of about a month. The World Cup Finals is the most widely viewed sporting event in the world, with an estimated 715.1 million people watching the 2006 tournament final.
For a specific country (e.g. Germany) this content is unnecessary. I feel like I have been treated poorly. This even led to me losing rollback rights after I reverted someone's reversion of my edits. I was honestly not misusing rollback, I just wanted to revert to a correct version because they act like they don't give a four-letter word if the bolded irrelevant content is there. So Ivan incorrectly removed my rollback rights. I wonder when I can get them back. It even led me to a useless 31-hour block just for removing unnecessary content. I have been in general a good faith editor because I have taken down vandalism a lot.
See Spain for example. I don't know why users are reverting my removal if countries like Spain don't have the content. And I also wonder if I can get my rollback rights soon.
Any comments?
Thanks, Dolfinz1972 ( talk) 02:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, if they change their username are you OK with an unblock? Just Chilling ( talk) 14:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
|
![]()
|
Hey, can you block me for three months? I tried using wikibreak, didn't work. Thanks. — Sarvatra ( talk, contribs) 06:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bish, could you add a word of wisdom here? An allegedly new editor, who's first edit, interestingly, was to report a vandal sockpuppet [68]. Has gone on from there to editwarring (five reverts) on Richard Wagner, an FA. Example of his "improvement" there. Continues to add his personal opinions [69] to other articles and stuff he found at Reddit, e.g. [70]. Talk page messages to him from three editors (including me) seem to be having no effect, e.g. [71]. Perhaps he might listen to you. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 16:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I am writing to you since according to User talk:Qwirkle you have taken action against a personal attack of his. I have myself been the object of recent statements by him that are at best rude and unhelpful. See
The issue is his putting accuracy and then POV templates on an article I wrote ( Lynching of Shedrick Thompson). I have posted this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson, where he has made another unhelpful comment. Perhaps you could be of some assistance. Thank you. deisenbe ( talk) 17:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Our Lady of America. Since you had some involvement with the Our Lady of America redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Mangoe ( talk) 19:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen.
I refer to your PROD of Sanctuary Lakes Resort. I have added some raw references to the article. I think they counter most of your points in the PROD, but I am not convinced the subject is notable and have not DePRODed yet. However, you may wish to reword your PROD? Others may think the PROD is now unsafe though?
Regards. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I have only made 2 edits to that page in the last 24 hours, the most recent of which was over 3 hours ago. I'm not even on the brink of violating 3RR, and would never re-instate a challenged edit when it is disputed by more than one other editor. Even before you issued that warning I had opened discussions concerning the disputed edit, on both User:Johnuniq's talk page and on the talk page of the project page in question, in order to properly and peacefully resolve the matter. In future please think and properly investigate the problem before issuing completely unnecessary and overly-aggressive warnings. Thanks. Citizen Canine ( talk) 12:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
|
So I accept I was warring, and I apologise. I only pushed the edit because the rationale that a new shortcut shouldn't be used as it was unused seemed so ridiculously circular. I'm not a habitual edit warrior or anything.
I didn't need a warning to stop me re-reverting as it wasn't even a thought in my head. But my actions probably didn't make that clear, so it was justified.
I'm sorry I act like a bratty teenager sometimes. It's sorta because that's what I am. Due to some past experiences I never let people walk all over me. But regrettably, that sometimes means I can be too assertive. This was one of them. Citizen Canine ( talk) 15:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you mean to block this user indefinitely? Or did you actually mean to block this account for 31 hours? I just wanted to message you and let you know / ask... :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, in January you posted the only warning for BLP vandalism, would you mind blocking the IP user, now that he has done it again? Based on the type of edits, it seems it is the same user, not a shared IP. Thanks, WikiHannibal ( talk) 12:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
... would you be willing to look at my request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement #Infobox RfC on Fermat's Last Theorem. I've been trying my damnedest to keep discussion at Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem #Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement on the topic of whether to have an infobox on that article, but I'm now sick of having personal attacks thrown at me, as well as multiple attempts to derail the RfC by strawman and tangential arguments. And it's not just me: it's got the stage where one of the other participants has felt the need to file at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Repeated personal attacks by Purgy Purgatorio over personal attacks on him.
Even after filing the enforcement request, I've been called "dishonest" by an administrator on the RfC page. Sooner or later, I'm going to give in to the baiting and lose my temper with them. It needs to have somebody wiling to impose sanctions on those who have no regard for ArbCom's requirements of decorum, civility and not turning the discussion about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general. Hope you can help. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bishzilla Lucia Looking Right.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 22:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Dude, what I literally added facts to whitaker AND changed it to a MUCH more neutral version of the wording. "Policy issues" inherently implies that there are "issues" with his policies. That is the DEFINITION of bias And that soros stuff is real shit man, I don't know what to tell you. You have a section JUST FOR conspiracy theories... I joined WIKI because this place is biased AF and if you want it to be neutral, you need a huge overhaul of your languange. You've spent a lot of time here on this, if you want it to turn into a joke, then you should put that somewhere. If you want it to be a lobbying arm for liberals, you need to file with the FEC. If you want it to be a long-standing neutral website, then you need to let people have their little hissy fits while others work to improve the site towards what, in writing, is a common goal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthInDave ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to tell you that no apology is necessary, although I appreciate it. Your comments in the matter were not unreasonable, it was a confusing situation. I know it was all in good faith. No harm done. Thanks 331dot ( talk) 21:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The IP vandal at List of monarchs by nickname who keeps inserting King Tut The Nut is back after the protection was removed on April 1st. You put it in in 2016, so perhaps you could renew it again. Thanks Dabbler ( talk) 10:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I have posted in my User talk but as yet have not received a reply. Could you please have a look at what I wrote and give me some guidance?
This is what I wrote on 26th March 2019:
Hi Arbitration Committee
Thank you for pointing out where I have gone wrong. My apologies, I am new to this.
My reason for joining was to learn how to create an article for our non-profit arts foundation. A colleague of mine has had dealings with the Cryonics Institute in the US. I was talking to him about how I intend to create a Wikipedia article and that I was learning how to do it. I then had an email from one of the people at the Cryonics Institute asking me if I could assist them, purely voluntary.
I did not realize that the subject of complementary and alternative medicine fell into a special category and I underestimated the sensitivity of the subject and its controversial content.
There is no conflict of interest as I am not doing this for myself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. I do not have any external relationship with the institute or its members.
I was just asked if I can make the following changes: Replace corpse with body - I don't see the problem here as the definition of a corpse is a dead body "Corpse and cadaver are both medical/legal terms for a dead body. ... Although cadaver is the older word, it has come to refer in particular to a dead body used for medical or scientific purposes". Removing the sentence containing the word 'quackery' seems acceptable as by your own definition "A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess". From what I have read the Institute is neither fraudulent nor an ignorant pretender. The other changes follow the same reasoning as above.
If you believe that I am treading on thin ice then please tell me and I'll walk away from helping the Institute!
Mbark22 ( talk) 23:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. I was wondering how I can start a collaborative initiative/project where I, along with others can change the details in the article of the city and it's info. In this section which I was able to reach consensus (it's been a while though), I discussed how the city of Rome is a city that encompasses two countries (Italy and Vatican), yet infobox details and other details in the article need to be changed to fit this criteria, and don't think I can do it all by myself. ( N0n3up ( talk) 00:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC))
Bish, this is pathetic. I cannot seem to avoid taking a peek at ANI or ERRORS or similar as a procrastination tool. I cannot afford to keep doing this. I need to dive into your pocket for a month, hopefully there's a quiet study off to the side I can use with no distractions. Please block me with no talk page access, no email, until 00:01 on 1 May 2019. I know your criteria, i won't embarass you by requesting an early unblock. I'm positive. Won't be able to send WP "thanks", so doing that in advance here. See you in a month. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Can I be pocketed by the great and mighty Zilla? The Irish coffee and cakes are very enticing. Maybe if I'm lucky Jimbo will stop by and he can lecture me on the virtues of his various friends on the Twitter while I enjoy my cake. (For clarity since I just saw the above thread: pls don't blerk me, just pocket time) TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen
Please keep an eye on the Thai Pongal Page. A person who goes by the name 'Pandian Tamil' arbitrarily removes quite a chunk of material from that page. I do not check Wikipedia that often but have been an editor for many years. This is just an alert for your attention if relevant.
My sincere best, Dipendra2007 ( talk) 18:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all. The holiday spans several states under different names with a different emphasis. But anyway, we have Keith on board to keep an eye.
Best Dipendra2007 ( talk) 20:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks like my talk page is being stubbornly vandalised by an IPv6 hopper. Any chance of a semi? How big is the range block? -- RexxS ( talk) 23:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, Sitush seems to be away and I am having to deal with a new caste warrior on my own. In the first 24 hours of his account, he made some 30 posts, starting with my talk page (no idea why). All about Kamma (caste) and the other castes he wants to shoot down/compete with. This post should give you an idea of his approach. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
User talk:Mohammad Anamul Haque Nayan ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
Please revoke TPA. As you noted, either the editor is not competent or they are an extreme case of IDHT. General Ization Talk 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Thanks. BlueD954 ( talk) 08:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC) |
Thewolfchild.
I realise there is a high probability of him getting unblocked. But just to say he/she is very aggressive in my talk page (you can view it) often and shadows me for no clear reason. I have not time to debate with his aggression--which he turned back on my and reported, but just would like to inform you.
Thanks. BlueD954 ( talk) 10:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that reminder. I will keep it in mind and seek to be more objective as I review the posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsduker ( talk • contribs)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The following text is added to the "Important notes" section of the standard provision on appeals and modifications, replacing the current text of the fourth note:
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bish! You may remember we had some trouble a while ago at Gua Sha. [73]. It appears to be happening again ... Alexbrn ( talk) 15:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
A few days ago I uploaded a poster photo from the movie The Last Moment to illustrate the article of the same name, but I made a mistake: The photo I uploaded was of the film of 1922, white the film I wanted to illustrate was of 1928, although the title is the same (the film of 1922 has no article). I would like to know if you could delete my photo ( The Last Moment).
Thank you.-- Isinbill ( talk) 11:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. I fear that Parabellus is a sock. Have a look at his contribution history. [78]. His first edit was on 11:00, 30 April 2019 [79] at a Talk Page where he attacks Jingiby, mentioning a diff (this one) that was posted on the 10th of March 2019. How to deal with this issue? Cinadon36 ( talk) 11:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi bishonen, i am very sorry about reverting Cinadon36 contribution. I didn't check his history. When he informed me that he was probably a soc i didnt do anything again. I am not so familiar with English Wikipedia soc/puppets. Btw can you check in the same article this This Αντικαθεστωτικός ( talk) 09:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Bishonen, no hard feelings Αντικαθεστωτικός. Cinadon36 ( talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Hi Bish, thanks for your note on my TP recently. Any chance of you comparing the new Ramji Bhangre article with the one you deleted in January as a creation of a sock of Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala ( talk · contribs) ? Alarm bells are ringing! - Sitush ( talk) 08:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, everybody. I'm sorry, Sitush, suddenly I just couldn't face it. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC).
"Paid news" in India is the practice through which organizations, public figures/celebrities, politicians, political parties, brands/movies pay cash or equivalent to a media group or television channel or a newspaper or a magazine or a journalist, to be in the news, for sustained positive coverage, and to avoid negative coverage. This is either a limited time payment(s) or a contract.
"Private treaties" (or "brand capital agreements") in India are signed, long term private confidential agreements between a person or party or organization and a media group or television channel or newspaper or magazine. A private treaty gives an equity position, or equivalent ownership/commission/payment interest to the media group/owners. Such an agreement financially benefits the media outlet, in exchange for manufactured/plugged news, create positive coverage/buzz and avoid negative coverage over the period of contract.
This is a widespread practice and has been a growing phenomenon over "six decades", according to a 2010 investigation by the Press Council of India, their official media ethics watchdog ( 1, p. 4): Other sources state the same,
Quotes on paid news / private treaties
|
---|
|
Bishonen and I, in our offline discussion, felt that this is worth a wider community discussion as it may raise questions about the reliability of Indian newspapers, magazines and television-digital print media from our WP:RS perspective. Your thoughts and any relevant information on this, on whatever side it might be, are therefore most welcome. Other questions:
Any other issues or comments? Pinging @ Doug Weller, Sitush, Utcursch, and Abecedare: in particular since you have previously shared comments on the reliability of sources and Indian publications in other contexts. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 02:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
"may raise the same concerns" as COI and paid editing' advisory. It may be worthwhile to separate out the worst-known actors and practices, for which we can then offer stronger prohibitions. For example, based on the evidence presented in the New Yorker article including statements by the the publishers, I would propose:
Tucked under the section’s masthead, four words in small type inform the reader that the contents are an “advertorial, entertainment promotional feature.” Jain insisted that this meets the transparency test. “It’s on my masthead,” he said. “It says ‘advertorial’ clearly.”
@ Winged Blades of Godric: Is your draft combined with this updated list reasonably sufficient to move forward with community-wide deliberations? Another request to you and others who may have better access to internal reports of Indian organizations... This Frontline article by Rajalakshmi states in the third last para that the Press Council of India released a report on paid news in India "running over 3,000 pages". Has anyone seen this? I have the 13 page downsized summary that was initially released after the Indian media executives/journalists in India voted to suppress the full paid news report, and the 71 page addendum they released after they were pressured to release more of the paid news report. But, so far, despite some effort and phone calls over the last week, I haven't been able to find this 3,000+ page report on the paid news / private treaties in India. I would appreciate a link to this report. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 12:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Amicus autem populus ( talk · contribs) doesn't seem to be paying attention to their talk page and pretty much every edit they make to caste articles has been reverted or should be reverted. They've had various warnings + the sanctions alert. - Sitush ( talk) 08:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen,
Thanks, EdChem ( talk) 12:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
You are correct - I edited archives by mistake. Sorry, and thanks for fixing it. JohnTopShelf ( talk) 22:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Almost as cute as Bishzilla... — Paleo Neonate – 05:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what to do with the developing situation at User_talk:Risto_hot_sir#Inappropriate_links. I have the feeling that it is going to keep going round in circles. I could escalate it somewhere or I could walk away and just let it fester in my head that we're effectively acting as a proxy for Hindutva propaganda. Thoughts? - Sitush ( talk) 11:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a quick look at User:Manmohansinh saini's edits at Saini? He's been unilaterally doing a bit of what looks like caste puffery, trying to claim the Saini caste as rajputs (it's on his deleted userpage too). He's been reverted several times by Sitush and I, and I've warned him to stop and seek consensus, but he just waits a little while and does it again. I'm obviously involved, having made some reverts. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 09:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Colley Cibber Apology small.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ★ Bigr Tex 03:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I reported user 50.234.120.42 and they have been blocked, but no notice is on their talk page. Who puts it up? I'm new to this so please excuse my ignorance... TheDoDahMan ( talk) 17:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Bish, back on April 28'th I had responded to an ANI thread " Range block needed" by blocking the one named account Hammy0007; concluding that the named user and Malaysian IPs were the same person and had been editing disruptively; declining the range block request as infeasible but volunteering to block individual IPs or "new accounts" were they to crop-up.
Move forward to the last couple of days: I have been involved in a content dispute with 60.50.173.223 at Indus script and related articles (see this and this discussions for an explanation of the content issue, although that is perhaps not really needed), who I now realize is the same user! With my admin thinking-cap on, I would say: looked at individually, 60.50's slow edit-warring and IDHT conduct does not merit a block yet but looking at the user's whole edit-history shows that engaging with them is a waste of time.
I can't and won't act in admin capacity, of course. And coincidentally, Doug Weller and RegentsPark who are familiar with Hammy0007 and the original ANI thread have both reverted or interacted with 60.50 as editors in the current Indus script dispute. We are running out of uninvolved admins in this area! Can you take a look?
Listed below are some of the IPs used (the link should be quite apparent but let me know if you'd like me to spell it out over email).
List of IPs used by Hammy0007 (not comprehensive)
|
---|
|
Abecedare ( talk) 04:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Risto Hot Sir's obsession with Wiki-quote continues; now in the form of adding whitewashed statements via image-captions, coupled with misleading edit summaries. Since, you have already warned him days back, me thinks that he is in need of an indefinite timeout from ARBIPA. ∯WBG converse 16:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
Magnificent. Nishidani ( talk) 21:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you very much, Nishi, you make me blush. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC).
Cheers, — Paleo Neonate – 21:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I would just like to add a comment in relation to the recent unblock. I find it heroic and acknowledge that the community supports it, but at the same time I worry that if a desysop or ban result (or anything else that may make you to ultimately decide to retire), this would be very unfortunate, because I think you are very precious. Of course, more damage can also result of this affair in general (and that's unrelated to you or the unblock, of course). Anyway, just expressing both my appreciation and worry. — Paleo Neonate – 08:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Ultimate Platinum. Poet Supreme. Biskopje. –
SJ
+
05:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
"I'm with you, Floq, and I'll be Spartacus if you are." [80] Benjamin ( talk) 01:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Another good move. Brave and courageous step, but if you have to go through RfA again I'll be adding a strong support for you doing the right thing. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 07:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
Because goats are awesome, and when something needs to be headbutted they do it courageously.
bonadea
contributions
talk
07:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
eine Wiese voller Margeriten |
support headbutted courage, with a vision of friendliness -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For standing up for the community in the face of personal cost, thank you, Bishonen. starship .paint ( talk) 07:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
You are a true hero. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for enforcing the community consensus, even when it is difficult. Tazerdadog ( talk) 07:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
Bravo! As I told Floq, you've got an automatic vote from me if anything happens and you need to stand for RfA again. I hope WMF will see sense and it won't come to that. Best, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Thank you. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 09:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Definitely above and beyond! I just hope it stops now and that you're still an Admin when San Francisco wakes up. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
Barnstar of Integrity |
Thank you for taking a stand for what's right, as you always do..You are a beacon of integrity.
We have your back! - Mr X 🖋 10:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
And I never give barnstars. E Eng 11:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
Oh, and speaking of contraceptives and time machines, my great granddad knew that Zaphod Beeblebrox III chap. Didn't like him much, mind - thought he was a bit full of himself. Apparently told him "If your head gets much bigger it'll split into two". Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Another one to hang in Boing's barn. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
I've just this minute saw your unblock (at ANI) and I'm lost for words!, Your actions are not only brave but they're also very much appreciated! |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Thank you for your courage in standing up to power gone rogue. Lepricavark ( talk) 12:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
❤️ - Spartacus ( talk) 12:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
^^^ — pythoncoder ( talk | contribs) 13:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Courage comes in many forms. Daring to defy is but one of them; and yet that, more often that not, deserves proper plaudits. Accept this as but one of many. — Javert2113 ( Siarad.| ¤) 13:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
The WP community will not stand for secret trials, with secret and unaccountable judges, no opportunity for the accused to defend themselves, secret accusers, secret accusations, secret evidence, and to top it off, no appeal possible. Thank you for defending our values. Randykitty ( talk) 13:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
Because lord only knows you've got enough barnstars, and pretty soon even that barn Boing gave you is going to fill up. Here's a nice, cute kitten to frolic about among the barnstars; thank you for standing up to the WMF in the face of everything that's happened. It's much appreciated.
-A lad insane
(Channel 2)
14:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For your bravery in unblocking Fram. A Dolphin ( squeek?) 15:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
Welp, the inevitable has happened. And, just as with
Floquenbeam, the WMF couldn't be bothered to actually give you any notification that they'd yanked your bit. My condolences, and
feel free to rampage in San Francisco to vent your frustrations, kaiju.
rdfox 76 (
talk)
17:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Administrator's Barnstar | |
For enacting community consensus. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
Imagine one here! Anyway, thank you for doing the right thing. -- You were the first admin to get 100 supports on their RFA (if I remember correctly); may you also be the first to get 100 barnstars for a single action. (Give a few to 'zilla to keep her happy.) Antandrus (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm late to the party due to my timezone, but I want to express my deep appreciation for an honorable and principled decision. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For following through when you said you would. Carrite ( talk) 23:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
I've been holding my tongue on the whole WP:FRAM mess for a while, except in relation to a loosely related side-show on Rob's talk page, because I have very mixed feelings about the whole affair. But while I don't go in for barnstars or the like, I figured that if I was gonna post that long rant on WT:ACN I should probably also chime in here to say that that was a guts-y, and classy, move on your part. (By "that", I of course mean the unblock, since I probably need to disambiguate from all the other guts-y and classy moves you seem to be making these days ;-) ) The community thanks you! Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
BU Rob13 added you as a party to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Restoration of admin permissions to Floquenbeam by WJBscribe. But, I think you were not notified, so this is it. starship .paint ( talk) 06:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety Wikipedia:Superschutz. FYI. I think T&S tries to make Wikipedians absurd. I think tail (tries to) wags the dog. Need more? Ask me. But now, in my time zone it is after midnite and bedtime (not only for democrazy) :D . If you think it is not useful for you: delete this posting. Greets. -- Informationswiedergutmachung ( talk) 22:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
99 small ones:
And one big one (ok, it's
Barnard's star, but that's just like a
barnstar except bigger):
I am so proud of you.
67.164.113.165 ( talk) 02:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I hope your barnwarming party was as festive as it appears to have been, Bishonen. I wondered if you had given any thought to the point the WMF seems to be making about the poor state of community health. Perhaps this example or this one (self-censored for the time being) or this one (self-censored for the time being) would be sufficient starters?
Do you think community processes currently work as they should? What lessons do you think were drawn from the Sagecandor episode? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 07:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
... our most precious resource, which is constructive editors' time and patience ...
- I somehow remembered of "
Our children are our greatest resource". And wow, those
frog cakes (in the rotating images of the edit notice) look delicious. —
Paleo
Neonate –
13:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
For that thing you did | |
I was going to give you a barnstar or a kitten or a mocha or something but those were all so banal, and this thing from this technical wish kind of looks cool. EllenCT ( talk) 04:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() | |
cornflowers |
---|
Help? Peter Sellers is was
scheduled to be FA on 24 July, and the authors and friends some are seemed to be worried about discussions about the unspeakable topic that day. Can you work your magic and create a circle of flames so that even the bravest will not dare to even ask why the little thingy is collapsed, let alone want to discuss?? Every time that would happen, I'd be blamed, and I had enough of it. I have preached to leave TFAs alone for years. - It's been almost five years now that I hoped we
could just laugh about it ;) --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
13:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
ps: some WILD flowers of thanks in advance, and for the fenny fox roaring! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
For three months please. I read the requirements, the Javascript can't do mobile. Thanks in advance. -- LaserLegs ( talk) 14:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
A large car reminds me of a watch company: could I be suffering from lexical-gustatory synesthesia, perhaps? - Hoary ( talk) 00:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, would request you or any other admin active on this page to protect the article on Kulin Kayastha. Also the user Semper Curious who is engaged in an edit war based on his own opinion, seems to be a sock of Amicus autem populus, whom you have already blocked. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian ( talk) 07:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear admin, I request you to look into the history of Kayasthas in India, and the legal proceedings that ultimately lead to their present varna status, being Kshatriyas. It all came as the result of a series of court ruling from various High Courts in India. Even the British government placed Kayasthas among Kshatriya ranks and declared them twice-born (dwija). I request you to prevent deliberate Shudra branding of a progressive caste, that has produced leaders and scientists in our country and also keeping in mind the sentiments of members of the community. Wikipedia and almost all websites declare Kayasthas as being one of the highest Hindu castes in India, alongside Brahmins. A Shudra is considered to be the lowest of all caste which is in itself contradictory to relating Kayasthas with Shudras on the basis of a single erroneous source, when there are several others to prove it wrong. Unfortunately, editors like Ekdalian fail to realise this (limited being their knowledge or perhaps some personal vendetta against the community) and engage in edit wars, calling other editors 'sock' of another fellow editor. I humbly request you, Bishonen sir, to look into the matter, do a little bit research about Kayasthas and put an end to blatant defamation of a community. Please consider your decision before taking rash or even harsh steps. Editors like Ekdalian should not be allowed to twist historical facts and blemish the image of a community, by doing so on a reputed platform like Wikipedia. Thank you sir, With Regards - Semper Curious Semper Curious ( talk) 08:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear administrator, here's a piece of information regarding the exact Varna status of Kayasthas (source Wikipedia) : The last census of the British Raj in India (1931) classified them as an 'upper caste' i.e. Dwija and the final British Raj law case involving their varna in 1926 placed them into the Kashtriya varna.
According to W.Rowe's account (that later scholars disagreed with), during the British Raj era, certain law cases led to courts classifying Kayasthas as shudras, based largely upon the theories of Herbert Hope Risley who had conducted extensive studies on castes and tribes of the Bengal Presidency. According to Rowe, the Kayasthas of Bengal, Bombay and the United Provinces repeatedly challenged this classification by producing a flood of books, pamphlets, family histories and journals to pressurize the government for recognizing them as Kshatriya and to reform the caste practices in the directions of sanskritisation and westernisation. However, scholars from the University of Berkeley as well as the University of Cambridge have disagreed with Rowe's research by pinpointing 'factual and interpretative errors' in his study as well as criticizing his study for making 'unquestioned assumptions' about the kayastha movement of sanskritisation and westernisation.
H.Bellenoit gives the details of the individual British Raj era law cases and concludes that since the kayasthas are a non-cohesive group and not a single caste, their varna was resolved in the cases that came up by taking into account regional differences and customs followed by that particular caste. Bellenoit also disagrees with W.Rowe by showing that Herbert Hope Risley's theories were in fact used to ultimately classify them as Kshatriyas by the British courts. The first case began in 1860 in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh with a property dispute where the plaintiff was considered an 'illegitimate child' by the defendants, a north-Indian Kayastha family. The British court denied inheritance to the child, citing that Kayasthas are Dvija, "twice-born" or "upper-caste" and that the illegitimate children of Dwijas have no rights to inheritance. In the next case in 1875 in the Allahabad High Court, a north Indian Kayastha widow was denied adoption rights as she was an upper-caste i.e. Dwija woman. However, in an 1884 adoption case as well as a 1916 property dispute, Calcutta High Court argued that Bengali kayasthas have started using names like 'Das' and classified the Bengali Kayasthas as shudras - although the court did acknowledge their Kshatriya origin. The Allahabad High Court ruled in 1890 that Kayasthas were Kshatriyas. Finally, in a property dispute case in Patna in 1926, the Patna court characterized both the 1884 and 1916 Calcutta courts rulings as inconclusive and ultimately ruled that the kayasthas were of Kshatriya origin and hence twice born or dwija. The Patna court cited smritis and Puranas, several colonial ethnologists, such as William Crooke and Herbert Hope Risley, and used their qualified endorsements on the dwija origins of Kayasthas. The British census of 1931 also lists Kayasthas as one of the upper (twice-born) castes.
Kulin Kayasthas are considered elites among Kayasthas, which naturally negates any Shudra linking. Thank you for sparing your time to read through, sir. Regards, Semper Curious Semper Curious ( talk) 08:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear administrator, Mr. Bishonen, I would request you or any other admin active on this page to protect the article on Kulin Kayastha as it is now, and prevent any editor from disfiguring the community's image through low caste branding. Semper Curious ( talk) 08:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I just was archiving my talk and was reminded that you sent me an email - I really do apologize for not responding at the time. It was a rather complex issue, and during my "considering my reply" it just continually got pushed to the back burner ... and eventually it was off the stove. (perhaps that's too much "American speak", I'll translate if needed :-)). Anyway - if time permits and I'm up for it I will try to find the original email, research the issue(s) it involved, and provide a response if you'd like. I really am sorry Bish - it wasn't a deliberate ignore, just one of those senior moments that got away from me. Hope all is well with you and yours. (notwithstanding the current state of affairs on wiki as I know them - I'm sure I'm missing much) As I said - all my best. — Ched : ? — 13:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Please block me for six months. I've reviewed your page on self-requested blocks and I'd like for you to apply such a block to my account. I've got too much stuff to do in real life to continue spending so much time on rote Wikignoming, and I don't intend to return when the six months are up. Pursuant to the question you asked of LaserLegs in an above thread, yes, I would appreciate it if you left an explanatory note on my talk page. As a friendless editor who primarily worked alone, I don't anticipate that my absence will attract much attention, but a note on my talk page might dispel any confusion for anyone who does notice. Feel free to waive the 24-hour waiting period if you wish. Thank you. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I am no longer in the game, but it's nice to see you are still standing up against the morons who are paid donation money for turning the encyclopedia into a toxic playground of advertising agencies by chasing away the actual qualified volunteers. I was mildly surprised by this only because I wasn't thinking of Wikipedia at all when I stumbled upon it. I wasn't surprised to see you mentioned in the article.
If things get too weird, let me remind you there are other hobbies. In my case, preparing free modern editions of out-of-copyright music has turned out to be less interactive, but overall much more enjoyable.. Hans Adler 08:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For trying to defend EN:WP's independance from outside interference...sadly without success. Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC) |
Hi there - saw your note at DRN talk but the thread had been closed, so thought I'd just pop in and say hello!. I figured that I've still possibly got something to contribute here now and then, even if it's much different from what it was before, so might as well I guess! Hope you're doing well. Steven Crossin 05:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey there, reaching out to you directly as you were the blocking admin during the last incident. I know there were issues with Wclifton968 making disruptive edits. Well, recently they put this onto Anti-fascism without a deceptive edit summary:
I reverted as vandalism and left them a templated warning, using a lv. 3 in light of their recent disruptive editing in hopes they'd consider that they were crossing the line again.
Instead they made this response to my warning:
And then put their vandalism back in on the article:
This may warrant a caution message from you. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has accepted the WJBscribe case request under the title Reversion of office actions and resolved it by motion as follows:
Community advised Office actions are actions taken by Wikimedia Foundation staff, and are normally expected not to be reversed or modified by members of the community even if they have the technical ability to do so. In this case an office action was taken against Fram ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who was blocked and whose administrator rights were removed by the role account User:WMFOffice in implementing a Partial Foundation ban ( [85]). No similar action had been taken before on the English Wikipedia, and it proved highly controversial.
In response, Floquenbeam ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Bishonen ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) both used their administrator user rights to unblock Fram ( [86]). Floquenbeam's administrator rights were temporarily removed by WMFOffice ( talk · contribs) ( [87]). WJBscribe ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) used his bureaucrat rights first to restore Floquenbeam's administrator rights, and later to restore Fram's ( [88]).
Although
official WMF policy states that Unauthorized modifications to office actions will not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved
,
JEissfeldt (WMF) (
talk ·
contribs) indicated that the WMF would not implement further sanctions against the admins involved in reversing these actions (
[89]). In recognition of that decision, and of the exceptional nature of the circumstances, the committee notes without comment this series of events. The community is advised that administrators and bureaucrats are normally expected not to act when they know they do not have all of the relevant facts, and that this is especially important with regard to office actions where those facts may be highly sensitive. As a general rule,
wheel warring may be grounds for removal of administrative rights by the committee as well as by the WMF. Lack of sanctions under these exceptional circumstances should not set expectations around similar future actions.
For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv 🍁 02:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
In other words the Arbcom simultaneously surrenders and fence sits. Frightened of upsetting the editors and frightened of upsetting the WMF. They need to find some courage. Giano (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Franz Kafka: Das Schloss | |
---|---|
... about about alienation,
|
Thank you for the roarrrring cookies greeting me! Proud co-aothor of Kafka, I recommend you read some of his writing while away, about unresponsive bureaucracy and non-transparent controlling systems. Or better pick flowers? Anyway, thank you for your stance, and the reminder of "incredibly toxic personalities", a phrase which I hated in 2014. I received an enlightening explanation of what "toxic behaviour" may mean by Nishidani.) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe she has achieved notability now as she continues to be an internet sensation and being one of the most followed celebrity in India and acted in leading roles in multiple films, TV ads etc. 2405:204:D28E:878:49A8:9CF3:AFBB:2078 ( talk) 11:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
What about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee? I only come here once in a while; what should I do? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke talk page access.-- Cahk ( talk) 09:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen - should I address this issue (concerning armed insurgents within the group targeted by US helicopters on the 'Collateral Murder' video) on the Julian Assange talk page? I don't see that it's a controversial addition - with regards to the Wikipedia article I cited ( airstrike of 12 July 2007), the second paragraph states: "In the first strike, the crews of two Apaches directed 30 mm cannon fire at a group of ten Iraqi men, including some armed men, standing where insurgents earlier that day had shot at an American Humvee with small arms fire. Among the group were two Iraqi war correspondents working for Reuters, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen." And again here: /info/en/?search=July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike#Attack_on_personnel where you can follow the references used to support the claim (principally the redacted military report 'Investigation into Civilian Casualties Resulting from an Engagement on 12 July 2007 in the New Baghdad District of Baghdad, Iraq'). Rosenkreutzer ( talk) 10:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
79.53.156.138 is harrassing me. 99.53.112.186 ( talk) 20:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
No, please help yourself, I am going to have a glass of wine in the sunshine for an hour and then play with Sibyl Lady Mendl in my sandbox! Same characters keep cropping up in my life these days! Giano (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen! Remember the little chat we had some months ago about a user using an IP address. [98]. He resurfaced these days.
Thanks. Cinadon 36 18:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Some more users with the same editing pattern, in en.WP (duck test +): [110], [111], [112], [113] Creating various accounts and occupation with Pireaus and Olympiacos FC are some of his most blaring features.
Maybe there are much more. Cinadon 36 19:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I sent you one. :-) Risker ( talk) 21:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. I saw you were one of the few admins to permanently delete accounts. I would like to delete mine since I don't use it anymore. ( N0n3up ( talk) 00:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC))
can you link me to a page about committed identity? thanks. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 18:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi
Could you delete the message? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 22:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
This goat used to be homeless before I sent him here as a token of my appreciation. Please don't eat him.
Rong Qiqi (
talk)
17:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly it was the Fram thing. Please don't listen to that naughty Giano; the goat is old and wise and better as a companion than a meal. Rong Qiqi ( talk) 21:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
μόνας ἀκούω τῶν ζῴων τὰς ἵππους καὶ κυούσας ὑπομένειν τὴν τῶν ἀρρένων μίξιν: εἶναι γὰρ λαγνιστάτας. διὰ ταῦτά τοι καὶ τῶν γυναικῶν τὰς ἀκολάστους ὑπὸ τῶν σεμνοτέρως αὐτὰς εὐθυνόντων καλεῖσθαι ἵππους.(I have heard that Mares are the only animals which when pregnant allow the male to have intercourse with them. For Mares are exceedingly lustful, and that is why strict censors call lecherous women 'mares'.(hippous)'tr A.F. Scholfield
"(You want goat?) No I might a kill I queen...." Martinevans123 ( talk) 15:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I have it on good authority that you are responsible for this. EEK! ANgry-fence-cat's "roarr" made me jump! Speaking of "roarr," best regards to Bishzilla. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 10:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The cakes look delightful.
Would it be wrong to ask an impartial, uninvolved admin (that would be you) to look at a languishing ANI post? I was going to request a third opinion before posting, but the affected editor pre-empted me. I think there are serious civility (toxicity) issues, but the "toxic" editor has accused me of stalking, so I want no further part in this editor's editing. I can trust you to tell me if I'm wrong and to decide what if anything needs doing. Thanks Dlohcierekim ( talk) 10:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, why would I write article talk pages, when I need to write that editor, article talk pages are meant to dicuss about articles not editors. bye, and that certain person Is not readin comments before starting revert war, you are blaming wrong person, thanks and pls stop posting to my talk page also, I dont need comments there, when Im right --> Typ932 T· C 19:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, Hope all's well,
I just wanted to say a big thanks for helping yesterday,
Usually I don't react like that even if I do find the notifs annoying but yesterday was a day from hell and the edit conflicts with the editor every time I tried to do something really didn't help,
Anyway many thanks again for your help it was much appreciated :),
Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk
09:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. Last week you indefinitely blocked User:SNF-87 for trying to game the semiprotection restriction and for clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you for doing that, but, unfortunately, it looks as if they're now back with a new username to do the exact same thing all over again. We've been having problems with this editor making personal attacks and removing sourced content in articles for months now – by my count they've already been blocked at least four times, so I'm not convinced that they they'd respond well to the dispute resolution process. What's the best course of action here? Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks, A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 22:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
You mentioned you had a little script that added a royal crown to a user name if they were an admin. Could you possibly divulge that code and how to implement it? It sounds like it could be not only useful, but kinda "groovy man - like far out" (although perhaps "totes cool" is today's lingo) — Ched : ? — 17:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm about to ping you at Talk:Latino about a circumstantially obvious undeclared sock of Lauracerffer ( talk · contribs). I'm trying to assemble diffs and stuff, but you may have more background on this particular case, not to mention more tools, and thus be able to deal with it more rapidly than I could. If your plate is full, no worries; feel free to ignore, and I'll carry on investigating on my side, and report back eventually. Mathglot ( talk) 23:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Went back through my Email archive "Toshiba CK6R4" and searched for said reply: couldn't find it. Any ideas please?
Hi Bishonen, would request you to check and protect the articles on Nath (surname) & Debnath. The user User:Siddy0070, who is engaged in an edit war, seems to be a sock of User:Siddharthnath0070. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian ( talk) 09:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to be sure you don't miss this [119]. E Eng 07:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Bish - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catahoula bulldog. I just went back over the cited sources in the article - removed the garbage citations, and added tags. I asked Tone to review the close again. Also take a look at the editing experiences of the iVotes - which is great that new editors are getting involved. A few WP:WikiProject Dog editors and I are trying to clean-up articles about breeds that are not breeds, rather they are dog-types, if that, and most are not cited to RS because there are none. I don't think WP considers self-published dog lover/puppymill/hobbyist books as RS, and the same would apply to websites. I want to avoid the back-and-forth with the newbies (so far, I've managed well and have tried to be encouraging) so if you will just take a look at what we're dealing with, and share your thoughts, I'll go from there. Atsme Talk 📧 18:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
That block (71.31.30.66 ) should be for personal attacks, they did some small vandalism yesterday but today their edits weren't vandalism they were simply blanking TP warnings the main issue was the comments in edit summary. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 20:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey Bish, I pinged you earlier about this, but I think this is linked to the socking over at Garner Ted Armstrong. The IP addresses are all different, but the IP editor is restoring the same unverifiable quotation about Merle Haggard and Armstrong that they were warring over on that page, and their talk page comments make it pretty clear they are mostly concerned with linking Armstrong and Haggard. Can you take a look or should I just ask at ANI? Thanks! Nblund talk 15:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
"11:54, 21 April 2016 Nyttend changed protection level for Merle Haggard [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 11:54, 28 April 2016) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Persistent disruptive editing: Addition of copyright infringements by multiple IPs)."Persistent seems right! Incidentally, I do see your ping on Talk:Merle Haggard now, but I did not receive your notification. Unreliable, pings are! 😟 Bishonen | talk 16:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC).
You've got some. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 14:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that gross incivility often gets people blocked and lead to their comments being oversighted within seconds. I notice that other times it doesn't. Here, for example. I suppose that the advantage to this double standard is that I can always link to it to show how en.wp is more toxic for some than others. I noticed that the person who reverted it reported a lot of people for vandalism in the moments following, but didn't report the guy for incivility. I wonder why vandalism is a greater crime than repeated personal attacks? (see also the antz talkpage) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with this . I really do appreciate the culture of fr.wp where ArbCom cases are filed by the name of the prosecutor. Nevertheless, I do appreciate you blocking the single purpose account the instant I reported the attack. I'm not optimistic about the likelihood of Bulldog antz becoming a collaborative encyclopédiste, but you never know. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 09:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks like time could have been saved with an indef. @ Vanamonde93: thanks again for cleaning up the attack. Here is the SPI evidence that Sayerslle is running the account.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
It isn't often that I chortle with glee, while reading WP. But the appearances of Bishzilla make me laugh aloud! Ohh, the raptures... her graceful snout, her fiery eyes, her learned and idiosyncratic discourse! She brings joy to the hearts of all who love her, and worship from afar. (Like *really* far away, those flames look dangerous!) With gratitude, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 21:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
From history, and page history as well; I have learned not to unprotect these folks. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Could you delete this edit? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 23:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I got distracted there and didn't notice your were already dealing with it. Do you want me to remove the username block? -- kingboyk ( talk) 15:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Bloodofox is a wiki-friend and I have formerly collaborated with them; I broke my promise to myself to make fewer than five edits to Wikipedia this month, for the second month, because of their ping and because there are few of us left fixing Norse/ancient Germanic messes. But was the copyright violation at Völva only the failure to attribute when restoring the pre-rewrite version of the page? If so, a new editor would be unlikely to realise that copying within Wikipedia without attribution counts as copyvio, and in light of the personal concerns they revealed on their talkpage, I'd like to plead for some mercy for this well intentioned editor, perhaps in the form of a message from you explaining the coying problem and suggesting they ask for unblock with a promise to cease the insults as well as the death curses. I have been trying to fix the mess of bad links, bad Norse, lack of bolding, on the page and talk them down on their talk page, but I type slowly. Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Bishonen, Bloodofox, I was reading the Litro article linked here <redacted>, thinking it could fit on Presscoverage/Presstemplate at Talk:Carl Raschke, but the article seems to violate WP:OUTING, and the link should perhaps be supressed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Playtime000000 - another sock of that HughD loser. Honestly I don't know why they don't just get a life. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
They had the same "special" signature here, just FYI. They really look like they're WP:NOTHERE imo. They've already been in an edit war and personally attacked someone twice, along with this. - Frood ( talk!) 04:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
pings me on each spree-- how thoughtful of them.-- Deep fried okra 02:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Excuse me, but I saw bad language in one of your userboxes.
The userbox I’m talking about is the one about...
...speaking?
Mind my language, but it said “S*ut u*” in the text of the userbox.
Can I edit your userpage to change the text to something more appropriate?
Rng0286 (
talk)
08:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
This user loves the sound of her own voice. You probably think that if you ignore her she might eventually shut up, but you reckon without her inflated sense of her own importance.(my emphasis) is the offending phrase. I suspect the OP doesn't realize this is self-directed and thinks someone else has vandalized your userpage and they're doing you a favor in pointing it out. ‑ Iridescent 09:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I came here to say something funny about Swedish, but now I see this is serious, Bishonen. The civility police have come for you. Any last words before you are banned? Jehochman Talk 10:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I can’t abide bad language of any description, it displays a very limited vocabulary. Giano’s wife swears a lot; whenever I stay with them, all I can hear is filth being muttered under her breath, but then she’s from Venice, and we all know what they say about people from Veneto - all that filthy water sloshing around. I’m afraid Mrs Bishonen any more of these complaints about you and I shall be forced to contact the WMF and have you sent to the same dark place as the unfortunately vocabularied Mr Corbett. The Lady Catherine de Burgh ( talk) 13:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow... as you have a link to the essay "Complete bollocks", I would have thought that would have been more of a problem! - SchroCat ( talk) 15:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Deepcruze ( talk · contribs) has long been on a Dalit-promotion mission. I've just reverted them again but yesterday left a couple of notes on their talk page because I am utterly fed up of trying to clean up their mess over several years. They removed my remarks without comment, which is typical as they seem rarely (ever?) to engage with other contributors. I realise that removal constitutes acknowledgement of having read the stuff but is this the last straw? - Sitush ( talk) 09:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
"ABVP and NSUI which field mostly Jat or Gujjar candidates for important posts in DUSU", each of which refer to a specific election only, and not to a generic trend; the only source previously supporting the content was a now-defunct right-wing web news outlet, which wasn't terribly reliable. this edit, since reverted by Sitush, added
"the oppressed majority comprising 85% of India's population"as a qualifier to a group previously identified only as "untouchables"; the source supporting it, however, is only reporting a quote from a politician claiming to advocate for said demographic, and doesn't make the claim in its own voice. SpacemanSpiff has given them a warning about caste-related GS, which, as luck would have it, is still valid for three more days. My approach would be to apply a caste-related topic-ban, along with a warning that the continued failure to communicate and to use sources properly will result in an indefinite block. I'm INVOLVED with respect to Indian political parties, and don't want to place the actual sanction. That said, they essentially haven't edited the Article Talk namespace at all...so I'm not exactly opposed to an indefinite block. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen, I removed your PROD from the article Tunde Bakare because I thought there was enough content online for the subject to pass WP:GNG. I have added several citations to the article. If you have time please visit the article to see if your concerns have been helped, or please tell me how I can fix those problems if those issues still are present in the article. Thank you Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to contribute to my RfA and for sharing your own experience. Being compared to you is flattery more than I deserve and to have you do it while addressing the concerns of some neutral and oppose editors is beyond what I could expect. Thank you. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, we seem to have one of the periodic campaigns to substitute revisionist caste history/naming etc at Immanuvel Devendrar. A whole bunch of anons have been having a go these last few days. - Sitush ( talk) 05:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey Bishonen, Many thanks for blocking them,
Obviously we're all volunteers here and aren't required to be here 24/7 but the report had sat there all day without any sort of comment .... so I just assumed everyone passing wasn't bothered and felt no admin intervention was required, ANI is pretty quick when it comes to reports so just assumed no one cared really,
Kinda wished I left it open longer but anyway thanks again for your swift actions :),
Many thanks, –
Dave | Davey2010
Talk
19:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dear, Vanjari Caste is redirected to Banjara. Kindly note the difference between two. And keep both pages separate. As I am not a regular user, so don't know how to make it. Goresm ( talk) 08:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks [124]. Anything in particular? Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no00037962/ - Hope that's not an egg-sucking lesson. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
|url=
with
https://doi.org/10.1093/english/efn039, or you could skip the url altogether and use |doi=
with 10.1093/english/efn039; that's usually verifiable enough (that was what you were asking, yes?)
Vanamonde (
Talk)
19:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I have taken it upon myself to research the Face of Vim for You, however, in these rather gender conscious days I’m not sure Wikipedia will permit her Poor Nadja to be so portrayed. There is this poor female who obviously has a very stressful life; then there’s this unfortunate woman clearly suffering some form of digestive disorder. Indian women fare better, a little dab of Vim behind the ears puts a smile on the face. However, for those with more precious possessions, there is a solution to conserving the Meissen dinner service]. Neither will socialising with friends improve a woman’s worries, her friends have noticed her personal problems. All in all, women had a tough, grime trodden time of it. There is, though, hope on the horizon, her daughters will live in an emancipated society, and she herself, may even get lucky with him. What heady days those where for women. Sadly, I can find no trace of Nadja. Giano (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Have you seen [132]? It's not a RS, but has a specific date for the TV broadcast. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Re this; do you have a copy of Finale? Does it credit the painter of the the dust jacket? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Authorship of the artwork is resolved, though that opens up further questions of who commissioned it, and where it is now. Also, unrelated to that, there are more sources on both Malacridas, at [133]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Bishonen, I recently came upon a brief quotation of yours in some board or Talk page, where you recapitulated what seemed to be a value of yours, which sounded like it might have been oft-repeated, where you spoke about your feeling about how preserving the time of constructive editors was an important goal, or resource, or something like that. The way you phrased it was much better, and I've forgotten the details of it. In any case, it could be a helpful quotation to reference in a situation I'm dealing with, but I can't find it, now. Do you know what I'm talking about? If you can give me a link to that excerpt, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 18:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The reason I removed the sentence "Opponents of Islam (such as Ibn Warraq, Sam Shamoun) have worked to find internal inconsistency and scientific errors in the holy book, and faults with its clarity, authenticity, and ethical message." is because the source doesn't mention or say anything about what is being claimed it says (you can see the source here. [1] Look up the source and see it for yourself. There is NO MENTION of anything about Ibn Warraq or Sam Shamoun at all. The sentence seems to be editorialization. Also Sam Shamoun is unreliable and non-notable source, he is a Christian missionary with no academic background on Islam whatsoever. 46.212.241.21 ( talk) 19:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Asking here as everything seems stuck in the outbox, have you now received 164 and 171? Giano (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
You probably got the ping, but someone is going to yell at me if I don't formally notify you. I referred to a warning you gave Sir Joseph, here. You don't have to bother with it if you'd rather not. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Ahmad Shameel is engaged in promotion, has hijacked Khokhar and moved their talk page to Draft talk:Ahmad Shameel. I can't undo that move. - Sitush ( talk) 09:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
[134] - just wondering if you're trying to get a sleeper check done or just filing it for record purposes (I'm starting to wade back into SPI and this came across my screen, so thought I'd check). Hope you're well! Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 09:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to show that an admin's past interactions with me constitutes a conflict of interest. There is some evidence to that effect on the talk page of Amy Sequenzia, which has been deleted. The article itself cannot be undeleted because it may contain libel, but I would still like to pull some diffs from the talk page if you can help me with that. -- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 00:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Now, that AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Rubin, that's interesting: Bbb claims he acted only as an administrator; Wikiman claims Bbb was pushing a fringe view. The AfD provides not a shred of evidence that Bbb even had an opinion on the matter; he only had an opinion on the matter of Wikiman's crusade--so when Wikiman says, in that AfD, "Please do not push fringe positions", their comment is misplaced: Bbb did not push any position, but only remarked that at AfD the question is whether notability is established.
Wikiman also says, in the AfD, "And I most certainly am on a campaign to eliminate this garbage from Wikipedia". That's fine: we should all be eliminating garbage. But if that becomes one's only goal, and if one thinks one can achieve that goal by making false accusation and mixing up administrative with content-related commentary, one quickly falls into WP:CIR territory, and that is where Wikiman is headed if they don't stop bothering Bbb. Consider this a warning, Wikiman: stop hounding. Drmies ( talk) 01:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind my guests discussing amongst themselves, but this has moved quite a ways from the original thread. Moving it to Talk:Cupping therapy for other editors of the article to see sounds like a good idea. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC).
References
Anitakeshri ( talk · contribs) has been editing, including while logged out, at Kesarwani and related articles but seems not to realise they have a user talk page. I think this is going to need an attention-grabbing short block. I've done a lot of reverting, some of which was for copyright violation but most is simply because they're pushing some POV based on a source from the 12th century. I'm not the only one who has reverted them. - Sitush ( talk) 10:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that the "Viking War Raider Machine" (or whatever its current iteration is), will be moved hither and yon before all is said and done. The WWE folks are a .... umm ... passionate - yes that's it "passionate" lot. Given how often the WWE changes direction, story-lines, and wrestlers names - it's difficult to predict what next month's flavor of the month will be. Good move and all - I'm not complaining of course, just that I noticed it and thought "Bishonen is editing WWE articles? - hmmm - seems more a job of Bishzilla if anything") lol. (plus it was an excuse to drop by and say hi - :)) I hope the entire family is doing well. Cheers. — Ched ( talk) 20:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen!
I have the same complaints from the same User:Cinadon36. I can't contribute in EN:WP. I am getting reverted in few minutes cause he constantly finds excuses to revert me at once. First due he reverted me cause he thinks it is due (a third user reverted him cause he is just saying just nonense just to revert me), now he finds that a book from famous historians is not a RS and now when i did the same, and i deleted a fringe and conspiracy theory from a militant amateur anarchist historian, now he is saying that this section was for too long in English WP!!!
I fear that this attitude is something that we can find it in Greek Wikipedia, where many users think that he is constantly chasing users.
I am banned from English Wikipedia from this user for many months. Please do something Αντικαθεστωτικός ( talk) 07:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I have answered to the ANI. I should have gone there first. Αντικαθεστωτικος does not respect BRD. What is the proper way to deal with this irritating behavior oh his? Cinadon 36 19:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I've written to various people and companies to try to get to use a photo of Nadja for Nadja Malacrida. For instance to Studio Lafayette, [140], which owns the US copyright of a fine portrait from 1929 (=only five years from being PD in the US). And to Vim to try to find their advertisements with Nadja in them. But no luck so far. Anything I find can always be added later. So I've moved my sandbox version to mainspace. If anybody feels like putting it up at DYK, feel free. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
Thanks for creating Nadja Malacrida.
User:Winged Blades of Godric while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:
I am not seeing the passage of WP:N, based on current sourcing.
The most-exploited source is a poem-collection from a publisher of no/little repute and the biography (over there) is written by someone, of no/little repute.
Going by Murdoch (who seems to be the sole source to have covered her), I guess we need to wait unless somebody manages to eventually rescue her :-)
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Winged Blades of Godric}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
∯WBG converse 19:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Winged Blades of Godric. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Nadja Malacrida, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
∯WBG converse 19:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Report of inquest is in The Times - "Motor-Car Over Embankment." 6 Oct. 1934, p. 9 (also report of accident, 4 Oct, p. 14.) Same paper has a brief note that her estate ws ca. £20k - "Death" 30 November, 1934, p.10. Also a fair few mentions in the Court Circular pages etc, marriage announcement - the usual socialite type of thing. - Sitush ( talk) 10:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't normally assess article quality based on who wrote it versus what the content is, but both Giano and Bishonen have overseen more FAs than I've had hot dinners, so the odds that either (in conjunction with Andy Mabbett) would deliberately put a non-notable biography in mainspace are about as likely as Boris Johnson being a trustworthy and credible politician. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
You commented about me in this thread ages ago. For some reason, the article popped up on my watchlist today and I'm not impressed. I can't really stub the thing again but it might help to have some eyes on it because I've been pretty disparaging of what has been going on - copyvio, misrepresenting sources, all the rest of it. Tbh, it is far too vague a subject to ever form a decent article but articles about Brahmins generally tend to fly below my radar because they have a habit of using obscure, native language texts of dubious reliability. This one, thus far, hasn't really hit that point but doubtless it will if I keep complaining. - Sitush ( talk) 10:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
And, since I am in the area, Anitakeshri ( talk · contribs) appears to have just waited out their block then done the same type of rubbish edit again. - Sitush ( talk) 11:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The book cited as reference in the page 'Banafar' mentions some individual person as of mixed Rajput and ahir race but this doesn't mean whole Banafar community become mixed Rajput and Ahir .If some person marries other of different tribe ,this doesn't mean his whole community become 50% mixed .The admins are not opening and reading the source cited it seems. 1 of the policies of Wikipedia is that unsourced claims will be challenged and removed .Then why some admins are making conclusions from some irrelevant articles and instead of removing that unsourced claim ,you are blocking me? Fake information is being spread through your page .People will question Thakur Singh ( talk) 19:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks like you forgot to pull the trigger? Primefac ( talk) 17:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Should I WP:AE this one, do you think? 8675309 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It's not a POV-only warrior, but I do wonder if the account might have changed hands at some point. Block, or TBAN, or ignore? Guy ( help!) 18:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
One of your stalkers may know the answer to this: For the last few days whenever I check changes on my watchlist, instead of instantly seeing two columns of text instantly showing me the difference, I have to wait ages while some demented bar flashes across the screen, then I get a single text with highlights of differing colours. I loathe it! Have I inadvertently clicked something or is this the future? Giano (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, could you please review/monitor edits by User talk:185.7.216.130, and/or block the IP you blocked in March for a longer period? Only vandalism. Thanks, WikiHannibal ( talk) 06:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, we are looking for a person who can help us in removing the page on Wikipedia due to negative comments on the page. please feel free to contact on sunil@socialvive.co.in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmayymahajan ( talk • contribs)
You removed my edit of the entry for hypocrisy stating that it is not meant to attack individuals and not to post my opinion. My update was neither of those things. It was a factual example of what hypocrisy is. A person states one thing, then states the opposite. I am not going to argue for you to put the content back, but I do think your reasoning for removing the content was invalid.
gaber77
You say "Wikipedia:Keep off my talk page! is an essay, not a policy or guidelinme.", but there is not any policy in the reverse direction, either, is there? Wikipedia:User_pages#Ownership_and_editing_of_user_pages only says that it is "sensible" not to edit a talk page when asked, it does not mention blocks; then how could I be blocked for writing on MrOllie's Talk page? Further, you say that I would be blocked specifically for harassment, but how could it be so if I have not harassed anybody? Does Wikipedia really work that way? Notrium ( talk) 23:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
BTW, talking to MrOllie is not my hobby, it is just that explicitly forbidding me from talking to him for no apparent reason seems like unnecessarily stifling freedom of speech. Notrium ( talk) 23:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
On 12 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nadja Malacrida, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nadja Malacrida said in a Vim advertisement that it was "no use having new ideas of decoration if you have old ideas of dirt"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nadja Malacrida. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Nadja Malacrida), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Since I seem to have got you partially interested, I thought I'd complete the seduction with an example of how to include page numbers. [144] E Eng 05:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen
I would like your impartial read of the recent edits in the Thai Pongal Page. There is an editor by the name of 'Pandian tamil' who removes large chunks of appears to be significant material that other editors included some years ago. I try restoring those paragraphs/sentences but he reverts it. Not sure how to proceed. You may perhaps look at it with a fresh objective perspective. I could be wrong but he comes across as very PoV.
Dipendra2007 ( talk) 16:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Bishonen.
And thank you RegentsPark. Useful feedback and suggestions.
I have not really contributed to this particular page. My sense, right or wrong, is that deletion of large chunks of material without discussion may not always be a good idea. I hear you guys though. I do not check Wiki regularly but intermittently do so and will keep in mind. Thank you to all once again. Best regards Dipendra2007 ( talk) 19:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Sara, I hadn't checked Wikipedia since October 15. I liked your edits on the Pongal page. On Puthandu, I briefly head home in late December. I will try to provide the citations after reviewing the material and alert you once done for review. I hear you on why 3rd century and why 8 century etc. I will try to provide the citations or revised language once I get a hand on the source material. Cheers. Dipendra2007 ( talk) 20:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi B, I'm curious about
this unblock, although I do respect your decision. At the time the user page was deleted, it was a
mere sliver.
Now it really feels like fake article/webhost territory to me. I would be interested in hearing a contrary opinion about this.
Regards,
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
20:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Six years! |
---|
Thank you for your all-around roarring presence, on top of that crying is okay here. And thanks for a roarring pie and a roarring thunderstorm ;) - My talk page is more quiet, but today has roarring music (a conductor friend had her birthday), and musing about qualification for adminship, which means teh rulez. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello.
Can you look at
WP:Administrators' noticeboard #More_Andy? The guy harasses me since December, 2013 (of course, I can present more diffs if it matters for anything).
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
17:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Generally I can defend myself, but what to do with shit like [146] or [147] directed at other users? Who of local sysops—but you—may take appropriate actions despite unwritten “licenses” (given to certain Wikipedians)? I mean licenses to post ad hominem stuff, defame and threaten opponents. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 03:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
... with thanks from QAI |
|Thank you for having supported the right candidacy for arbitration. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
How about you, now that he can't? - Thank you! Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Meaza Ashenafi. MB 00:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Salamandra85 (
talk)
18:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
You supported the rough violation of the most important not negotiable neutrality rule by CorbieVreccan and blocked me without a reason.
More details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=924913943#Intractable_behavior_of_users_CorbieVreccan,_Bishonen,_Yunshui
Hello Bishonen. You probably remember me as that editor who, well, broke Wikipedia under the username UpsandDowns1234. Life has gotten a little stressful for me and the current WikiBreak script is broken ATM so I was wondering if you could place a block on my account until 1 January 2020?
About two years ago in the summer I requested one, but you declined it because I did not know how serious a self-block is. I do not want the block to look bad on my block log, but I think a break from editing is a bit necessary, especially with personal matters that may make productive editing difficult. (PS I requested a block on wikiHow with success as well.) Awesome Aasim 01:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Bish, do you know you can enter an exact expiry date in the block settings? The format is awful (something like YYYYMMDDhhmmss UTC) but there's a calendar widget now. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 12:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Just thought I'd stop by to say that I'd never heard of your musical success before today's DYKs!
Unless, of course, it's made by the nibbly pocketing one? Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bish and Bishers--any suggestions on what to do here? These accounts are SPAs, and don't have the decency even to explain what they're doing. Look at their reverts, and count YouTube/Instagram/iTunes/qq (and look at what I removed from the associated discography). I'm losing patience with these fools. Drmies ( talk) 04:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Can you go and accept the speedy deletion nomination here, quickly, please? I don't think it should be left for long, because the editor is likely to use one of her sockppets to remove the tag. 213.205.192.249 ( talk) 12:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Kurdish civil engineer and politician
Hevrin Khalaf,
who worked for tolerance
among Christians, Arabs, and Kurds,
was killed
in the
2019 Turkish offensive into Syria?
What was I told before? Kolg8 ( talk) 02:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
"Well you can appeal the ruling by going to Wikipedia:Deletion review". On Deletion review, first read the instructions for listing an AfD on that page. If you find them confusing, go to the talkpage Wikipedia talk:Deletion review, say what you want to do and why, explain that you're an inexperienced user, and ask for somebody to help you format the listing. Before you do any of this, though, you may want to recall that Dmcq also said
"However I don't think there is much hope for a reversal of the decision.Regards, Bishonen | talk 03:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC).
I read your reply to their novella and I get the impression that you read the entire thing. I was a bit confused. Do you deserve a barn star for reading the entire thing or a trouting for reading the entire thing? I finally decided that an Arctic fox sitting outside my office enjoying the sun was required. I hope it doesn't eat the cygnet. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke talk page access.-- Cahk ( talk) 12:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Interface administrator changes
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Hi there, Bishonen. I wanted to let you know that I'm confident that TurokSwe is violating the indefinite you placed on him and that he is continuing his disruptive behavior from the IP of 94.245.11.29. On Alien (franchise), List of Predator (franchise) comics, Predator (franchise), Zilla (Godzilla), Predator (franchise), Alien vs. Predator (franchise), Tremors (franchise), Ellen Ripley, you'll find this IP address making identical edits to TurokSwe's final edits before they were banned. I'm respectfully requesting a rangeblock on the IP. DÅRTHBØTTØ ( T• C) 11:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
do the necessary? Many thanks! —— SN 54129 14:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
We have entered the "age to come" foretold by Jesus in Mark 10:30.
This is meant to begin a serious conversation about editing, but it is best (necessary) that you know what time it is first.
100.14.80.135 ( talk) 08:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Hi Admin, can you please have a look at the edit summaries used in this page history -->> [1] ... Also your input will be welcome in this discussion too . thank you.. -- Adamstraw99 ( talk) 13:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
This article has been recreated, Priya Varrier. You were the closing admin at the AFD and the deletion review. --Let There Be Sunshine 10:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you the same Bishonen who, once upon a time, a long long time; did something which was later known as Bishonen's empirical thing? —usernamekiran (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
But only thing I could register from wp:blockabdicate, and
that is that you are a lady! I always thought of you as a guy.
Apologies. —usernamekiran
(talk)
18:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
WHY'D YOU TAKE DOWN MY CONTRIBUTION! Heather Clark is a real person and Ms Hathaway and Summer Hathaway are characters from the musical School Of Rock! 28-Meme-Wounds ( talk) 14:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, any chance of you keeping an occasional eye on the activity of Rajshekhar Reddy Arya? They're writing spiels of caste-centric stuff on article talk pages without any supporting sources and quite often using bellicose phrasing. Several people have left them notes on their own talk page, of which I am the latest. - Sitush ( talk) 12:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I was not intending to suggest that some immediate action was required - my note and those given by others previously should have sufficed at that point. But now they have said this. In the world of things caste on Wikipedia, it isn't extremely derogatory etc but it is yet again someone writing sort-of inflammatory comments without providing any supporting evidence. This is the type of thing that often spirals out of control on such talk pages and it bothers me that they are still not getting it after you and I had our say on their talk page. AS you intimated, I really should avoid dealing with this sort of thing at the moment! - Sitush ( talk) 09:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. I don't think they are listening. - Sitush ( talk) 17:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
[2] and [3]. Friends might be reading it. In any event, no good reason for anyone to have to read it. Thanks in advance to you or another talk page watching admin. --- Sluzzelin talk 15:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about my finger trouble over at AN...(I wanted to undo another edit on my watch list,( on Khirbat Lid) and undid yours edit on AN instead, Again, sorry! Huldra ( talk) 20:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
...because I just read this, and laughed out loud. Vanamonde ( talk) 20:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC) |
Hello Bish. A few days ago you blocked Blomsterhagens ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit-warring on Oeselians, but he's at it again, repeatedly making POV edits that aren't supported by reliable sources, and also aren't supported by a consensus on the talk page (see Talk:Oeselians#Ethnicity & language of Öselians and page history of Oeselians). So would you mind taking a look at it, because this is becoming a huge time sink, with anything other editors say being totally ignored by an editor with an obvious lack of competence, not being able to understand simple things, in spite of having them explained to them multiple times (such as mediaeval mentions of "Estonians" not possibly being references to the modern Estonian people, since neither the Estonian people nor the Estonian language existed back then, that we can only use reliable sources, and that we can't present claims in a paper written by a student as if it's the university they're studying at that says it...). Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
"A report published by the University of Helsinki finds the expression to support the identification of Oeselians as a Finnic language group"to the article, without explaining that the source (which shouldn't be presented as "a report published by the University of Helsinki", since it's not an official comment by the university, but a paper published by people active in "Folklore Studies" at the University of Helsinki...) is commenting on a document about a single event in the 13th century, and thus refers to that event in that period of time only, which is grossly misleading in an article that mainly focuses on the Viking Age, that is several hundred years before the event commented on, and is being used by you to support claims you're pushing on other articles about there having existed "ethnic Estonian Vikings"... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Bishonen | talk 19:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC).
@ Thomas.W and Blomsterhagens: Sorry, I can't face immersing myself in this. The subject is too complicated as well as too uncongenial to me. I also don't think it's ready for ANI: it would probably be blown off as a content dispute. How about trying Wikipedia:Third opinion? There are obviously too few people on article talk. Try inviting some more. Winston Churchill talk. 14:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC).
Here's the first sock of Rameezraja001. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello I have been topic banned on that for years and I would like to KEEP that ban, please. Unfortunately, I discovered some potentially dangerous outdated information quoted by the CDC which has since changed (also by the CDC) to the exact opposite of what our article currently says. Not sure how to proceed as I am aware that I am banned on talk pages as well, and the talk page in question has no traffic anyhow-thank you TeeVeeed ( talk) 21:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
More info. so the article itself is not directly ABOUT vaccinations so I think it is safe to say here that it is the Immunocompetence article. What happened was that I noticed recent better definitions of contraindications precautions and safe to give/when to some types of vaccines and "altered immunocompetence" was listed for something and I wanted to look it up so I landed on our page there. The cite is from around 2011 and there is another one from 2016, (from same source CDC)- that says the opposite of what our article says. Thanks again TeeVeeed ( talk) 21:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I just want to say thanks for annotating my block log-book. I would have said it earlier, but I got scare when confronted the lizard. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 09:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your message on my talk page: It should not be necessary to go through an elaborate talk process to amend text which is clearly and obviously POV. "Trump is bad, Trump lied, Trump is racist, Trump is not as rich as he claims, etc." Not a single good point appears in a prominent position. But, hey, that's what Trump does to people, even to experienced wikipedia editors, they lose their independence of mind. The text of the current article is so blatantly a hit-job, which is unworthy of wikipedia. We are not CNN, but nor do we want to be Fox. Somewhere in the middle would be nice. And those responsible for this bias are attempting to maintain it by inserting "DO NOT CHANGE" commands within the text. Some serious and systemmatic rebalancing work, including a thorough line by line examination for bias, conscious or otherwise, needs doing on the article, including an examination of the tone of the article in general. How should we go about that? Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 13:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
"Trump is bad, Trump lied, Trump is racist, Trump is not as rich as he claims, etc."I searched the entire article and couldn't find any of those statements. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Any chance of you having a word with Sardar Jay Khan? This latest edit is fairly typical and they've had a bunch of warnings about edit warring, sourcing etc. I first came across them at Sudhanoti District. - Sitush ( talk) 09:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I have a question on how to move forward with this. I was reading a random anime article and found the grammar to be atrocious. I started looking into who had left it in that state and I came across an editor who's grammar leaves much to be desired, often introducing typos or converting English words into Japanese. I've left a message on their talk page in the hopes that they respond, but given how they removed a warning about a copyvio by dismissing it... I'm not hopeful. Their edit count isn't huge, but it is causing damage to quite a number of articles. What do you suggest? -- Tarage ( talk) 21:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
an editor who's grammar leaves much to be desired– Oh, Tarage! (See WP:TARAGESLAW2.) E Eng 19:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's what I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Nanashi_II&oldid=865267107 I just spent nearly 30 minutes trying to fix this summary, and I don't even know if it's correct. There are so many issues with wording and grammar that anyone trying to read it would be incapable of understanding what's going on. And if it took me this long to fix just one, imagine how much work it's going to take to fix all their edits. I really am not trying to discourage them from editing but this isn't helpful to Wikipedia. This is really bad. This is their most recent edit. I didn't even hunt for it! -- Tarage ( talk) 20:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
...I'm afraid they've resumed adding bad grammar into articles. I'm all out of ideas. I think it's time for a block. -- Tarage ( talk) 06:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
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.
The article is under consensus required. Just an FYI. PackMecEng ( talk) 15:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
"Some pages and topics on Wikipedia are authorised for Arbitration Discretionary Sanctions (DS). Users editing these pages may be alerted that discretionary sanctions are in effect. You must use this template to do so"and WP:AC/DS #alert.dup:
"Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. It is a sanctionable offence to deliberately or carelessly notify a user about sanctions that they are clearly already aware of. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template messageI did not place a formal Ds template here since they would clearly be aware of the sanction they railed against in the past. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
"Users editing these pages may be alerted that discretionary sanctions are in effect".I don't believe it's possible to read your post as anything else. If you'd prefer, I could test opinion at ANI – when you get sanctioned as a result, you'll know I was right. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, Bishonen is certainly aware of the American Politics Discretionary Sanctions as they have issued sanctions under them. But this is beyond stupid; "consensus required" doesn't prevent someone from removing an obvious mistake first added to the article this week. No admin nor the community would ever do anything about this even if you found some rule-lawyer way that it is not allowed; WP:IAR is a rule too. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Too lazy to fill out the WP:AE templates and such. The personal attacks here and here are quite obviously enough for a block, but he's also vio late ed his TBAN. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 17:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
A thread at BLPN: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Milo Yiannopoulos. The editor is name calling (calling me a communist and "unbalanced"), lying through their teeth (I laid it out in my first comment there), accusing me of using personal attacks and Masem has apparently decided to encourage their trolling. I have no idea why, but now that they've gotten some encouragement, this is likely to never stop. Note that this is the user who once told me that "Liberalism is a form of mental illness, you will never see reality though its haze...." because I tried to explain how basic statistics work to them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Bish. Would you mind hiding this farewell message of theirs on their talk page, and remove TPA? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Becky Sharp (character) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Becky Sharp (character) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CapnZapp ( talk) 08:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record, I appreciate you objecting to Lourdes' threat in that close. Lourdes' threat seemed so over the top that I briefly considering asking for the block, just so I wouldn't have to listen to the hysterics in that threat any more. Seeing that several other editors also took issue with that threat was quite encouraging. Seeing you come along and add your note was a reminder that not all of the pointless drama has to end with things worse than before. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm presently mentoring pre-university students for Wikimedia's participation in Google Code-in 2018. I'm teaching them the Lua programming language used in Wikipedia pages. Unfortunately one student has created two identical pages in the Module: namespace. I've moved one of them to the proper place, but to keep things tidy, the other needs to be deleted G6 (housekeeping) as it's merely a duplicate. Sadly, you can't mark module pages for CSD because they won't accept a template.
So, would you be kind enough to examine
Module:Sandbox/Safan41 (the right one) and delete
Module:Sandbox/Safan41/Safan41 as a duplicate, please? The extra text is mine, trying to stop Safan41 from using it. This is one of those exceedingly rare occasions that I could really use admin rights, rather than bothering others with a simple job that I'm not allowed to do.
--
RexxS (
talk)
10:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen
SergeWoodzing has asked me to contact you regarding their stated intention to eliminate errors made because of Swenglish translations whereverer I can and no matter how far they have spread. [7]
The problem as I see it is, these errors seem to include terms that have spread to common English usage. That seems to be what no matter how far they have spread means. So by the practice and policy of English Wikipedia, they are not errors at all. And SergeWoodzing claims to have "corrected" hundreds if not thousands of them.
Are you willing to become involved? Andrewa ( talk) 09:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. No. Non starter. Crashed and burned before. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 12:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke talk page access.-- Cahk ( talk) 12:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I've now edited four times since I decided to stop. I've read your essay. Would you please block me and my main account? Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Objective3000: "We are all just prisoners here, of our own device".-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 12:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you very kindly helped a week or so ago when someone was randomly reverting my edits, especially those on the page for Heaton Moor. You also kindly invited me to mention here if it started again. It has - three reverts today, including two of my edits which were fixes for obvious vandalism. Are you able to help again? Many thanks. C0pernicus ( talk) 14:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
There's only one candidate at the moment, (and they have negligible recent experience). Would Bishzilla consider running? She would occupy all vacant seats by herself; problem solved. Vanamonde ( talk) 17:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, is there a goodreason to retain this local copy, when there were 2 other versions, in higher quality and higher resolution versions on Wikimedia Commons?
There's absolutely no issue in retaining versions like this though, I was just puzzled that no-one had noticed before now. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 23:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
bishapod talk to your inner fish needs to be encouraged to develop. Bishapod gets my vote. Has the required intellect for ARBCOM or DEFCOM or whatever it is. I will vote Bishapod. Suggest campaign slogan Bishapod is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills - but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones that allow Bishapod to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Bishapod apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendants, the four-legged vertebrates - a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals and humans. Bishapod knows where you are coming from, don't matter your species. Vote Bishapod, the inclusive one. Simon Adler ( talk) 04:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
"'Zilla have own sockpuppet: Bishapod a k a Little Stupid. Irritating little user, very stupid, always embarrass 'Zilla, regret creating."As for needing to develop, the first thing he did after he had developed slightly was create the regrettable Darwintwins, over whom he has no control. (Don't suggest they run! For good reasons, they're not allowed in Wikipedia space!) Diversity is not everything. (PS, I think some of the italics may have been unintended, fix.) Bishonen | talk 12:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC).
Hi. Thank you for protecting Angus Gardner ten days ago. I saw that at the WP:RFPP page you mentioned protecting it for 3 months [10], but the protection at the page is set for 1 year. [11]. I am not sure if that was intentional or not. Personally I would be happy to see every current referee protected for as long as they are refereeing, so I was very tempted to ignore this (partly why I am so late in bringing it to your attention). However I feel something like that should be intentional so thought I would double check. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=868697100&oldid=868695887 This is pretty unambiguous. I asked them to retract it and they refused. Given that they are already banned from commons for... legal threats... I think a block here is needed. -- Tarage ( talk) 21:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The e-mail is about a creep on Wikipedia who uses it to target victims. Lolifan ( talk) 20:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for responding, Bishonen. I'll let ArbCom know. Lolifan ( talk) 21:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Per this section, do you think that you might also want to full-protect his talk page for the duration of his block, if he wants to stop his interaction? It's probably OK if you don't, but we should let his talkpage go silent. Semi Hypercube ✎ 23:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Bishonen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I posted information on the page of Stefano Gabbana. The information is confirmed by The Guardian, NBC, CNN, SCMP, etc. The modification is NOT vandalism. Please read the news and do not keep deleting the information and covering the truth. Jensonw ( talk) 01:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Bish, I saw your name at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Once I finish up what I feel I need to do on Wikipedia (within the next couple, few or several months), will you consider indefinitely blocking me? I think I've had enough of Wikipedia, and one way to ensure that I don't return is indefinitely blocking this account. I won't be tempted to create another; my whole identity on Wikipedia is with this one. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Bishonen. Seasons greetings. Could you help me? I am trying to reorganize Planet Nine to have logical sections. What’s there has grown chaotically as discoveries were published, resulting in a convoluted mess. I need the eye of a non-astrophysicist. Lurker comments are welcomed. Jehochman Talk 17:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Jehochman: Well, I think I'd better put my observations here for your consideration, since I'm speaking as a 13-year-old reader (I think that's supposed to be Wikipedia's ideal reader), and I don't want to be torn apart by grown-up astrophysicists on article talk. So:
Better not say "the clustering of the orbits" as if that's something known to the reader. The "clustering" needs to be mentioned/explained in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what it means to say that it was "scattered" onto an eccentric orbit. I mean, it's supposed to be big and round and whole — not scattered. Is it a term of art?
I agree the TOC needs to be clearer and tighter. Specifically, how about "Origin" —> "Possible origin", and "Alternate hypotheses" —> "Alternate explanations for the effects" ? It's true that "Previous models with additional planets" wouldn't fit into that, but then it already doesn't fit. Shouldn't it be its own top-level header? It's history, so it should theoretically be high up, though the trouble with that is that reading about the historical background is a lot less interesting than reading about the Superearth itself. Maybe shorten it drastically (since there are "main articles" that cover it) and move it up?
It would be nice if "Searches for additional extreme trans-Neptunian objects" could also be packed away somewhere where it doesn't interrupt the main narrative as much.
(So are you following the fates of InSight?) Bishonen | talk 18:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC).
Hi Bish: some young fans of Bishzilla want to know if she has a twitter account (they apparently searched for it already and couldn't find it, I was going to send you an email about this but must blame distractions). The two kids are super impressed by her fridge and the cozy pocket! On a less serious note, I was trying to change the title of the Kama Sutra article, one I am reviewing and updating these days. The title that is predominantly found in the RS is Kamasutra ( [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] etc), consistent with the title of the original text. The word split and capitalization of the second part is uncommon. I tried to move it. The message I get is this move needs some admin action. FWIW, I checked the archives and talk page, there is no relevant discussion on why Kama Sutra, rather than Kamasutra as the title. I see Hijiri88 created a redirect in 2006. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 13:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Одни правила Википедии прямо противоречат другим, и выполнение одних правил всегда приводит к нарушению других, что не является нарушением правил. Так, например, наличие административных прав позволяет одним участникам принимать решения без консенсуса с другими, что приводит к возможности злоупотреблений, а разрешение игнорировать все правила (пятый столп, или викиидеология - либеральная пятая колонна) приводит в том числе к нарушению этичного поведения и к конфликтам. Блокировки участников и удаления страниц снижают популярность проекта в обществе и качество материалов. Одним из сомнительных факторов в русском разделе Википедии является так же оплачиваемое участие.
Жёсткие правила не являются недостатком, если все участники их придерживаются, но поскольку правила противоречат друг другу и сами себя нейтрализуют, то фактически начинают действовать другие, не оглашённые закономерности, основанные на произволе участников, ограниченном их уровнем образования и нравственности, техническими условиями ресурса и законами окружающего мира. При этом малое количество участников с дополнительными правами ограничивают добавление информации, иногда вопреки улучшению статей, но не могут осуществить полный контроль над проектом, поэтому в остальной части Википедии большинство обычных пользователей могут бесконтрольно добавлять всякую информацию. В основном люди делают больше хороших правок, улучшающих статьи, именно за счёт этого Википедия и развивается.
В общем и целом, правила вторичны по отношению к целям Википедии. И это означает, что для достижения цели все средства хороши.
Одна из проблем Википедии - это подмена истинности и объективности информации на авторитетность.
Абсолютная истинность - это идеальное состояние, которого нельзя достичь в силу разных ограничений. Но это вовсе не значит, что не нужно стремиться к истине.
Истина имеет уникальное свойство: если люди стремятся к истинности и объективности, их субъективные мнения всё меньше отличаются и содержат меньше противоречий. Люди, ищущие истину, рано или поздно приходят к единому мнению. В споре рождается истина.
Если участники спора не могут прийти к единому мнению, это может означать:
Недостаточный уровень знаний. Участники могут имеют недостаточно знаний в данной области. Наука открыла ещё не все законы, и мы многого можем не знать. Чтобы преодолеть это, нужно получать образование, учиться и познавать новую информацию об окружающем мире и его законах. Недостаточный уровень нравственности. Некоторые из участвующих в обсуждении могут не стремиться привести своё субъективное мнение к объективности. Следует учитывать, что доказательство не обязательно предполагает истинность. Доказывать можно и нечто, не соответствующее истине, причём вполне успешно. Но к истине это отношения не имеет.
Если по каким-то причинам не удаётся преодолеть противоречия в различных вопросах, в этом случае нужно придерживаться правил этики, чтобы избежать конфликтов, и попытаться продолжить поиск истины. Если нельзя достичь истины сейчас, это не значит, что её невозможно будет достичь в будущем. LllKSTlll ( talk) 21:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) I'm sure it was well-intentioned. To save everybody else from having to Google translate, here's what it says:
Wikipedia Rules
Some Wikipedia rules directly contradict others, and the implementation of some rules always leads to a violation of others, which is not a violation of the rules. For example, the presence of administrative rights allows some participants to make decisions without consensus with others, which leads to the possibility of abuse, and permission to ignore all the rules (the fifth pillar, or wikideology - the liberal fifth column) leads, inter alia, to the violation of ethical behavior and conflicts. . Locking participants and deleting pages reduces the project’s popularity in the community and the quality of materials. One of the dubious factors in the Russian section of Wikipedia is also paid participation.
Strict rules are not a disadvantage if all participants adhere to them, but since the rules contradict each other and neutralize themselves, then other, non-announced laws based on the arbitrariness of the participants, limited by their level of education and morality, technical conditions of the resource and laws, start to act. the world around us. At the same time, a small number of participants with additional rights restrict the addition of information, sometimes despite the improvement of articles, but they cannot exercise full control over the project, so most ordinary users can uncontrollably add any information to the rest of Wikipedia. Mostly people make more good edits that improve articles, it is due to this that Wikipedia is developing.
In general, the rules are secondary to the goals of Wikipedia. And this means that to achieve the goal all means are good.
One of the problems of Wikipedia is the substitution of truth and objectivity of information for credibility.
Absolute truth is an ideal state that cannot be achieved due to various limitations. But this does not mean that one should not strive for the truth.
Truth has a unique property: if people strive for truth and objectivity, their subjective opinions differ less and contain less contradictions. People seeking the truth, sooner or later come to a consensus. In a dispute, truth is born.
If the parties to the dispute cannot reach a consensus, this may mean:
- Insufficient level of knowledge. Participants may not have enough knowledge in this area. Science has not yet discovered all the laws, and we may not know much. To overcome this, you need to get an education, learn and learn new information about the world and its laws.
- Lack of morality. Some of the participants in the discussion may not seek to bring their subjective opinion to objectivity. It should be borne in mind that evidence does not necessarily imply truth. You can prove something that does not correspond to the truth, and quite successfully. But this has nothing to do with the truth.
If for some reason it is not possible to overcome contradictions in various issues, in this case, you must adhere to the rules of ethics to avoid conflicts, and try to continue the search for truth. If truth cannot be reached now, it does not mean that it cannot be achieved in the future.
Fascinating essay, and quite unrealistic. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not see the warning this until after the last edit. At the end of the BLP I said there doesn't appear to be a BLP issue here and that I would continue the conversation as far as LEAD and NPOV goes. Nobody there objected to that plan. I'm not sure I understand how I "severely or persistently violated Wikipedia policy". I asked you this initially and received no clear response. WP:BLUDGEON is not a policy. I've participated on a number of 3rd opinions and have seen some pretty lengthy and heated exchanges over seemingly trivial details. Based on my experience, I would not consider this talk page a lengthy discussion nor an example of WP:BLUDGEON, but I could be wrong. I felt I was understanding the others position and we were actually making progress, having a WP:civil discussion, following the guidelines of WP:TALK#USE, WP:TPG#YES and WP:TPNO and moving towards a consensus without edit warring. Had you let things play out a little longer I think you would have been surprised. Perhaps the fact that this article is somewhat political there is a different standard. I realize you are probably very busy, but I would like to discuss this a bit further. Dig deeper talk 02:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Bish! After years of being busy along with maintaining a technologically bereft state, I am ready and willing and ABLE to throw some time into this project again. I am looking for a sponsor in good standing to nominate me for administrator responsibilities. You are the first person I have asked, but I plan to let Slim V and DMCDevit know that I am "back" as well. It's been awhile, but after some English Lit. credits, my writing style is MUCH better than it once was. You could also count on my continued stalwart attitude concerning the improvement of the project through reversion and cleanup of vandalism, and the kind of guidance I have been able to provide to newbies and certain problematic editors who I think I was able to help become productive and genteel in their editing here. In short, I wish to be the kind of admin I always was. Questions, comments and ideas are appreciated. Talk to you soon... Best Regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 19:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Can you explain the appeals process for this post-1932 politics topic ban? Thx. KidAd ( talk) 04:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
For your reply over this edit :-) ∯WBG converse 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC) |
I saw your comment at ANI (it's suppressed, so I can't link to it, but I read it). I went and looked through HF's talk page and re-read the BN discussion (which I had just glanced through the first time). I was thoroughly unimpressed by Leaky Cauldron's comments, and I think it's quite understandable that Hamster Fan's a bit miffed. If I'd seen that beforehand, I'd probably have just dealt with the vandal and more or less ignored ANI. That said, I think the tone at ANI at the point that I had pinged you was not nasty: do you disagree? I can't fault you for not wanting to step in, but I wasn't sure if your comments about biting were directed at me or at Leaky Cauldron and Iri; if it was me, I'd like to know. Best, Vanamonde ( talk) 15:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Re Sandeep7422. You topic banned them from Rajput related articles a couple of years ago but they seem to be back in action again (see [20]). Could you take a look?-- regentspark ( comment) 17:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I won't be editing anymore. I want people to leave me alone and stop posting on it. If I don't edit there's no reason for the talk page to be unlocked. I want to be left alone. -- Tarage ( talk) 19:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Could I beg another favour please? I'm currently mentoring a bunch of youngsters for Google Code-In. One of the tasks I've set them is to copy a piece of code from Module:Sandbox/RexxS/SayHello into their own module sandbox and then make a small modification. Naturally, Sod's law comes into play and several of the students have been modifying Module:Sandbox/RexxS/SayHello instead of their own copy. Page history.
Do you think you could protect Module:Sandbox/RexxS/SayHello in its current state until 12 December (the end of Google Code-In), please? It really doesn't need editing in the meantime, honest. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Could you possibly use your magical powers and see if you can find a stubby article I wrote and illustrated years ago called Broxwood Court. It seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth. Perhaps I misspelt the title in the original. All very odd. Giano (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The brow is smooth, and the mind is clear and placid. Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 22:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC) |
I read above that you are not feeling well, so I just want to let you know that you are appreciated and respected here. I hope that you feel much better soon. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe this IP is being used by " Rameezraja001" in order to evade his block.
Exact same concerns ( promoting non-neutral Indian POV on articles, anti-foreign influences), same target articles, same proficiency in English, never capitalizes letters, etc. The IP also has the "trademark" habit of cluttering talk pages of Rameezraja001's interest with WP:FORUM-like WP:OR theorycrafting (i.e. Rameezraja001, [27] IP in question [28]). - LouisAragon ( talk) 17:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Would you be willing to please block my account for 6 months? Seraphim System ( talk) 00:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Christmas! | |
Hello Bishonen, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD| Talk 08:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
![]() |
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. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 20:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC).
Hello Bishonen: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
22:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! |
Ah, it's the little Coffman! Merry to you too!
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
|
Hi Bishonen, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
Have you checked that Darwinbish is properly vaccinated for the shopping-returns season?
This comment is possibly due to a rumour I read that I like to pedal fish. Just thought I'd see if en.wp had any extra stock photos, and I discovered tex! ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c 23:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas from London, Bish ...
and a New Year filled with peace and happiness (and grapes, tangerines, panettone, ricciarelli, pan d'oro, and ciocolattini).
Best wishes, Voceditenore ( talk) 08:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Austral season's greetings |
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
Merry
Rexxmas
2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
Cinadon36 ( talk) 11:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure this anon is just out to vandalise dates. I've reverted a few but have to go out now. - Sitush ( talk) 10:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Blocked by JamesBWatson, and another that turned up was blocked by MaterialScientist. - Sitush ( talk) 13:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Vfrickey's user page strikes me as somewhat polemical. You and I are specifically mentioned, and I am attacked as making a discussion "political" by, if I recall the context correctly, calling Breitbart.com an unreliable source of information. I was gonna just blank the portions that explicitly referred to me, but thought it best to ask your opinion of the matter first. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Blocking a user for yelling Vandalism to try to "win" a content dispute. The rule that the baseless allegation of vandalism is a personal attack has always been on the books but is seldom enforced. It needed to be done in this case (and some others). Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
Is there any way that you can get Chekaun to understand why a source written in the 12th century is not reliable? They came off there block and just went straight to my talk page with basically the same question I'd already answered there at least twice just before their block; then they waited a few hours and have posted this. The source they are wanting to use is Periya Puranam. - Sitush ( talk) 14:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
(
edit conflict × 4) You need to have Preferences → Editing → Enable the editing toolbar
ticked to see Sitush's toolbar. Your old toolbar can be returned by unticking that preference and ticking Preferences → Gadgets → Editing → Enable the legacy (2006) editing toolbar. This will be overridden by the "Enable the editing toolbar" option in the Editing tab.
Not my fault there are so many. --
RexxS (
talk)
22:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
There are three toolbars that you can enable from Preferences. One is on the Editing tab and two are in the 'editing' section of the Gadgets tab. Play with ticking/unticking them and saving (at the bottom) each time. See which one(s) you like - you can't have both of the top ones at once. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Coming full circle, please, please can you bring down the hammer on them? What a timesink, per their overnight edits to articles and their own talk page. - Sitush ( talk) 13:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, someone has just moved Muthuraja to Muthu Raja without discussion and, I think, in violation of WP:COMMONNAME. I thought I was now able to move such things back after a recent change in user rights but it seems not. Can you or one of your watchers please oblige. Rationale is "undiscussed move, seemingly contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. See WP:RM". Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 11:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Since the expiry of DS protection imposed by Spiff at Kongu Vellalar, the article has become a complete mess again. I've just issued a couple of sanctions notifications to recent edit warring contributors but, honestly, the thing has been trouble for years, in particular from a long-standing sock farm. Can anything more be done? I suspect Spiff would have reinstated the protection had they been active. - Sitush ( talk) 07:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I've also had to revert recent edit warring at Muthuraja, which involves some of the same contributors. - Sitush ( talk) 07:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I've now asked for the Kongu Vellalar article to be semi'd indefinitely via WP:RFPP. However, there is still the issue of continued edit warring and one character, in particular, is making all sorts of other mistakes, ie: Jkalaiarasan86 (nopinged because they also don't seem to understand appropriate talk page usage & you can probably do without them here). - Sitush ( talk) 10:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
During the 7th to 8th centuries, the Mutharaiyar served as feudatories of the Pallava dynasty and controlled the fertile plains of the Kaveri regionisn't own work, even though I haven't tracked it down yet. - Sitush ( talk) 17:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Sitush:, @ RexxS:, @ Bishonen: Hi, I would like to add some context to the recent edits in Muthuraja and Kongu Vellalar articles. To cut to the chase, as Sitush rightly pointed out, it is generally the tendency to portray one's own caste as superior. In this case the edit wars were started by Jkalaiarasan86 ( talk · contribs) when he made this edit [30]. This is confirmed by a user of the opposing team [31]. The varna Sudra is perceived as derogatory and lower in status than Kshatriya. So the users of Kongu Vellalar page reviewed Jkalaiarasan86's contributions and assumed that he belonged to the Muthuraja community and started edit warring in that page. That being said, the version that was being reverted to, by Jkalaiarasan86, was in fact the version as edited by me. I've spent considerable amount of time doing some research and made some genuine edits to the article after collating the refs. So please use your discretion when you revert the article to some stale version. Thanks, Nittawinoda ( talk) 17:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke talk page access.-- Cahk ( talk) 10:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Symbolic gesture, really, but would you be willing to block me until 15:33, 2 February 2019. I'm going for the same reason MjolnirPants did, and I'd like to be blocked for the same period. I'm not sure if you accept "self-block renewal" requests, but if so: three weeks is a really short time, so after that three or six months or whatever your standard offer is would be fine.
And I'm sorry for an additional request but it would be a tremendous help if you could wait until about 24 hours after someone gets back to me on this (or if you know the answer you could get back to me?) so I can clean up some other stuff first.
On a basically unrelated note, I'd like to apologize for all the trouble I brought to your talk page over the years, but I want you to know I really appreciated all the assistance you provided, even when it wasn't exactly what I "wanted" to hear.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
11:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I want to reinstate the page for Grace Akinlemibola, Chicago born but who is also Nigerian and Israeli, for a few reasons. I think the issue before (aside from unnecessary heckling) was that there were not any media posts, although I had already pointed to a few. I'm now showing a few posts about her, including the following: (1) "Why Grace Akinlemibola is God" ( https://news.softsolutionslimited.com/2018/11/24/7-reasons-why-grace-akinlemibola-is-god/); (2) a Chicago artist painted her as God ( https://nypost.com/2017/05/30/uproar-over-artists-painting-of-god-as-a-black-woman/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons); (3) a scrutiny of her business ( http://www.marketpressrelease.com/The-ins-and-outs-of-Grace-Akinlemibolas-billion-dollar-business-1542253842.html); (4) lashing out at fraudulent media ( https://news.softsolutionslimited.com/2018/11/17/ex-rahm-emanuel-staffer-lashes-out-at-fraudulent-media/); (5) she's anti-Beyonce ( https://news.softsolutionslimited.com/2018/11/16/grace-akinlemibola-is-not-a-fan-of-beyonce-knowles-2/).
Aside from this, she will also be releasing a book called THE LION KING with Austin Macauley Publishers, who have written about her and confirmed on social media. The book is said to be sold in over 7 different countries, including South Africa, China, UK, and Japan. She is also a screenwriter for Usher Raymond IV. She also filed the Anti-Corruption Lawsuits and has been a dominant figure behind-the-scenes, and/or apparently, in the Anti-Corruption Movement, where an African television producer has a program about her as well. Quite frankly, I think it's a bit ill-willed the way things went down the way it did with her prior Wikipedia page because treating someone like that is not deserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiKing7 ( talk • contribs)
Per WP:WHEEL, when another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, the same action should not be reinstated without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. Page logs for User talk:Tarage shows that you have reinstated an admin action that was reversed by Swarm. feminist ( talk) 05:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Bishonen and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, feminist ( talk) 13:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The IP at List of James Bond villains, who you've blocked twice under different addresses, appears to be back, making the same disruptive edits again, but now adding pointless anchors to Skyfall as well. I don't what you would want to do now, but I just informing you of what's happening. -- Ted Edwards 12:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Not too late, I hope ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for the present drama. I don’t even care about that damn talk page, I was just trying to do the right thing. In hindsight, coming to you first would have saved people a lot of time and energy. If you still feel that it is the right thing to do, please feel free to reinstate the protection. It’s all good. Hope all is well. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 17:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
"Yeah, I'm way ahead of you. I just woke up and went to reverse my action. I'll do it now."Isn't that what "way ahead of you" means — that I'd already decided? It seems odd that everybody at the RFAR is saying that I decided to self-revert because of feminist's note. I wonder if I used the idiom wrong (I'm not a native speaker), or if simply nobody believes me. Anyway. Shrug. OK, since we have had this mini-discussion, and you have so nicely let me decide, I think I will reinstate the protection. Thanks, Swarm. Bishonen | talk 19:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC).
In response to this request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has determined that arbitration is not required at this stage. While the Committee takes community concerns about wheel-warring seriously, they agree that in this instance the issue has already been resolved by the parties, and does not require further examination. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv 🍁 15:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
that I think Sitush would make a fantastic admin?-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 04:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
If
Hello Bishonen. Please can I request a IP6 range for this IP range [33]. They are repeatedly making unsourced edits to WWE events. The pattern of edits seems similar to a user I requested a range block of before (see [34]). The user has been warned under various IPs in the same range (see [35], [36] and a final warning [37]), but continues to make similar edits under a different IP in the same range [38]. Silverfish ( talk) 13:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts here - there's another account that's just popped up making the same edits after the semiprotection (MrTinchuri) if you're up for banning another one. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 20:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for popping up here, but I doubt anyone bothers to watch my page these days (profuse mutterings of contradiction would be nice), but I need a justifiable reason to upload the image here for a new page I am starting to write about Edward VIII and his psycophnantic friends. Anybody know how to get round copyvio on this before that Stan man or one of his sidekicks object. Giano (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
minimize the total number of times items of non-free content are included, so you might be reasonably limited to one such image; if you find a better one, the article content might need adjusting.On a lighter note, great subject; I recently covered some of their...other friends ;) take care! —— SerialNumber 54129 21:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I have a quandary with which I am unhappy, and as I always come to you in these situations: here I am. I need the advice of your cosmopolitan salon. My lovely new page is coming on nicely, but by necessity, as this angle of the abdication has not really been that well researched most of the reffs were written before 1980, when attitudes and tolerance were less widespread than today - and people thought quite differently. So while it's Ok to explain why the older royals had Victorian views, is it OK to say this [40] even though it is said and reffed in the forward to the book Rat Week? Is it even true, I woudl have thought a homosexual would understand love as well as the next man, but then perhaps in 1936 they wouldn't have? I don't know. But I don't want the force of Wikipedia's modern thinkers coming down upon me - if I put it in main space. Do we have any opinions here? Giano (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I took my concern to both AN & ANI, because 'sometimes' you've got to go to more then one place, to get the attention of the right folks. GoodDay ( talk) 21:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
you see that there is general agreement that raising the same issue in multiple places muddies the waters of consensus. So what you have to ask is how does asking the same question on both AN and ANI improve the encyclopedia? If the answer to that is "it might reach a different/broader/more knowledgeable/etc. audience", then you can see why IAR doesn't apply. IAR has to be reserved for cases where the improvement to the encyclopedia is not only obvious to all, but also direct, as the consequence of invoking IAR for hypothetical improvements somewhere down the line would be to give disruptive editors a licence to ignore any rule at their whim.Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus
I think IndianHistoryEnthusiast is retaliating for my comments etc at Talk:B. R. Ambedkar by moving articles from mainspace into draft, such as M. S. A. Rao. I could revert them but it will just extend what I think they perceive to be a battle. - Sitush ( talk) 12:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Is this some sort of a sick joke? Why does the Draft:Anand Ranganathan doesn't get to be an article while M. S. A. Rao gets to be one? I have merely applied the same standards there? @ Bishonen: IndianHistoryEnthusiast ( talk) 12:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I didn't realise you were a magician. Is there no end to your abilities?
AGF seems to have gone out of the window, and your last reply has been followed by someone who is likely to find themselves at ANI before too much longer: all comment, no action. - Sitush ( talk) 12:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Bishonen, I have been following this discussion over at ANI. I just wanted to encourage you to continue with your good practice of issuing self blocks for other editors since I agree with Dlohcierekim's edit here that it works out in most cases, and I think the system just got taken advantage of in this one particular case.
Also, I see here that there are actually quite a number of other admins who perform this function as well. I noticed that Beeblebrox has an effective looking list of conditions that you may wish to borrow some ideas from if they will permit it. I hope you find this to be helpful. Thanks. Huggums537 ( talk) 06:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
1) You do not comment on Arbcom, RFA, or ANI.
2) You do not edit any topics to do with project space.
3) You do not contact any of the editors that you previously had issues with.
Unfortunately, Betty Logan's ping of me never showed up, or I probably would've commented earlier; I hadn't realized a discussion had been prompted by the comments left on my page. I only noticed today because I was, in all honesty, looking into Huggums537's edits after their bizarre appearance on my talkpage, which made me suspicious. The absolute irony of the user who offered those ridiculous comments on my talkpage apparently busily doing the exact same thing in stalking Hijiri is blowing my mind a bit. I'm bothered by the discussion here, and a similar (shorter) one that occurred at Ivanvector's talkpage which seem to be overly focused on looking for all the different ways in which one can skirt interacting with Hijiri as closely as possible without technically interacting; it's not a good sign, or a good look. Grandpallama ( talk) 21:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Not yet, perhaps, but very soon it looks like the attentions of an admin may be needed regarding goings-on at Vanniyar, which has long been a target for the caste glorifiers etc. The to-ing and fro-ing is obvious in the recent history but Talk:Vanniyar#Consensus on Adding "Origin" Section is the crux of it and I'm now being accused of favouring one POV even though the "alternate" involves sources that the WP community has long regarded as unreliable. They've reverted even after I posted this, the last in a line of explanations of policy etc. - Sitush ( talk) 16:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
What do you think about the possibility of Andyudeydry being a sock of Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. Former turned up two days after you topic banned the latter and has a similar obsession with the Koli people, including some cross-over at articles such as Juna Padar. They're using equally poor sources (although that isn't uncommon) and they've created a couple more useless articles about subclans to add to the rubbish that Thakor was creating. I suppose it could be a meat thing if someone has been ranting on a Koli community web forum or similar. - Sitush ( talk) 04:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Their edits at Mazagon Fort are pretty much identical - [41] vs [42]. - Sitush ( talk) 04:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh no! There is also Suttoo Deshmukh doing broadly similar stuff. This could get messy. - Sitush ( talk) 04:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Compare this to the warnings and alerts on their talk page. They're not going to give up ignoring WP:V etc. - Sitush ( talk) 05:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Please reduce the protection level :) SheMoveItLike ( talk) 16:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
AsOd19 ( talk · contribs) has just gone too far at the Baidya article, I think. They've had the notifications but have warred the stuff in again. - Sitush ( talk) 16:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Periodically, and usually because someone rants on a community forum, we get a series of anons and newly registered accounts going mad at articles relating to the Nair caste. There have also been some checkusered sockfarms in the past.
They seem to be active at the moment, eg: at Nambiar (Nair subcaste) and Nayanar (Nair subcaste). I could ask at RfPP for temporary semi or pending changes protection but the former will not resolve the long-term problem and the latter is dependent on the reviewer actually checking the sources, which in my experience often does not happen. Is it worth putting 30/500 on those two articles, as has been done at the main Nair article? As it happens, they may have a point at the Nayanar one but the solution to that is to engage on the talk page, where I have started a thread. - Sitush ( talk) 06:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you aware of your topic ban on Padmanabhanunnips ( talk · contribs) being lifted? They returned during my last long-ish absence and I've only just spotted what they've been doing, eg: I have just had to revert all of their edits to Pushpaka Brahmin (which seemed then to encourage others to amend those changes) and at Ambalavasi. Suspect I will have to revert everything they have done, everywhere, since their return to caste articles. - Sitush ( talk) 23:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Bish, would you (or some helpful stalkers) be willing to apply some revdel at Shehla Rashid Shora? Some of the revisions are egregious BLP violations, others are less egregious but still violations, and as I'm involved I don't want to make the call about which to delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 04:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I just asked the user to please stop sending me e-mail (I've already received two). I don't really have anything else to say except what I said at the SPI. HJ Mitchell knows more about this master's behavior than I do. So does Nableezy, but I can see why in this particular instance they might be biased.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I could ask at Talk:Thomas Dixon (nonconformist) but it would likely sit there for years without a response, so here goes.
Thomas Dixon (nonconformist) is one of those awful copy/paste jobs from an old public domain source. Worse, it is a copy/paste of a public domain source via a third-party transcription, ie: Wikisource. It is inevitably crap - people who did that sort of thing back in the day didn't even bother to wikify and comply with MOS, let alone attempt some basic checks on what is said. Anyways, the article actually covers two Thomas Dixons, father and son, which is a little clumsy for linking from articles such as Bank Street Unitarian Chapel, where both of them served as ministers. It would, in my opinion, be better if the two guys each had their own article but that then makes for some decision-making regarding what titles should be used.
We could do dates, ie: Thomas Dixon (1680-1729) and Thomas Dixon (1721-1754), or we could do Thomas Dixon senior (nonconformist) and Thomas Dixon junior (nonconformist) - or some combination of those two styles. Or there may be better alternative, of course, including just leaving it as it is. I suppose I could also create redirects from those redlinks back to the existing article but that is really clumsy, imo, and I think someone who has an interest in disambiguation and redirects would scream at me.
I know I will have to propose any split etc at the article talk. What is a reasonable amount of time to wait for responses before being bold about it? I can't even make my own mind up! - Sitush ( talk) 06:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Your edit seems to exist in the world of the Asura (Buddhism). :( Mrspaceowl ( talk) 16:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
Hi Bishonen I've recently come across two accounts, of which I have no doubt they are the same person (they edit the exact same topic areas). However, the second account was created about a day after the first account stopped editing after making about 130 edits (and has not edited since). As I cannot see any malevonence behind this sockpuppetry (there don't appear to be any disputes, blocks etc.), but it does not seem to be a WP:CLEANSTART, due to the accounts editing the same topic areas, should I report it? I can, if you like, email the usernames of the two accounts. -- Ted Edwards 19:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Is this sort of thing really acceptable from someone who has been here for years and has in the past held "high office"? I am assuming that the Twitter account, whose profile/description aligns with that of a registered account here, is not in fact a fake. - Sitush ( talk) 10:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, just seen this ANI thread about someone else, where there is an allegedly similar situation and the person I am thinking of above has commented! - Sitush ( talk) 11:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
You may remember CEngelbrecht2 from such hits as Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction, Blocked or the rockin' classic Blocked again. Well, they have returned to their hobby of spewing forth hyperbolic and demeaning rhetoric at the Aquatic ape hypothesis talk page again, calling it a "warzone" where sources supporting the theory are "censored away" and declaring that "Any and all edits, that doesn't scream the knee-jerk assumption, that any version of aquaticism in recent hominin evolution is psychotic lunacy gets deleted within hours as a matter of course." Complete, of course, with bloviate quotes from well known scientists and all the same attitude of "I'm so much smarter than the rest of you" that led to his initial topic ban. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Not even a week since your self-requested block expired, you mean, young Pants?Yes, indeed. It's making me wonder if coming back was even worth it, but I suppose my addiction must be fed. In all honesty, I don't think a warning will get the job done, but I've been wrong before, and this is something it's better to be wrong about, so fingers crossed.
Hi there, this user User talk:NagarjunaSarma is vandalizing Kamma (caste). They have made plenty of POV edits and they have already breached the three revert rule. Please look into their edits. Thanks. Sharkslayer87 ( talk) 22:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I can say the same for you User talk:Sharkslayer87. Firstly, I have used only credible sources and mostly direct quotations for both these articles. How is it showing my POV when I have literally quoted verbatim from these sources? Did I write those books and papers? NO! Many of them, including Thurston and Yamada Keiko have been used before on the Kamma Wikipedia. Now why is it wrong to provide readers with additional information from these professors and researchers. Moreover, your claim that British Raj articles are unreliable is factually wrong when you consider how many articles and researchers, including caste ones cite them. In regards to the Raju caste article, I added a mere one quote that backs up information already present in the article, and it was from a respected British source. What we have here is that you, Mr. Sharkslayer87, for some reason don’t like what these credible sources have said so you are creating unnecessary drama. When looking at what editors, like User talk:Sitush , have said about you, I’m not surprised. It's clear you are from the Raju community and trying to push an agenda. If you must know my caste, I am a Telugu Brahmin, and I have no connection to either of these castes, so I am neutral arbitrator to provide factual information from other researchers. Also, I just checked the Raju page and I see quite a few British era articles and pages cited, so I really don't understand why you are vandalizing other people's work with no cause or reason. Moreover, it looks like you have been banned and reprimanded for caste promotion on Wikipedia. I sincerely request the administrator reviewing the case to consider Mr. Sharkslayer87's previous wrongdoings involving caste articles (He was just recently unbanned from caste articles), and I 100% declare that I was just minding my business by researching with verified sources to contribute to the Wikipedia community, until Sharsklayer87 unjustly pulled me into this mess. NagarjunaSarma( talk)
In regards to the reliability of British Raj documents, Kamma Caste and Raju Caste article already utilized these British Raj Sources way before I started editing. In fact, I made sure to exclusively reference Thurston because he was also used. He was one of two Britishers I used. Additionally, Ms. Yamada Keiko, a professor at a Japanese University, and other modern researchers often cite Mr. Thurston's work. This isn't just a willy-nilly picking. There are countless books that cite Mr. Thurston's work and if it's good enough for college professors and their research, Wikipedia audience should benefit from it. Moreover, why would the Kamma and Raju Caste articles already cite British Raj material without any editor removing It or causing a fuss. You can't pick and chose what British Raj articles are reliable, especially when entire college textbooks and professors constantly cite them. In fact, I just cited the British Raj work that was already mentioned through direct quotations. Since caste is such a volatile topic, the British Raj documents have been the foundation basis for many reliable books discussing caste. Finally, I also cited modern documents and college trained professors or historians, like Mr. Tyagi, Ms. Keiko, and others in my edits. Sharkslayer also vandalized those. It's clear that his intentions and previous caste based drama, which got him banned until quite recently from editing caste base articles, is the problem. Not the British Raj sources, which I ensured were used by modern scholars. I sincerely request the administrator viewing this case to review in detail the usage of Thurston's work and how college professors consider it reliable. Furthermore, I request that Sharkslayer87 not be allowed to edit caste-based articles and his ban be restored. It's clear based on my interaction with him and other editors, that he is still promoting the Raju Caste on Wikipedia. Gives me no pleasure in saying it. We should all be working together without an agenda to provide knowledge for people. Instead, Sharkslayer87 has created unneeded drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NagarjunaSarma ( talk • contribs)
UPDATE: In order to end this conflict, I have found modern citations for the one or two citations that was purerly British Raj documents. These direct quotation citations come from modern authors and researchers who say the same thing as Thurston with verification. I hope this will resolve the source conflict, and there is No POV conflict because I used direct quotations and cited from two or three different authors. NagarjunaSarma( talk)
See this revert by me. That contributor is becoming very disruptive now. I know that the Dirks source they removed mentions it, and the very first source in that list they removed says "The Maravar and Kallar, who mainly inhabit the dry zones of Ramanathapuram and Pudukottai, acquired ill repute as thieves and robbers perhaps from the early medieval times". You might argue that quote is slightly ambivalent compared to the statement we made, because of the use of perhaps, but Dirks is adamant and there are loads of other sources I've seen that say it. - Sitush ( talk) 08:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
An IP user is harassing me. This has been going for a long time at the greek wikipedia (el.wikipedia.com) and now he is here. The specific user got an indefinitely ban from el.WP and now is using an IP address. The last few days, he expanded his hunting in en.WP as well. His modus operanti are major reverts in the articles that I have contributed ( History of anarchism and Michael Bakunin. His IPs: 94.66.56.226 or 94.66.56.96 or 94.66.56.211 or 94.66.56.72 or 94.66.56.138. You may ask at el.WP ANI for his case. Can we do something to deal with this sort of problem please? It is really frustrating the way he reverts, reverts reverts. (He is also keen on personal attacks). Thanks Cinadon36 ( talk) 19:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Total affected |
Affected addresses |
Given addresses |
Range | Contribs |
---|---|---|---|---|
256 | 256 | 5 | 94.66.56.0/24 | contribs |
192 | 64 | 2 | 94.66.56.64/26 | contribs |
128 | 3 | 94.66.56.128/25 | contribs | |
67 | 1 | 1 | 94.66.56.72 | contribs |
1 | 1 | 94.66.56.96 | contribs | |
1 | 1 | 94.66.56.138 | contribs | |
64 | 2 | 94.66.56.192/26 | contribs | |
5 | 1 | 1 | 94.66.56.72 | contribs |
1 | 1 | 94.66.56.96 | contribs | |
1 | 1 | 94.66.56.138 | contribs | |
1 | 1 | 94.66.56.211 | contribs | |
1 | 1 | 94.66.56.226 | contribs |
Had to mention you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Sitush, sorry. - Sitush ( talk) 10:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
There is another user from el.WP who is utilizing WP:POVRAILROAD against me. It has been going since November, but it reached a peak today, two days after an article I have re-written.
History of Anarchism (and Talk)
The above are his today's comments. The accussarion of propaganda or censorchip goes way back.
There are more p. attacks and pov railroading in other articles. ie notable At Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests he is attacking me and Czar that we are censoring him.
This has to stop Bishonen, what should be done?ps-I informed Αντικαθεστωτικός [58] Cinadon36 ( talk) 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
For my contributions before two/three months i apologize (and i think i apologized again, but i am not 100% sure). For this month, i don't addressed to this user, but i just say that there is a POV situation and this is caused by the sources and from the users. If there is a user that i have offended (this month) is only user Czar, but this is a history conflict, and there is a sad situation here, when phds that are not fond of anarchism is not allowed to became a citation. Sorry about my bad english.
P.S please check what i am saying as examble:
here. I can bring more if you wish.
Αντικαθεστωτικός ( talk) 16:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Mr./Ms. Administrator, this user User talk:Sharkslayer87 is vandalizing Kamma (caste) and the Raju Caste and essentially cyber-harassing me. This user has deliberately deleted the work that I have placed many times because he said it was my POV. However, I directly quoted almost all of the content I added, and I made sure to cite them properly. I also verified the credibility of those sources. If a source from the British Raj was already used in that caste article, used by modern college professors and authors to cite their work, and the source is derived from a reputable man, what harm is there to provide the Wikipedia audience with direct quotations, with no influence from me? These quotes also don't say anything that is outside the norm for the topic in terms of what is already present in the article. Sharkslayer87 already has a history of caste based editing, which got him banned until very recently. Other editors, like Sitush, have commented on his talk page about his lack of credible source and vandalism. It's clear he is unfortunately engaging in it again. Please see to this. Thanks and god bless all of you. NagarjunaSarma( talk)
hi,
my edits in the article 'Rum' which was backed by RS has been reverted, there is also an issue with article Falooda where persian users have reverted my RS there, and have imposed their persian blog source which is about faloodeh, a persian dessert and not indian falooda and its not an RS. your intervention is needed falooda and rum, regards. 175.137.72.188 ( talk) 06:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Not that I myself have been exactly Christ-like in this, perhaps you could have a word before the phoenix immolates himself in flames. [60] E Eng 00:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
didn't realize it was EEng, who has his own, admin-approved MoS; do forgive me. As for the underlying typographic question, see (both already cited by me to Jfrb) MOS:SUFFIXDASH and CMOS's explanation that
The en dash can be used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements consists of an open compound or when both elements consist of hyphenated compounds. (An open compound is a compound that contains a space.) E Eng 03:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Groan. Hyphen, and course-correcting? I'm busy. I'll take a look later, unless some kind tps has taken care of it, HINT HINT. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC).
I'm sorry that your talk page has been tainted with this trivial nonsense, Bish. You can unlock the MoS page if you're so inclined. I've no intention of making further edits, null or not-so-null; excuse me, not–so–null; oh, fuck it; not—so—null. I know the difference between a hyphen and a dash, and that's good enough for me. Joefromrandb ( talk) 15:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Possibly the best solution would be a line at the beginning of each article containing a couple dozen commas, and also some semicolons, quotation marks, and so forth. The reader could then be instructed to mentally sprinkle them throughout the text in whatever manner she finds pleasing.[62] E Eng 16:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Kindly review my edits carefully. I have made edits on topics of science, Regions and Comics as well. I have made many many edits on subjects like DNA, Suppandi, Cities like peddapuram , comics like tinkle, champak
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=DNA&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peddapuram&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tinkle&action=history
Also I do lot of discussion, put in academic sources and get concensus from other editors. Sangitha rani111 ( talk) 23:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Sangitha rani111
See here. I've left them a note. - Sitush ( talk) 17:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
"I'm aware that you're both Indians but please keep your feelings out of this ..."Is there a word for projecting your own prejudices onto other people and getting it comically wrong? If not, we ought to invent one. I'm going with 'lumixosity'. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
See this at BN. Surely someone is making a mockery of adminship there? Can CIR be applied without evidence of current incompetence? That is, because someone who has been an admin for so long but with so little activity cannot reasonably be expected to be competent as an admin now due to the numerous changes to policies etc in the interval? I'm not suggesting that they should be blocked, of course, but they have no obvious use for the extra bits. - Sitush ( talk) 13:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The problem we're encountering is that the admin group has become much more like an American college fraternity than anything else. It started off as easy to get into, and the difficulty has steadily increased over the years until we now require the inductees to go through a hazing process during 'pledge week' and overcome multiple bars and obstacles, which will vary at the whim of the gatekeepers. Once accepted, of course, the member is there for life, barring some egregious action. It's hardly surprising, therefore, that most members don't want to run any greater risk of having to go through the pledging process again. And who could blame them?
As for asking for the tools back after a period of inactivity, my view is "why not"? We trusted them with powerful tools before, surely we are going to trust them to use them carefully once those tools are returned? -- RexxS ( talk) 22:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
AP2 t-ban. Atsme ✍🏻 📧 20:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
(comment moved to Admin Noticeboard) Sotuman ( talk) 05:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, an editor you blocked has made a new account ( Luciusfoxxx ( talk · contribs)), and I believe may be editing from an IP as well 124.171.23.173 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'm heading out, but they appear singularly interested in my edits. :/ — Locke Cole • t • c 19:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
trolling and I would remind you, as a very senior editor, that we are all supposed to assume good faith. Having watched for an hour with mounting astonishment at the behaviour of all contributors edit warring over a blocked editor's TP, I said what I felt was needed. In fact, I didn't even realise that you had edited through full protection to interject with humour which some people might regard as grave dancing. Whatever it was, it wasn't appropriate in the middle of that dispute at that time. I suggest we go our own way. Should you wish to reflect and apologise, you know where I am :) Rgds. Leaky caldron ( talk) 22:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I wrote a longish edit to be placed on MPants’ page titled “For fuck’s sake” asking him to grow up, explaining exactly how he is of great value to this project, adding that some of us have enabled his dark side (which Tryptofish has more than touched on) , reminding him that he knows full well how to respond to an unblock request, suggesting that he understand that the average human IQ is only 100, and suggesting he shut up and wait six months, mellow with age, and respond the way he knows how to respond. Then, the Chardonnay faded and I deleted the intended edit. As I said before; what is best for him is best for him. If participation here causes him problems – let us wait and not try to force him to participate. (And yeah, I saw the oversighted stuff and a not surprised folks tripped over themselves deleting it. Also in his favor.) (And yeah. Quotes about cynicism are hilarious.) O3000 ( talk) 01:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Is there a CIR problem with this user? On my talk page and at the ANI thread about VM on the AE thread his commentary seemed totally disconnected from what was actually happening. I see this now on his talk page regarding the current AE thread. Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I opened a DRV as you suggested. Would you be willing to temporarily undelete User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles or should I make that request through the DRV page instead? – dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen! User:Cinadon36 keeps folowing my edits in English in various articles of EN:Wikipedia and reverting them without any explanation. Please i need your help, i think that i followed your instructions and i never insulted him again, from your last warning.
Now my alert button is full of notices of reverts of my edits.
Please check that in many articles he didn't wrote anything. He just follows me and revert me. 1 2 3.
What i can do?
Αντικαθεστωτικός (
talk)
14:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Cairn info is a RS while that bunch of links you presented is notis in no way a personal attack.
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended. —— SerialNumber 54129 14:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The user follows me, and keep reverting at once my contribution. p.e Christos Tsoutsouvis in the content of the article he is not described as an anarchist. But someone have put him in anarchists category. So i removed him from this category with the proper explanation (not an anarchist. Left terrorists group during 1980 was socialist and nationalistic like Revolutionary Organization 17 November, and he reverted me 2times with this the 2nd time as an explanation Tsoutsouvis is linked to anarchism by some,! Is it possible to write by some? Who are they? It is not my problem to justify that he wasn't an anarchist, but it his problem to justify that he was a one. (Just for the record the previous organisations of this anarchist Revolutionary People's Struggle). Αντικαθεστωτικός ( talk) 15:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I did answer at the first time, asking for citations, but then I was thinking, "if someone goes to a Talk Page and state his opinion, isn't that a forum?" per: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." ( WP:TPNO- it 's circular to WP FORUM) I have seen it many times, users going to articles like atheism, trying to explain the fallacies of atheism, how atheists get it wrong, and their edits are deleted due Wikipedia is not a forum. Lets break down Αντικαθεστωτικός comment (3 sentences)
Which of those 3 sentences is about the article?. He is not discussing how to improve the article. He is projecting his own opinion on RUIS. On the other hand, Αντικαθεστωτικός keeps complaining of censorship, (he is continuing the censorship campaign I told you Bishonen before [66]). Noone should have a free pass or not have his edits checked by various other users. That wouldn't not right. Instead of asking me what the problem is, he is trying to initiate a battle. Cinadon36 ( talk) 10:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Please note that I have opened a request for clarification from the arbitration committee that involves you. I would be grateful if you would give your views at WP:ARCA#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Gun_control. GoldenRing ( talk) 15:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bish! Please take a look at everything that's transpired since your last block here: User talk:VwM.Mwv/Archive 2. Some highlights:
Bish, that was just part one.
That's just the last few days. If you look at the user talk page and archives, you'll see that a number of our fellow editors (you're one of them) have very generously spent an inordinate amount of time trying to help this editor contribute constructively. Unfortunately, this editor doesn't seem to listen to any of them. I'm concerned about how many different editors have been disrupted by this one user. I was preparing an ANEW report and realized that the other non-EW-related diffs didn't really fit; so I thought ANI; then I saw your name as the last blocking admin, so I thought I'd dump this in your lap. :-) I'm not sure what the best way forward is, but I look for your advice as to whether I should "take this somewhere" or "leave it alone" or what. Thank you! Leviv ich 23:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I added something to this essay. If you'd prefer me to write my own essay, feel free to revert. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I think I'm having a little difficulty. I will have this content in bold and I hope you agree with me that it's not needed when it comes to specific countries at the FIFA World Cup.
The FIFA World Cup, sometimes called the Football World Cup or the Soccer World Cup, but usually referred to simply as the World Cup, is an international association football competition contested by the men's national teams of the members of Fédération Internationale de Football Association ( FIFA), the sport's global governing body. The championship has been awarded every four years since the first tournament in 1930, except in 1942 and 1946, due to World War II.
The tournament consists of two parts, the qualification phase and the final phase (officially called the World Cup Finals). The qualification phase, which currently take place over the three years preceding the Finals, is used to determine which teams qualify for the Finals. The current format of the Finals involves 32 teams competing for the title, at venues within the host nation (or nations) over a period of about a month. The World Cup Finals is the most widely viewed sporting event in the world, with an estimated 715.1 million people watching the 2006 tournament final.
For a specific country (e.g. Germany) this content is unnecessary. I feel like I have been treated poorly. This even led to me losing rollback rights after I reverted someone's reversion of my edits. I was honestly not misusing rollback, I just wanted to revert to a correct version because they act like they don't give a four-letter word if the bolded irrelevant content is there. So Ivan incorrectly removed my rollback rights. I wonder when I can get them back. It even led me to a useless 31-hour block just for removing unnecessary content. I have been in general a good faith editor because I have taken down vandalism a lot.
See Spain for example. I don't know why users are reverting my removal if countries like Spain don't have the content. And I also wonder if I can get my rollback rights soon.
Any comments?
Thanks, Dolfinz1972 ( talk) 02:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, if they change their username are you OK with an unblock? Just Chilling ( talk) 14:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
|
![]()
|
Hey, can you block me for three months? I tried using wikibreak, didn't work. Thanks. — Sarvatra ( talk, contribs) 06:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bish, could you add a word of wisdom here? An allegedly new editor, who's first edit, interestingly, was to report a vandal sockpuppet [68]. Has gone on from there to editwarring (five reverts) on Richard Wagner, an FA. Example of his "improvement" there. Continues to add his personal opinions [69] to other articles and stuff he found at Reddit, e.g. [70]. Talk page messages to him from three editors (including me) seem to be having no effect, e.g. [71]. Perhaps he might listen to you. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 16:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I am writing to you since according to User talk:Qwirkle you have taken action against a personal attack of his. I have myself been the object of recent statements by him that are at best rude and unhelpful. See
The issue is his putting accuracy and then POV templates on an article I wrote ( Lynching of Shedrick Thompson). I have posted this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson, where he has made another unhelpful comment. Perhaps you could be of some assistance. Thank you. deisenbe ( talk) 17:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Our Lady of America. Since you had some involvement with the Our Lady of America redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Mangoe ( talk) 19:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen.
I refer to your PROD of Sanctuary Lakes Resort. I have added some raw references to the article. I think they counter most of your points in the PROD, but I am not convinced the subject is notable and have not DePRODed yet. However, you may wish to reword your PROD? Others may think the PROD is now unsafe though?
Regards. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I have only made 2 edits to that page in the last 24 hours, the most recent of which was over 3 hours ago. I'm not even on the brink of violating 3RR, and would never re-instate a challenged edit when it is disputed by more than one other editor. Even before you issued that warning I had opened discussions concerning the disputed edit, on both User:Johnuniq's talk page and on the talk page of the project page in question, in order to properly and peacefully resolve the matter. In future please think and properly investigate the problem before issuing completely unnecessary and overly-aggressive warnings. Thanks. Citizen Canine ( talk) 12:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
|
So I accept I was warring, and I apologise. I only pushed the edit because the rationale that a new shortcut shouldn't be used as it was unused seemed so ridiculously circular. I'm not a habitual edit warrior or anything.
I didn't need a warning to stop me re-reverting as it wasn't even a thought in my head. But my actions probably didn't make that clear, so it was justified.
I'm sorry I act like a bratty teenager sometimes. It's sorta because that's what I am. Due to some past experiences I never let people walk all over me. But regrettably, that sometimes means I can be too assertive. This was one of them. Citizen Canine ( talk) 15:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you mean to block this user indefinitely? Or did you actually mean to block this account for 31 hours? I just wanted to message you and let you know / ask... :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, in January you posted the only warning for BLP vandalism, would you mind blocking the IP user, now that he has done it again? Based on the type of edits, it seems it is the same user, not a shared IP. Thanks, WikiHannibal ( talk) 12:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
... would you be willing to look at my request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement #Infobox RfC on Fermat's Last Theorem. I've been trying my damnedest to keep discussion at Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem #Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement on the topic of whether to have an infobox on that article, but I'm now sick of having personal attacks thrown at me, as well as multiple attempts to derail the RfC by strawman and tangential arguments. And it's not just me: it's got the stage where one of the other participants has felt the need to file at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Repeated personal attacks by Purgy Purgatorio over personal attacks on him.
Even after filing the enforcement request, I've been called "dishonest" by an administrator on the RfC page. Sooner or later, I'm going to give in to the baiting and lose my temper with them. It needs to have somebody wiling to impose sanctions on those who have no regard for ArbCom's requirements of decorum, civility and not turning the discussion about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general. Hope you can help. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bishzilla Lucia Looking Right.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 22:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Dude, what I literally added facts to whitaker AND changed it to a MUCH more neutral version of the wording. "Policy issues" inherently implies that there are "issues" with his policies. That is the DEFINITION of bias And that soros stuff is real shit man, I don't know what to tell you. You have a section JUST FOR conspiracy theories... I joined WIKI because this place is biased AF and if you want it to be neutral, you need a huge overhaul of your languange. You've spent a lot of time here on this, if you want it to turn into a joke, then you should put that somewhere. If you want it to be a lobbying arm for liberals, you need to file with the FEC. If you want it to be a long-standing neutral website, then you need to let people have their little hissy fits while others work to improve the site towards what, in writing, is a common goal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthInDave ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to tell you that no apology is necessary, although I appreciate it. Your comments in the matter were not unreasonable, it was a confusing situation. I know it was all in good faith. No harm done. Thanks 331dot ( talk) 21:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The IP vandal at List of monarchs by nickname who keeps inserting King Tut The Nut is back after the protection was removed on April 1st. You put it in in 2016, so perhaps you could renew it again. Thanks Dabbler ( talk) 10:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I have posted in my User talk but as yet have not received a reply. Could you please have a look at what I wrote and give me some guidance?
This is what I wrote on 26th March 2019:
Hi Arbitration Committee
Thank you for pointing out where I have gone wrong. My apologies, I am new to this.
My reason for joining was to learn how to create an article for our non-profit arts foundation. A colleague of mine has had dealings with the Cryonics Institute in the US. I was talking to him about how I intend to create a Wikipedia article and that I was learning how to do it. I then had an email from one of the people at the Cryonics Institute asking me if I could assist them, purely voluntary.
I did not realize that the subject of complementary and alternative medicine fell into a special category and I underestimated the sensitivity of the subject and its controversial content.
There is no conflict of interest as I am not doing this for myself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. I do not have any external relationship with the institute or its members.
I was just asked if I can make the following changes: Replace corpse with body - I don't see the problem here as the definition of a corpse is a dead body "Corpse and cadaver are both medical/legal terms for a dead body. ... Although cadaver is the older word, it has come to refer in particular to a dead body used for medical or scientific purposes". Removing the sentence containing the word 'quackery' seems acceptable as by your own definition "A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess". From what I have read the Institute is neither fraudulent nor an ignorant pretender. The other changes follow the same reasoning as above.
If you believe that I am treading on thin ice then please tell me and I'll walk away from helping the Institute!
Mbark22 ( talk) 23:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. I was wondering how I can start a collaborative initiative/project where I, along with others can change the details in the article of the city and it's info. In this section which I was able to reach consensus (it's been a while though), I discussed how the city of Rome is a city that encompasses two countries (Italy and Vatican), yet infobox details and other details in the article need to be changed to fit this criteria, and don't think I can do it all by myself. ( N0n3up ( talk) 00:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC))
Bish, this is pathetic. I cannot seem to avoid taking a peek at ANI or ERRORS or similar as a procrastination tool. I cannot afford to keep doing this. I need to dive into your pocket for a month, hopefully there's a quiet study off to the side I can use with no distractions. Please block me with no talk page access, no email, until 00:01 on 1 May 2019. I know your criteria, i won't embarass you by requesting an early unblock. I'm positive. Won't be able to send WP "thanks", so doing that in advance here. See you in a month. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Can I be pocketed by the great and mighty Zilla? The Irish coffee and cakes are very enticing. Maybe if I'm lucky Jimbo will stop by and he can lecture me on the virtues of his various friends on the Twitter while I enjoy my cake. (For clarity since I just saw the above thread: pls don't blerk me, just pocket time) TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen
Please keep an eye on the Thai Pongal Page. A person who goes by the name 'Pandian Tamil' arbitrarily removes quite a chunk of material from that page. I do not check Wikipedia that often but have been an editor for many years. This is just an alert for your attention if relevant.
My sincere best, Dipendra2007 ( talk) 18:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all. The holiday spans several states under different names with a different emphasis. But anyway, we have Keith on board to keep an eye.
Best Dipendra2007 ( talk) 20:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks like my talk page is being stubbornly vandalised by an IPv6 hopper. Any chance of a semi? How big is the range block? -- RexxS ( talk) 23:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, Sitush seems to be away and I am having to deal with a new caste warrior on my own. In the first 24 hours of his account, he made some 30 posts, starting with my talk page (no idea why). All about Kamma (caste) and the other castes he wants to shoot down/compete with. This post should give you an idea of his approach. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
User talk:Mohammad Anamul Haque Nayan ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
Please revoke TPA. As you noted, either the editor is not competent or they are an extreme case of IDHT. General Ization Talk 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Thanks. BlueD954 ( talk) 08:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC) |
Thewolfchild.
I realise there is a high probability of him getting unblocked. But just to say he/she is very aggressive in my talk page (you can view it) often and shadows me for no clear reason. I have not time to debate with his aggression--which he turned back on my and reported, but just would like to inform you.
Thanks. BlueD954 ( talk) 10:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that reminder. I will keep it in mind and seek to be more objective as I review the posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsduker ( talk • contribs)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The following text is added to the "Important notes" section of the standard provision on appeals and modifications, replacing the current text of the fourth note:
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bish! You may remember we had some trouble a while ago at Gua Sha. [73]. It appears to be happening again ... Alexbrn ( talk) 15:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
A few days ago I uploaded a poster photo from the movie The Last Moment to illustrate the article of the same name, but I made a mistake: The photo I uploaded was of the film of 1922, white the film I wanted to illustrate was of 1928, although the title is the same (the film of 1922 has no article). I would like to know if you could delete my photo ( The Last Moment).
Thank you.-- Isinbill ( talk) 11:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. I fear that Parabellus is a sock. Have a look at his contribution history. [78]. His first edit was on 11:00, 30 April 2019 [79] at a Talk Page where he attacks Jingiby, mentioning a diff (this one) that was posted on the 10th of March 2019. How to deal with this issue? Cinadon36 ( talk) 11:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi bishonen, i am very sorry about reverting Cinadon36 contribution. I didn't check his history. When he informed me that he was probably a soc i didnt do anything again. I am not so familiar with English Wikipedia soc/puppets. Btw can you check in the same article this This Αντικαθεστωτικός ( talk) 09:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Bishonen, no hard feelings Αντικαθεστωτικός. Cinadon36 ( talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Hi Bish, thanks for your note on my TP recently. Any chance of you comparing the new Ramji Bhangre article with the one you deleted in January as a creation of a sock of Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala ( talk · contribs) ? Alarm bells are ringing! - Sitush ( talk) 08:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, everybody. I'm sorry, Sitush, suddenly I just couldn't face it. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC).
"Paid news" in India is the practice through which organizations, public figures/celebrities, politicians, political parties, brands/movies pay cash or equivalent to a media group or television channel or a newspaper or a magazine or a journalist, to be in the news, for sustained positive coverage, and to avoid negative coverage. This is either a limited time payment(s) or a contract.
"Private treaties" (or "brand capital agreements") in India are signed, long term private confidential agreements between a person or party or organization and a media group or television channel or newspaper or magazine. A private treaty gives an equity position, or equivalent ownership/commission/payment interest to the media group/owners. Such an agreement financially benefits the media outlet, in exchange for manufactured/plugged news, create positive coverage/buzz and avoid negative coverage over the period of contract.
This is a widespread practice and has been a growing phenomenon over "six decades", according to a 2010 investigation by the Press Council of India, their official media ethics watchdog ( 1, p. 4): Other sources state the same,
Quotes on paid news / private treaties
|
---|
|
Bishonen and I, in our offline discussion, felt that this is worth a wider community discussion as it may raise questions about the reliability of Indian newspapers, magazines and television-digital print media from our WP:RS perspective. Your thoughts and any relevant information on this, on whatever side it might be, are therefore most welcome. Other questions:
Any other issues or comments? Pinging @ Doug Weller, Sitush, Utcursch, and Abecedare: in particular since you have previously shared comments on the reliability of sources and Indian publications in other contexts. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 02:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
"may raise the same concerns" as COI and paid editing' advisory. It may be worthwhile to separate out the worst-known actors and practices, for which we can then offer stronger prohibitions. For example, based on the evidence presented in the New Yorker article including statements by the the publishers, I would propose:
Tucked under the section’s masthead, four words in small type inform the reader that the contents are an “advertorial, entertainment promotional feature.” Jain insisted that this meets the transparency test. “It’s on my masthead,” he said. “It says ‘advertorial’ clearly.”
@ Winged Blades of Godric: Is your draft combined with this updated list reasonably sufficient to move forward with community-wide deliberations? Another request to you and others who may have better access to internal reports of Indian organizations... This Frontline article by Rajalakshmi states in the third last para that the Press Council of India released a report on paid news in India "running over 3,000 pages". Has anyone seen this? I have the 13 page downsized summary that was initially released after the Indian media executives/journalists in India voted to suppress the full paid news report, and the 71 page addendum they released after they were pressured to release more of the paid news report. But, so far, despite some effort and phone calls over the last week, I haven't been able to find this 3,000+ page report on the paid news / private treaties in India. I would appreciate a link to this report. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 12:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Amicus autem populus ( talk · contribs) doesn't seem to be paying attention to their talk page and pretty much every edit they make to caste articles has been reverted or should be reverted. They've had various warnings + the sanctions alert. - Sitush ( talk) 08:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen,
Thanks, EdChem ( talk) 12:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
You are correct - I edited archives by mistake. Sorry, and thanks for fixing it. JohnTopShelf ( talk) 22:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Almost as cute as Bishzilla... — Paleo Neonate – 05:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what to do with the developing situation at User_talk:Risto_hot_sir#Inappropriate_links. I have the feeling that it is going to keep going round in circles. I could escalate it somewhere or I could walk away and just let it fester in my head that we're effectively acting as a proxy for Hindutva propaganda. Thoughts? - Sitush ( talk) 11:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a quick look at User:Manmohansinh saini's edits at Saini? He's been unilaterally doing a bit of what looks like caste puffery, trying to claim the Saini caste as rajputs (it's on his deleted userpage too). He's been reverted several times by Sitush and I, and I've warned him to stop and seek consensus, but he just waits a little while and does it again. I'm obviously involved, having made some reverts. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 09:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Colley Cibber Apology small.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ★ Bigr Tex 03:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I reported user 50.234.120.42 and they have been blocked, but no notice is on their talk page. Who puts it up? I'm new to this so please excuse my ignorance... TheDoDahMan ( talk) 17:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Bish, back on April 28'th I had responded to an ANI thread " Range block needed" by blocking the one named account Hammy0007; concluding that the named user and Malaysian IPs were the same person and had been editing disruptively; declining the range block request as infeasible but volunteering to block individual IPs or "new accounts" were they to crop-up.
Move forward to the last couple of days: I have been involved in a content dispute with 60.50.173.223 at Indus script and related articles (see this and this discussions for an explanation of the content issue, although that is perhaps not really needed), who I now realize is the same user! With my admin thinking-cap on, I would say: looked at individually, 60.50's slow edit-warring and IDHT conduct does not merit a block yet but looking at the user's whole edit-history shows that engaging with them is a waste of time.
I can't and won't act in admin capacity, of course. And coincidentally, Doug Weller and RegentsPark who are familiar with Hammy0007 and the original ANI thread have both reverted or interacted with 60.50 as editors in the current Indus script dispute. We are running out of uninvolved admins in this area! Can you take a look?
Listed below are some of the IPs used (the link should be quite apparent but let me know if you'd like me to spell it out over email).
List of IPs used by Hammy0007 (not comprehensive)
|
---|
|
Abecedare ( talk) 04:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Risto Hot Sir's obsession with Wiki-quote continues; now in the form of adding whitewashed statements via image-captions, coupled with misleading edit summaries. Since, you have already warned him days back, me thinks that he is in need of an indefinite timeout from ARBIPA. ∯WBG converse 16:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
Magnificent. Nishidani ( talk) 21:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you very much, Nishi, you make me blush. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC).
Cheers, — Paleo Neonate – 21:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I would just like to add a comment in relation to the recent unblock. I find it heroic and acknowledge that the community supports it, but at the same time I worry that if a desysop or ban result (or anything else that may make you to ultimately decide to retire), this would be very unfortunate, because I think you are very precious. Of course, more damage can also result of this affair in general (and that's unrelated to you or the unblock, of course). Anyway, just expressing both my appreciation and worry. — Paleo Neonate – 08:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Ultimate Platinum. Poet Supreme. Biskopje. –
SJ
+
05:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
"I'm with you, Floq, and I'll be Spartacus if you are." [80] Benjamin ( talk) 01:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Another good move. Brave and courageous step, but if you have to go through RfA again I'll be adding a strong support for you doing the right thing. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 07:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
Because goats are awesome, and when something needs to be headbutted they do it courageously.
bonadea
contributions
talk
07:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
eine Wiese voller Margeriten |
support headbutted courage, with a vision of friendliness -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For standing up for the community in the face of personal cost, thank you, Bishonen. starship .paint ( talk) 07:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
You are a true hero. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for enforcing the community consensus, even when it is difficult. Tazerdadog ( talk) 07:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
Bravo! As I told Floq, you've got an automatic vote from me if anything happens and you need to stand for RfA again. I hope WMF will see sense and it won't come to that. Best, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Thank you. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 09:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Definitely above and beyond! I just hope it stops now and that you're still an Admin when San Francisco wakes up. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
Barnstar of Integrity |
Thank you for taking a stand for what's right, as you always do..You are a beacon of integrity.
We have your back! - Mr X 🖋 10:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
And I never give barnstars. E Eng 11:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
Oh, and speaking of contraceptives and time machines, my great granddad knew that Zaphod Beeblebrox III chap. Didn't like him much, mind - thought he was a bit full of himself. Apparently told him "If your head gets much bigger it'll split into two". Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Another one to hang in Boing's barn. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
I've just this minute saw your unblock (at ANI) and I'm lost for words!, Your actions are not only brave but they're also very much appreciated! |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Thank you for your courage in standing up to power gone rogue. Lepricavark ( talk) 12:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
❤️ - Spartacus ( talk) 12:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
^^^ — pythoncoder ( talk | contribs) 13:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Courage comes in many forms. Daring to defy is but one of them; and yet that, more often that not, deserves proper plaudits. Accept this as but one of many. — Javert2113 ( Siarad.| ¤) 13:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
The WP community will not stand for secret trials, with secret and unaccountable judges, no opportunity for the accused to defend themselves, secret accusers, secret accusations, secret evidence, and to top it off, no appeal possible. Thank you for defending our values. Randykitty ( talk) 13:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
Because lord only knows you've got enough barnstars, and pretty soon even that barn Boing gave you is going to fill up. Here's a nice, cute kitten to frolic about among the barnstars; thank you for standing up to the WMF in the face of everything that's happened. It's much appreciated.
-A lad insane
(Channel 2)
14:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For your bravery in unblocking Fram. A Dolphin ( squeek?) 15:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
Welp, the inevitable has happened. And, just as with
Floquenbeam, the WMF couldn't be bothered to actually give you any notification that they'd yanked your bit. My condolences, and
feel free to rampage in San Francisco to vent your frustrations, kaiju.
rdfox 76 (
talk)
17:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Administrator's Barnstar | |
For enacting community consensus. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
Imagine one here! Anyway, thank you for doing the right thing. -- You were the first admin to get 100 supports on their RFA (if I remember correctly); may you also be the first to get 100 barnstars for a single action. (Give a few to 'zilla to keep her happy.) Antandrus (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm late to the party due to my timezone, but I want to express my deep appreciation for an honorable and principled decision. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For following through when you said you would. Carrite ( talk) 23:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
I've been holding my tongue on the whole WP:FRAM mess for a while, except in relation to a loosely related side-show on Rob's talk page, because I have very mixed feelings about the whole affair. But while I don't go in for barnstars or the like, I figured that if I was gonna post that long rant on WT:ACN I should probably also chime in here to say that that was a guts-y, and classy, move on your part. (By "that", I of course mean the unblock, since I probably need to disambiguate from all the other guts-y and classy moves you seem to be making these days ;-) ) The community thanks you! Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
BU Rob13 added you as a party to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Restoration of admin permissions to Floquenbeam by WJBscribe. But, I think you were not notified, so this is it. starship .paint ( talk) 06:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety Wikipedia:Superschutz. FYI. I think T&S tries to make Wikipedians absurd. I think tail (tries to) wags the dog. Need more? Ask me. But now, in my time zone it is after midnite and bedtime (not only for democrazy) :D . If you think it is not useful for you: delete this posting. Greets. -- Informationswiedergutmachung ( talk) 22:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
99 small ones:
And one big one (ok, it's
Barnard's star, but that's just like a
barnstar except bigger):
I am so proud of you.
67.164.113.165 ( talk) 02:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I hope your barnwarming party was as festive as it appears to have been, Bishonen. I wondered if you had given any thought to the point the WMF seems to be making about the poor state of community health. Perhaps this example or this one (self-censored for the time being) or this one (self-censored for the time being) would be sufficient starters?
Do you think community processes currently work as they should? What lessons do you think were drawn from the Sagecandor episode? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 07:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
... our most precious resource, which is constructive editors' time and patience ...
- I somehow remembered of "
Our children are our greatest resource". And wow, those
frog cakes (in the rotating images of the edit notice) look delicious. —
Paleo
Neonate –
13:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
For that thing you did | |
I was going to give you a barnstar or a kitten or a mocha or something but those were all so banal, and this thing from this technical wish kind of looks cool. EllenCT ( talk) 04:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC) |
![]() | |
cornflowers |
---|
Help? Peter Sellers is was
scheduled to be FA on 24 July, and the authors and friends some are seemed to be worried about discussions about the unspeakable topic that day. Can you work your magic and create a circle of flames so that even the bravest will not dare to even ask why the little thingy is collapsed, let alone want to discuss?? Every time that would happen, I'd be blamed, and I had enough of it. I have preached to leave TFAs alone for years. - It's been almost five years now that I hoped we
could just laugh about it ;) --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
13:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
ps: some WILD flowers of thanks in advance, and for the fenny fox roaring! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
For three months please. I read the requirements, the Javascript can't do mobile. Thanks in advance. -- LaserLegs ( talk) 14:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
A large car reminds me of a watch company: could I be suffering from lexical-gustatory synesthesia, perhaps? - Hoary ( talk) 00:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, would request you or any other admin active on this page to protect the article on Kulin Kayastha. Also the user Semper Curious who is engaged in an edit war based on his own opinion, seems to be a sock of Amicus autem populus, whom you have already blocked. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian ( talk) 07:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear admin, I request you to look into the history of Kayasthas in India, and the legal proceedings that ultimately lead to their present varna status, being Kshatriyas. It all came as the result of a series of court ruling from various High Courts in India. Even the British government placed Kayasthas among Kshatriya ranks and declared them twice-born (dwija). I request you to prevent deliberate Shudra branding of a progressive caste, that has produced leaders and scientists in our country and also keeping in mind the sentiments of members of the community. Wikipedia and almost all websites declare Kayasthas as being one of the highest Hindu castes in India, alongside Brahmins. A Shudra is considered to be the lowest of all caste which is in itself contradictory to relating Kayasthas with Shudras on the basis of a single erroneous source, when there are several others to prove it wrong. Unfortunately, editors like Ekdalian fail to realise this (limited being their knowledge or perhaps some personal vendetta against the community) and engage in edit wars, calling other editors 'sock' of another fellow editor. I humbly request you, Bishonen sir, to look into the matter, do a little bit research about Kayasthas and put an end to blatant defamation of a community. Please consider your decision before taking rash or even harsh steps. Editors like Ekdalian should not be allowed to twist historical facts and blemish the image of a community, by doing so on a reputed platform like Wikipedia. Thank you sir, With Regards - Semper Curious Semper Curious ( talk) 08:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear administrator, here's a piece of information regarding the exact Varna status of Kayasthas (source Wikipedia) : The last census of the British Raj in India (1931) classified them as an 'upper caste' i.e. Dwija and the final British Raj law case involving their varna in 1926 placed them into the Kashtriya varna.
According to W.Rowe's account (that later scholars disagreed with), during the British Raj era, certain law cases led to courts classifying Kayasthas as shudras, based largely upon the theories of Herbert Hope Risley who had conducted extensive studies on castes and tribes of the Bengal Presidency. According to Rowe, the Kayasthas of Bengal, Bombay and the United Provinces repeatedly challenged this classification by producing a flood of books, pamphlets, family histories and journals to pressurize the government for recognizing them as Kshatriya and to reform the caste practices in the directions of sanskritisation and westernisation. However, scholars from the University of Berkeley as well as the University of Cambridge have disagreed with Rowe's research by pinpointing 'factual and interpretative errors' in his study as well as criticizing his study for making 'unquestioned assumptions' about the kayastha movement of sanskritisation and westernisation.
H.Bellenoit gives the details of the individual British Raj era law cases and concludes that since the kayasthas are a non-cohesive group and not a single caste, their varna was resolved in the cases that came up by taking into account regional differences and customs followed by that particular caste. Bellenoit also disagrees with W.Rowe by showing that Herbert Hope Risley's theories were in fact used to ultimately classify them as Kshatriyas by the British courts. The first case began in 1860 in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh with a property dispute where the plaintiff was considered an 'illegitimate child' by the defendants, a north-Indian Kayastha family. The British court denied inheritance to the child, citing that Kayasthas are Dvija, "twice-born" or "upper-caste" and that the illegitimate children of Dwijas have no rights to inheritance. In the next case in 1875 in the Allahabad High Court, a north Indian Kayastha widow was denied adoption rights as she was an upper-caste i.e. Dwija woman. However, in an 1884 adoption case as well as a 1916 property dispute, Calcutta High Court argued that Bengali kayasthas have started using names like 'Das' and classified the Bengali Kayasthas as shudras - although the court did acknowledge their Kshatriya origin. The Allahabad High Court ruled in 1890 that Kayasthas were Kshatriyas. Finally, in a property dispute case in Patna in 1926, the Patna court characterized both the 1884 and 1916 Calcutta courts rulings as inconclusive and ultimately ruled that the kayasthas were of Kshatriya origin and hence twice born or dwija. The Patna court cited smritis and Puranas, several colonial ethnologists, such as William Crooke and Herbert Hope Risley, and used their qualified endorsements on the dwija origins of Kayasthas. The British census of 1931 also lists Kayasthas as one of the upper (twice-born) castes.
Kulin Kayasthas are considered elites among Kayasthas, which naturally negates any Shudra linking. Thank you for sparing your time to read through, sir. Regards, Semper Curious Semper Curious ( talk) 08:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear administrator, Mr. Bishonen, I would request you or any other admin active on this page to protect the article on Kulin Kayastha as it is now, and prevent any editor from disfiguring the community's image through low caste branding. Semper Curious ( talk) 08:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I just was archiving my talk and was reminded that you sent me an email - I really do apologize for not responding at the time. It was a rather complex issue, and during my "considering my reply" it just continually got pushed to the back burner ... and eventually it was off the stove. (perhaps that's too much "American speak", I'll translate if needed :-)). Anyway - if time permits and I'm up for it I will try to find the original email, research the issue(s) it involved, and provide a response if you'd like. I really am sorry Bish - it wasn't a deliberate ignore, just one of those senior moments that got away from me. Hope all is well with you and yours. (notwithstanding the current state of affairs on wiki as I know them - I'm sure I'm missing much) As I said - all my best. — Ched : ? — 13:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Please block me for six months. I've reviewed your page on self-requested blocks and I'd like for you to apply such a block to my account. I've got too much stuff to do in real life to continue spending so much time on rote Wikignoming, and I don't intend to return when the six months are up. Pursuant to the question you asked of LaserLegs in an above thread, yes, I would appreciate it if you left an explanatory note on my talk page. As a friendless editor who primarily worked alone, I don't anticipate that my absence will attract much attention, but a note on my talk page might dispel any confusion for anyone who does notice. Feel free to waive the 24-hour waiting period if you wish. Thank you. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I am no longer in the game, but it's nice to see you are still standing up against the morons who are paid donation money for turning the encyclopedia into a toxic playground of advertising agencies by chasing away the actual qualified volunteers. I was mildly surprised by this only because I wasn't thinking of Wikipedia at all when I stumbled upon it. I wasn't surprised to see you mentioned in the article.
If things get too weird, let me remind you there are other hobbies. In my case, preparing free modern editions of out-of-copyright music has turned out to be less interactive, but overall much more enjoyable.. Hans Adler 08:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For trying to defend EN:WP's independance from outside interference...sadly without success. Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC) |
Hi there - saw your note at DRN talk but the thread had been closed, so thought I'd just pop in and say hello!. I figured that I've still possibly got something to contribute here now and then, even if it's much different from what it was before, so might as well I guess! Hope you're doing well. Steven Crossin 05:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey there, reaching out to you directly as you were the blocking admin during the last incident. I know there were issues with Wclifton968 making disruptive edits. Well, recently they put this onto Anti-fascism without a deceptive edit summary:
I reverted as vandalism and left them a templated warning, using a lv. 3 in light of their recent disruptive editing in hopes they'd consider that they were crossing the line again.
Instead they made this response to my warning:
And then put their vandalism back in on the article:
This may warrant a caution message from you. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has accepted the WJBscribe case request under the title Reversion of office actions and resolved it by motion as follows:
Community advised Office actions are actions taken by Wikimedia Foundation staff, and are normally expected not to be reversed or modified by members of the community even if they have the technical ability to do so. In this case an office action was taken against Fram ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who was blocked and whose administrator rights were removed by the role account User:WMFOffice in implementing a Partial Foundation ban ( [85]). No similar action had been taken before on the English Wikipedia, and it proved highly controversial.
In response, Floquenbeam ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Bishonen ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) both used their administrator user rights to unblock Fram ( [86]). Floquenbeam's administrator rights were temporarily removed by WMFOffice ( talk · contribs) ( [87]). WJBscribe ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) used his bureaucrat rights first to restore Floquenbeam's administrator rights, and later to restore Fram's ( [88]).
Although
official WMF policy states that Unauthorized modifications to office actions will not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved
,
JEissfeldt (WMF) (
talk ·
contribs) indicated that the WMF would not implement further sanctions against the admins involved in reversing these actions (
[89]). In recognition of that decision, and of the exceptional nature of the circumstances, the committee notes without comment this series of events. The community is advised that administrators and bureaucrats are normally expected not to act when they know they do not have all of the relevant facts, and that this is especially important with regard to office actions where those facts may be highly sensitive. As a general rule,
wheel warring may be grounds for removal of administrative rights by the committee as well as by the WMF. Lack of sanctions under these exceptional circumstances should not set expectations around similar future actions.
For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv 🍁 02:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
In other words the Arbcom simultaneously surrenders and fence sits. Frightened of upsetting the editors and frightened of upsetting the WMF. They need to find some courage. Giano (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Franz Kafka: Das Schloss | |
---|---|
... about about alienation,
|
Thank you for the roarrrring cookies greeting me! Proud co-aothor of Kafka, I recommend you read some of his writing while away, about unresponsive bureaucracy and non-transparent controlling systems. Or better pick flowers? Anyway, thank you for your stance, and the reminder of "incredibly toxic personalities", a phrase which I hated in 2014. I received an enlightening explanation of what "toxic behaviour" may mean by Nishidani.) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe she has achieved notability now as she continues to be an internet sensation and being one of the most followed celebrity in India and acted in leading roles in multiple films, TV ads etc. 2405:204:D28E:878:49A8:9CF3:AFBB:2078 ( talk) 11:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
What about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee? I only come here once in a while; what should I do? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke talk page access.-- Cahk ( talk) 09:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen - should I address this issue (concerning armed insurgents within the group targeted by US helicopters on the 'Collateral Murder' video) on the Julian Assange talk page? I don't see that it's a controversial addition - with regards to the Wikipedia article I cited ( airstrike of 12 July 2007), the second paragraph states: "In the first strike, the crews of two Apaches directed 30 mm cannon fire at a group of ten Iraqi men, including some armed men, standing where insurgents earlier that day had shot at an American Humvee with small arms fire. Among the group were two Iraqi war correspondents working for Reuters, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen." And again here: /info/en/?search=July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike#Attack_on_personnel where you can follow the references used to support the claim (principally the redacted military report 'Investigation into Civilian Casualties Resulting from an Engagement on 12 July 2007 in the New Baghdad District of Baghdad, Iraq'). Rosenkreutzer ( talk) 10:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
79.53.156.138 is harrassing me. 99.53.112.186 ( talk) 20:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
No, please help yourself, I am going to have a glass of wine in the sunshine for an hour and then play with Sibyl Lady Mendl in my sandbox! Same characters keep cropping up in my life these days! Giano (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen! Remember the little chat we had some months ago about a user using an IP address. [98]. He resurfaced these days.
Thanks. Cinadon 36 18:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Some more users with the same editing pattern, in en.WP (duck test +): [110], [111], [112], [113] Creating various accounts and occupation with Pireaus and Olympiacos FC are some of his most blaring features.
Maybe there are much more. Cinadon 36 19:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I sent you one. :-) Risker ( talk) 21:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. I saw you were one of the few admins to permanently delete accounts. I would like to delete mine since I don't use it anymore. ( N0n3up ( talk) 00:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC))
can you link me to a page about committed identity? thanks. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 18:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi
Could you delete the message? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 22:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
This goat used to be homeless before I sent him here as a token of my appreciation. Please don't eat him.
Rong Qiqi (
talk)
17:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly it was the Fram thing. Please don't listen to that naughty Giano; the goat is old and wise and better as a companion than a meal. Rong Qiqi ( talk) 21:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
μόνας ἀκούω τῶν ζῴων τὰς ἵππους καὶ κυούσας ὑπομένειν τὴν τῶν ἀρρένων μίξιν: εἶναι γὰρ λαγνιστάτας. διὰ ταῦτά τοι καὶ τῶν γυναικῶν τὰς ἀκολάστους ὑπὸ τῶν σεμνοτέρως αὐτὰς εὐθυνόντων καλεῖσθαι ἵππους.(I have heard that Mares are the only animals which when pregnant allow the male to have intercourse with them. For Mares are exceedingly lustful, and that is why strict censors call lecherous women 'mares'.(hippous)'tr A.F. Scholfield
"(You want goat?) No I might a kill I queen...." Martinevans123 ( talk) 15:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I have it on good authority that you are responsible for this. EEK! ANgry-fence-cat's "roarr" made me jump! Speaking of "roarr," best regards to Bishzilla. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 10:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The cakes look delightful.
Would it be wrong to ask an impartial, uninvolved admin (that would be you) to look at a languishing ANI post? I was going to request a third opinion before posting, but the affected editor pre-empted me. I think there are serious civility (toxicity) issues, but the "toxic" editor has accused me of stalking, so I want no further part in this editor's editing. I can trust you to tell me if I'm wrong and to decide what if anything needs doing. Thanks Dlohcierekim ( talk) 10:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, why would I write article talk pages, when I need to write that editor, article talk pages are meant to dicuss about articles not editors. bye, and that certain person Is not readin comments before starting revert war, you are blaming wrong person, thanks and pls stop posting to my talk page also, I dont need comments there, when Im right --> Typ932 T· C 19:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, Hope all's well,
I just wanted to say a big thanks for helping yesterday,
Usually I don't react like that even if I do find the notifs annoying but yesterday was a day from hell and the edit conflicts with the editor every time I tried to do something really didn't help,
Anyway many thanks again for your help it was much appreciated :),
Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk
09:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. Last week you indefinitely blocked User:SNF-87 for trying to game the semiprotection restriction and for clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you for doing that, but, unfortunately, it looks as if they're now back with a new username to do the exact same thing all over again. We've been having problems with this editor making personal attacks and removing sourced content in articles for months now – by my count they've already been blocked at least four times, so I'm not convinced that they they'd respond well to the dispute resolution process. What's the best course of action here? Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks, A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 22:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
You mentioned you had a little script that added a royal crown to a user name if they were an admin. Could you possibly divulge that code and how to implement it? It sounds like it could be not only useful, but kinda "groovy man - like far out" (although perhaps "totes cool" is today's lingo) — Ched : ? — 17:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm about to ping you at Talk:Latino about a circumstantially obvious undeclared sock of Lauracerffer ( talk · contribs). I'm trying to assemble diffs and stuff, but you may have more background on this particular case, not to mention more tools, and thus be able to deal with it more rapidly than I could. If your plate is full, no worries; feel free to ignore, and I'll carry on investigating on my side, and report back eventually. Mathglot ( talk) 23:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Went back through my Email archive "Toshiba CK6R4" and searched for said reply: couldn't find it. Any ideas please?
Hi Bishonen, would request you to check and protect the articles on Nath (surname) & Debnath. The user User:Siddy0070, who is engaged in an edit war, seems to be a sock of User:Siddharthnath0070. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian ( talk) 09:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to be sure you don't miss this [119]. E Eng 07:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Bish - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catahoula bulldog. I just went back over the cited sources in the article - removed the garbage citations, and added tags. I asked Tone to review the close again. Also take a look at the editing experiences of the iVotes - which is great that new editors are getting involved. A few WP:WikiProject Dog editors and I are trying to clean-up articles about breeds that are not breeds, rather they are dog-types, if that, and most are not cited to RS because there are none. I don't think WP considers self-published dog lover/puppymill/hobbyist books as RS, and the same would apply to websites. I want to avoid the back-and-forth with the newbies (so far, I've managed well and have tried to be encouraging) so if you will just take a look at what we're dealing with, and share your thoughts, I'll go from there. Atsme Talk 📧 18:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
That block (71.31.30.66 ) should be for personal attacks, they did some small vandalism yesterday but today their edits weren't vandalism they were simply blanking TP warnings the main issue was the comments in edit summary. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 20:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey Bish, I pinged you earlier about this, but I think this is linked to the socking over at Garner Ted Armstrong. The IP addresses are all different, but the IP editor is restoring the same unverifiable quotation about Merle Haggard and Armstrong that they were warring over on that page, and their talk page comments make it pretty clear they are mostly concerned with linking Armstrong and Haggard. Can you take a look or should I just ask at ANI? Thanks! Nblund talk 15:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
"11:54, 21 April 2016 Nyttend changed protection level for Merle Haggard [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 11:54, 28 April 2016) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Persistent disruptive editing: Addition of copyright infringements by multiple IPs)."Persistent seems right! Incidentally, I do see your ping on Talk:Merle Haggard now, but I did not receive your notification. Unreliable, pings are! 😟 Bishonen | talk 16:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC).
You've got some. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 14:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that gross incivility often gets people blocked and lead to their comments being oversighted within seconds. I notice that other times it doesn't. Here, for example. I suppose that the advantage to this double standard is that I can always link to it to show how en.wp is more toxic for some than others. I noticed that the person who reverted it reported a lot of people for vandalism in the moments following, but didn't report the guy for incivility. I wonder why vandalism is a greater crime than repeated personal attacks? (see also the antz talkpage) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with this . I really do appreciate the culture of fr.wp where ArbCom cases are filed by the name of the prosecutor. Nevertheless, I do appreciate you blocking the single purpose account the instant I reported the attack. I'm not optimistic about the likelihood of Bulldog antz becoming a collaborative encyclopédiste, but you never know. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 09:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks like time could have been saved with an indef. @ Vanamonde93: thanks again for cleaning up the attack. Here is the SPI evidence that Sayerslle is running the account.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
It isn't often that I chortle with glee, while reading WP. But the appearances of Bishzilla make me laugh aloud! Ohh, the raptures... her graceful snout, her fiery eyes, her learned and idiosyncratic discourse! She brings joy to the hearts of all who love her, and worship from afar. (Like *really* far away, those flames look dangerous!) With gratitude, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 21:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
From history, and page history as well; I have learned not to unprotect these folks. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Could you delete this edit? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 23:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I got distracted there and didn't notice your were already dealing with it. Do you want me to remove the username block? -- kingboyk ( talk) 15:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Bloodofox is a wiki-friend and I have formerly collaborated with them; I broke my promise to myself to make fewer than five edits to Wikipedia this month, for the second month, because of their ping and because there are few of us left fixing Norse/ancient Germanic messes. But was the copyright violation at Völva only the failure to attribute when restoring the pre-rewrite version of the page? If so, a new editor would be unlikely to realise that copying within Wikipedia without attribution counts as copyvio, and in light of the personal concerns they revealed on their talkpage, I'd like to plead for some mercy for this well intentioned editor, perhaps in the form of a message from you explaining the coying problem and suggesting they ask for unblock with a promise to cease the insults as well as the death curses. I have been trying to fix the mess of bad links, bad Norse, lack of bolding, on the page and talk them down on their talk page, but I type slowly. Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Bishonen, Bloodofox, I was reading the Litro article linked here <redacted>, thinking it could fit on Presscoverage/Presstemplate at Talk:Carl Raschke, but the article seems to violate WP:OUTING, and the link should perhaps be supressed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Playtime000000 - another sock of that HughD loser. Honestly I don't know why they don't just get a life. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
They had the same "special" signature here, just FYI. They really look like they're WP:NOTHERE imo. They've already been in an edit war and personally attacked someone twice, along with this. - Frood ( talk!) 04:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
pings me on each spree-- how thoughtful of them.-- Deep fried okra 02:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Excuse me, but I saw bad language in one of your userboxes.
The userbox I’m talking about is the one about...
...speaking?
Mind my language, but it said “S*ut u*” in the text of the userbox.
Can I edit your userpage to change the text to something more appropriate?
Rng0286 (
talk)
08:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
This user loves the sound of her own voice. You probably think that if you ignore her she might eventually shut up, but you reckon without her inflated sense of her own importance.(my emphasis) is the offending phrase. I suspect the OP doesn't realize this is self-directed and thinks someone else has vandalized your userpage and they're doing you a favor in pointing it out. ‑ Iridescent 09:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I came here to say something funny about Swedish, but now I see this is serious, Bishonen. The civility police have come for you. Any last words before you are banned? Jehochman Talk 10:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I can’t abide bad language of any description, it displays a very limited vocabulary. Giano’s wife swears a lot; whenever I stay with them, all I can hear is filth being muttered under her breath, but then she’s from Venice, and we all know what they say about people from Veneto - all that filthy water sloshing around. I’m afraid Mrs Bishonen any more of these complaints about you and I shall be forced to contact the WMF and have you sent to the same dark place as the unfortunately vocabularied Mr Corbett. The Lady Catherine de Burgh ( talk) 13:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow... as you have a link to the essay "Complete bollocks", I would have thought that would have been more of a problem! - SchroCat ( talk) 15:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Deepcruze ( talk · contribs) has long been on a Dalit-promotion mission. I've just reverted them again but yesterday left a couple of notes on their talk page because I am utterly fed up of trying to clean up their mess over several years. They removed my remarks without comment, which is typical as they seem rarely (ever?) to engage with other contributors. I realise that removal constitutes acknowledgement of having read the stuff but is this the last straw? - Sitush ( talk) 09:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
"ABVP and NSUI which field mostly Jat or Gujjar candidates for important posts in DUSU", each of which refer to a specific election only, and not to a generic trend; the only source previously supporting the content was a now-defunct right-wing web news outlet, which wasn't terribly reliable. this edit, since reverted by Sitush, added
"the oppressed majority comprising 85% of India's population"as a qualifier to a group previously identified only as "untouchables"; the source supporting it, however, is only reporting a quote from a politician claiming to advocate for said demographic, and doesn't make the claim in its own voice. SpacemanSpiff has given them a warning about caste-related GS, which, as luck would have it, is still valid for three more days. My approach would be to apply a caste-related topic-ban, along with a warning that the continued failure to communicate and to use sources properly will result in an indefinite block. I'm INVOLVED with respect to Indian political parties, and don't want to place the actual sanction. That said, they essentially haven't edited the Article Talk namespace at all...so I'm not exactly opposed to an indefinite block. Vanamonde ( Talk) 19:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Bishonen, I removed your PROD from the article Tunde Bakare because I thought there was enough content online for the subject to pass WP:GNG. I have added several citations to the article. If you have time please visit the article to see if your concerns have been helped, or please tell me how I can fix those problems if those issues still are present in the article. Thank you Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to contribute to my RfA and for sharing your own experience. Being compared to you is flattery more than I deserve and to have you do it while addressing the concerns of some neutral and oppose editors is beyond what I could expect. Thank you. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, we seem to have one of the periodic campaigns to substitute revisionist caste history/naming etc at Immanuvel Devendrar. A whole bunch of anons have been having a go these last few days. - Sitush ( talk) 05:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey Bishonen, Many thanks for blocking them,
Obviously we're all volunteers here and aren't required to be here 24/7 but the report had sat there all day without any sort of comment .... so I just assumed everyone passing wasn't bothered and felt no admin intervention was required, ANI is pretty quick when it comes to reports so just assumed no one cared really,
Kinda wished I left it open longer but anyway thanks again for your swift actions :),
Many thanks, –
Dave | Davey2010
Talk
19:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dear, Vanjari Caste is redirected to Banjara. Kindly note the difference between two. And keep both pages separate. As I am not a regular user, so don't know how to make it. Goresm ( talk) 08:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks [124]. Anything in particular? Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no00037962/ - Hope that's not an egg-sucking lesson. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
|url=
with
https://doi.org/10.1093/english/efn039, or you could skip the url altogether and use |doi=
with 10.1093/english/efn039; that's usually verifiable enough (that was what you were asking, yes?)
Vanamonde (
Talk)
19:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I have taken it upon myself to research the Face of Vim for You, however, in these rather gender conscious days I’m not sure Wikipedia will permit her Poor Nadja to be so portrayed. There is this poor female who obviously has a very stressful life; then there’s this unfortunate woman clearly suffering some form of digestive disorder. Indian women fare better, a little dab of Vim behind the ears puts a smile on the face. However, for those with more precious possessions, there is a solution to conserving the Meissen dinner service]. Neither will socialising with friends improve a woman’s worries, her friends have noticed her personal problems. All in all, women had a tough, grime trodden time of it. There is, though, hope on the horizon, her daughters will live in an emancipated society, and she herself, may even get lucky with him. What heady days those where for women. Sadly, I can find no trace of Nadja. Giano (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Have you seen [132]? It's not a RS, but has a specific date for the TV broadcast. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Re this; do you have a copy of Finale? Does it credit the painter of the the dust jacket? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Authorship of the artwork is resolved, though that opens up further questions of who commissioned it, and where it is now. Also, unrelated to that, there are more sources on both Malacridas, at [133]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Bishonen, I recently came upon a brief quotation of yours in some board or Talk page, where you recapitulated what seemed to be a value of yours, which sounded like it might have been oft-repeated, where you spoke about your feeling about how preserving the time of constructive editors was an important goal, or resource, or something like that. The way you phrased it was much better, and I've forgotten the details of it. In any case, it could be a helpful quotation to reference in a situation I'm dealing with, but I can't find it, now. Do you know what I'm talking about? If you can give me a link to that excerpt, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 18:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The reason I removed the sentence "Opponents of Islam (such as Ibn Warraq, Sam Shamoun) have worked to find internal inconsistency and scientific errors in the holy book, and faults with its clarity, authenticity, and ethical message." is because the source doesn't mention or say anything about what is being claimed it says (you can see the source here. [1] Look up the source and see it for yourself. There is NO MENTION of anything about Ibn Warraq or Sam Shamoun at all. The sentence seems to be editorialization. Also Sam Shamoun is unreliable and non-notable source, he is a Christian missionary with no academic background on Islam whatsoever. 46.212.241.21 ( talk) 19:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Asking here as everything seems stuck in the outbox, have you now received 164 and 171? Giano (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
You probably got the ping, but someone is going to yell at me if I don't formally notify you. I referred to a warning you gave Sir Joseph, here. You don't have to bother with it if you'd rather not. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Ahmad Shameel is engaged in promotion, has hijacked Khokhar and moved their talk page to Draft talk:Ahmad Shameel. I can't undo that move. - Sitush ( talk) 09:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
[134] - just wondering if you're trying to get a sleeper check done or just filing it for record purposes (I'm starting to wade back into SPI and this came across my screen, so thought I'd check). Hope you're well! Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 09:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to show that an admin's past interactions with me constitutes a conflict of interest. There is some evidence to that effect on the talk page of Amy Sequenzia, which has been deleted. The article itself cannot be undeleted because it may contain libel, but I would still like to pull some diffs from the talk page if you can help me with that. -- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 00:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Now, that AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Rubin, that's interesting: Bbb claims he acted only as an administrator; Wikiman claims Bbb was pushing a fringe view. The AfD provides not a shred of evidence that Bbb even had an opinion on the matter; he only had an opinion on the matter of Wikiman's crusade--so when Wikiman says, in that AfD, "Please do not push fringe positions", their comment is misplaced: Bbb did not push any position, but only remarked that at AfD the question is whether notability is established.
Wikiman also says, in the AfD, "And I most certainly am on a campaign to eliminate this garbage from Wikipedia". That's fine: we should all be eliminating garbage. But if that becomes one's only goal, and if one thinks one can achieve that goal by making false accusation and mixing up administrative with content-related commentary, one quickly falls into WP:CIR territory, and that is where Wikiman is headed if they don't stop bothering Bbb. Consider this a warning, Wikiman: stop hounding. Drmies ( talk) 01:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind my guests discussing amongst themselves, but this has moved quite a ways from the original thread. Moving it to Talk:Cupping therapy for other editors of the article to see sounds like a good idea. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC).
References
Anitakeshri ( talk · contribs) has been editing, including while logged out, at Kesarwani and related articles but seems not to realise they have a user talk page. I think this is going to need an attention-grabbing short block. I've done a lot of reverting, some of which was for copyright violation but most is simply because they're pushing some POV based on a source from the 12th century. I'm not the only one who has reverted them. - Sitush ( talk) 10:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that the "Viking War Raider Machine" (or whatever its current iteration is), will be moved hither and yon before all is said and done. The WWE folks are a .... umm ... passionate - yes that's it "passionate" lot. Given how often the WWE changes direction, story-lines, and wrestlers names - it's difficult to predict what next month's flavor of the month will be. Good move and all - I'm not complaining of course, just that I noticed it and thought "Bishonen is editing WWE articles? - hmmm - seems more a job of Bishzilla if anything") lol. (plus it was an excuse to drop by and say hi - :)) I hope the entire family is doing well. Cheers. — Ched ( talk) 20:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen!
I have the same complaints from the same User:Cinadon36. I can't contribute in EN:WP. I am getting reverted in few minutes cause he constantly finds excuses to revert me at once. First due he reverted me cause he thinks it is due (a third user reverted him cause he is just saying just nonense just to revert me), now he finds that a book from famous historians is not a RS and now when i did the same, and i deleted a fringe and conspiracy theory from a militant amateur anarchist historian, now he is saying that this section was for too long in English WP!!!
I fear that this attitude is something that we can find it in Greek Wikipedia, where many users think that he is constantly chasing users.
I am banned from English Wikipedia from this user for many months. Please do something Αντικαθεστωτικός ( talk) 07:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I have answered to the ANI. I should have gone there first. Αντικαθεστωτικος does not respect BRD. What is the proper way to deal with this irritating behavior oh his? Cinadon 36 19:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I've written to various people and companies to try to get to use a photo of Nadja for Nadja Malacrida. For instance to Studio Lafayette, [140], which owns the US copyright of a fine portrait from 1929 (=only five years from being PD in the US). And to Vim to try to find their advertisements with Nadja in them. But no luck so far. Anything I find can always be added later. So I've moved my sandbox version to mainspace. If anybody feels like putting it up at DYK, feel free. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
Thanks for creating Nadja Malacrida.
User:Winged Blades of Godric while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:
I am not seeing the passage of WP:N, based on current sourcing.
The most-exploited source is a poem-collection from a publisher of no/little repute and the biography (over there) is written by someone, of no/little repute.
Going by Murdoch (who seems to be the sole source to have covered her), I guess we need to wait unless somebody manages to eventually rescue her :-)
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Winged Blades of Godric}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
∯WBG converse 19:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Winged Blades of Godric. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Nadja Malacrida, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
∯WBG converse 19:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Report of inquest is in The Times - "Motor-Car Over Embankment." 6 Oct. 1934, p. 9 (also report of accident, 4 Oct, p. 14.) Same paper has a brief note that her estate ws ca. £20k - "Death" 30 November, 1934, p.10. Also a fair few mentions in the Court Circular pages etc, marriage announcement - the usual socialite type of thing. - Sitush ( talk) 10:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't normally assess article quality based on who wrote it versus what the content is, but both Giano and Bishonen have overseen more FAs than I've had hot dinners, so the odds that either (in conjunction with Andy Mabbett) would deliberately put a non-notable biography in mainspace are about as likely as Boris Johnson being a trustworthy and credible politician. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
You commented about me in this thread ages ago. For some reason, the article popped up on my watchlist today and I'm not impressed. I can't really stub the thing again but it might help to have some eyes on it because I've been pretty disparaging of what has been going on - copyvio, misrepresenting sources, all the rest of it. Tbh, it is far too vague a subject to ever form a decent article but articles about Brahmins generally tend to fly below my radar because they have a habit of using obscure, native language texts of dubious reliability. This one, thus far, hasn't really hit that point but doubtless it will if I keep complaining. - Sitush ( talk) 10:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
And, since I am in the area, Anitakeshri ( talk · contribs) appears to have just waited out their block then done the same type of rubbish edit again. - Sitush ( talk) 11:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The book cited as reference in the page 'Banafar' mentions some individual person as of mixed Rajput and ahir race but this doesn't mean whole Banafar community become mixed Rajput and Ahir .If some person marries other of different tribe ,this doesn't mean his whole community become 50% mixed .The admins are not opening and reading the source cited it seems. 1 of the policies of Wikipedia is that unsourced claims will be challenged and removed .Then why some admins are making conclusions from some irrelevant articles and instead of removing that unsourced claim ,you are blocking me? Fake information is being spread through your page .People will question Thakur Singh ( talk) 19:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks like you forgot to pull the trigger? Primefac ( talk) 17:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Should I WP:AE this one, do you think? 8675309 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It's not a POV-only warrior, but I do wonder if the account might have changed hands at some point. Block, or TBAN, or ignore? Guy ( help!) 18:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
One of your stalkers may know the answer to this: For the last few days whenever I check changes on my watchlist, instead of instantly seeing two columns of text instantly showing me the difference, I have to wait ages while some demented bar flashes across the screen, then I get a single text with highlights of differing colours. I loathe it! Have I inadvertently clicked something or is this the future? Giano (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, could you please review/monitor edits by User talk:185.7.216.130, and/or block the IP you blocked in March for a longer period? Only vandalism. Thanks, WikiHannibal ( talk) 06:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, we are looking for a person who can help us in removing the page on Wikipedia due to negative comments on the page. please feel free to contact on sunil@socialvive.co.in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmayymahajan ( talk • contribs)
You removed my edit of the entry for hypocrisy stating that it is not meant to attack individuals and not to post my opinion. My update was neither of those things. It was a factual example of what hypocrisy is. A person states one thing, then states the opposite. I am not going to argue for you to put the content back, but I do think your reasoning for removing the content was invalid.
gaber77
You say "Wikipedia:Keep off my talk page! is an essay, not a policy or guidelinme.", but there is not any policy in the reverse direction, either, is there? Wikipedia:User_pages#Ownership_and_editing_of_user_pages only says that it is "sensible" not to edit a talk page when asked, it does not mention blocks; then how could I be blocked for writing on MrOllie's Talk page? Further, you say that I would be blocked specifically for harassment, but how could it be so if I have not harassed anybody? Does Wikipedia really work that way? Notrium ( talk) 23:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
BTW, talking to MrOllie is not my hobby, it is just that explicitly forbidding me from talking to him for no apparent reason seems like unnecessarily stifling freedom of speech. Notrium ( talk) 23:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
On 12 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nadja Malacrida, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nadja Malacrida said in a Vim advertisement that it was "no use having new ideas of decoration if you have old ideas of dirt"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nadja Malacrida. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Nadja Malacrida), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Since I seem to have got you partially interested, I thought I'd complete the seduction with an example of how to include page numbers. [144] E Eng 05:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen
I would like your impartial read of the recent edits in the Thai Pongal Page. There is an editor by the name of 'Pandian tamil' who removes large chunks of appears to be significant material that other editors included some years ago. I try restoring those paragraphs/sentences but he reverts it. Not sure how to proceed. You may perhaps look at it with a fresh objective perspective. I could be wrong but he comes across as very PoV.
Dipendra2007 ( talk) 16:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Bishonen.
And thank you RegentsPark. Useful feedback and suggestions.
I have not really contributed to this particular page. My sense, right or wrong, is that deletion of large chunks of material without discussion may not always be a good idea. I hear you guys though. I do not check Wiki regularly but intermittently do so and will keep in mind. Thank you to all once again. Best regards Dipendra2007 ( talk) 19:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Sara, I hadn't checked Wikipedia since October 15. I liked your edits on the Pongal page. On Puthandu, I briefly head home in late December. I will try to provide the citations after reviewing the material and alert you once done for review. I hear you on why 3rd century and why 8 century etc. I will try to provide the citations or revised language once I get a hand on the source material. Cheers. Dipendra2007 ( talk) 20:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi B, I'm curious about
this unblock, although I do respect your decision. At the time the user page was deleted, it was a
mere sliver.
Now it really feels like fake article/webhost territory to me. I would be interested in hearing a contrary opinion about this.
Regards,
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
20:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Six years! |
---|
Thank you for your all-around roarring presence, on top of that crying is okay here. And thanks for a roarring pie and a roarring thunderstorm ;) - My talk page is more quiet, but today has roarring music (a conductor friend had her birthday), and musing about qualification for adminship, which means teh rulez. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello.
Can you look at
WP:Administrators' noticeboard #More_Andy? The guy harasses me since December, 2013 (of course, I can present more diffs if it matters for anything).
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
17:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Generally I can defend myself, but what to do with shit like [146] or [147] directed at other users? Who of local sysops—but you—may take appropriate actions despite unwritten “licenses” (given to certain Wikipedians)? I mean licenses to post ad hominem stuff, defame and threaten opponents. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 03:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
... with thanks from QAI |
|Thank you for having supported the right candidacy for arbitration. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
How about you, now that he can't? - Thank you! Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Meaza Ashenafi. MB 00:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Salamandra85 (
talk)
18:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
You supported the rough violation of the most important not negotiable neutrality rule by CorbieVreccan and blocked me without a reason.
More details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=924913943#Intractable_behavior_of_users_CorbieVreccan,_Bishonen,_Yunshui
Hello Bishonen. You probably remember me as that editor who, well, broke Wikipedia under the username UpsandDowns1234. Life has gotten a little stressful for me and the current WikiBreak script is broken ATM so I was wondering if you could place a block on my account until 1 January 2020?
About two years ago in the summer I requested one, but you declined it because I did not know how serious a self-block is. I do not want the block to look bad on my block log, but I think a break from editing is a bit necessary, especially with personal matters that may make productive editing difficult. (PS I requested a block on wikiHow with success as well.) Awesome Aasim 01:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Bish, do you know you can enter an exact expiry date in the block settings? The format is awful (something like YYYYMMDDhhmmss UTC) but there's a calendar widget now. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 12:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Just thought I'd stop by to say that I'd never heard of your musical success before today's DYKs!
Unless, of course, it's made by the nibbly pocketing one? Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bish and Bishers--any suggestions on what to do here? These accounts are SPAs, and don't have the decency even to explain what they're doing. Look at their reverts, and count YouTube/Instagram/iTunes/qq (and look at what I removed from the associated discography). I'm losing patience with these fools. Drmies ( talk) 04:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Can you go and accept the speedy deletion nomination here, quickly, please? I don't think it should be left for long, because the editor is likely to use one of her sockppets to remove the tag. 213.205.192.249 ( talk) 12:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Kurdish civil engineer and politician
Hevrin Khalaf,
who worked for tolerance
among Christians, Arabs, and Kurds,
was killed
in the
2019 Turkish offensive into Syria?
What was I told before? Kolg8 ( talk) 02:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
"Well you can appeal the ruling by going to Wikipedia:Deletion review". On Deletion review, first read the instructions for listing an AfD on that page. If you find them confusing, go to the talkpage Wikipedia talk:Deletion review, say what you want to do and why, explain that you're an inexperienced user, and ask for somebody to help you format the listing. Before you do any of this, though, you may want to recall that Dmcq also said
"However I don't think there is much hope for a reversal of the decision.Regards, Bishonen | talk 03:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC).
I read your reply to their novella and I get the impression that you read the entire thing. I was a bit confused. Do you deserve a barn star for reading the entire thing or a trouting for reading the entire thing? I finally decided that an Arctic fox sitting outside my office enjoying the sun was required. I hope it doesn't eat the cygnet. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke talk page access.-- Cahk ( talk) 12:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Interface administrator changes
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Hi there, Bishonen. I wanted to let you know that I'm confident that TurokSwe is violating the indefinite you placed on him and that he is continuing his disruptive behavior from the IP of 94.245.11.29. On Alien (franchise), List of Predator (franchise) comics, Predator (franchise), Zilla (Godzilla), Predator (franchise), Alien vs. Predator (franchise), Tremors (franchise), Ellen Ripley, you'll find this IP address making identical edits to TurokSwe's final edits before they were banned. I'm respectfully requesting a rangeblock on the IP. DÅRTHBØTTØ ( T• C) 11:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
do the necessary? Many thanks! —— SN 54129 14:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
We have entered the "age to come" foretold by Jesus in Mark 10:30.
This is meant to begin a serious conversation about editing, but it is best (necessary) that you know what time it is first.
100.14.80.135 ( talk) 08:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)