Category needs a whack
Hi Bish. Can you put this category out of its misery? I've tried leaving friendly notes on the creator's talk page about using WP for social networking and publicity. Not sure they'll take it in, though. I'll keep an eye his edits in case he needs a sterner word from an august admin . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I'm just an april admin, but I've applied the coup de grâce. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, RexxS! Could you (or Bish, or both) possibly put User talk:Kanishk1901 and his user page on watch? My previous two messages to him have fallen on deaf ears. I've now left a third. He's currently using his talk page to inform the world about the Corona virus. Sigh. Voceditenore (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, Voceditenore, but user space is less of an issue, as none of it is indexed by Google or other big search engines (see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know, RexxS. In the great scheme of Wikipedia shenanigans, this one is relatively minor, but he has already managed to suck up a considerable amount of admins' time—one (you) to delete his "category", two more to delete his user page (recreated after the first delete) . Hopefully, he's got the message now, but I'm not holding my breath. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, Voceditenore, but user space is less of an issue, as none of it is indexed by Google or other big search engines (see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, RexxS! Could you (or Bish, or both) possibly put User talk:Kanishk1901 and his user page on watch? My previous two messages to him have fallen on deaf ears. I've now left a third. He's currently using his talk page to inform the world about the Corona virus. Sigh. Voceditenore (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
User talk:Bond of Nepal Development
Hey, thanks for blocking Bond of Nepal Development (talk · contribs). The user has now decided to use their talk page as a way of advertising the organisation. Could you please remove TPA? --MrClog (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Reply WP:BLUDGEON
Please stop going round in circles at Talk:September 11 attacks. Wikipedia is not an opinion outlet; Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy. Please consult it. I quote: "On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research." See further down on the policy page for what counts as a reliable source. You are bludgeoning the discussion by insisting that the article should depart from Wikipedia policy, despite having it repeatedly explained to you both at article talk and here on your own talk.[2] Everybody has to follow our reliable sources policies — if it's your opinion that "I never think Western media is reliable enough on various topics", you need to check that opinion at the door. If you insist on promulgating it and thereby flouting our policies, Wikipedia may not be for you. Please desist or you are likely to be blocked from Talk:September 11 attacks or topic banned from the topic September 11 attacks. Bishonen | tålk 17:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC).
- You argue that I don't follow the policy, but how about WP:TERRORIST policy and WP:NPOV, are you forgetting those ones? normal people would consider "Islamic terrorist" is more original research through editorial bias rather than factual "suicide hijackers" found on the incident. — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Complaint
"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Julian Assange. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 22:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)"
Dear Bishonen,
Vandalism? Really? For changing a subjective and emotive heading to one which is neutral? How do you justify your claim?
218.214.148.54 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- <tps>Stop promoting conspiracy theories. The article had to be protected because of your edits. Acroterion (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Dear 218.214.148.54: I should have said "disruptive editing and edit warring" rather than "vandalism", I'm sorry. You changed the header "Seth Rich conspiracy theory", which is strongly supported by the sources, to "Seth Rich alleged connection", which is not — that's tendentious and disruptive editing — and then you edit warred to keep your version. The article was indeed protected because of your disruptive editing, and if El C hadn't done that, I would have blocked you next time you put your favored version in. Bishonen | tålk 12:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC).
Something to look at
I believe you had already warned and blocked this user for more or less the same thing (forumshopping etc). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, my, they don't seem to be aware at all that forumshopping is a bad thing, but proclaim quite proudly that "I have started half a dozen discussions asking him for explanations" (him = ජපස). I've posted a strong warning. Thanks for the heads up, ThatMontrealIP. Bishonen | tålk 20:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC).
Administrators' newsletter – April 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
|
- There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.
- There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
- The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
IP vandal from Sex differences in humans
This IP is clearly the same person: [3] They were using it to edit war over the same thing yesterday.
Thanks. Crossroads -talk- 22:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. For my talkpage stalkers, this is in re this RFPP. Crossroads, you may want to also look at this IP, same /23 range, same vandalism, which is blocked until December 2022. @Widr: blocked it for 3 years, which makes plenty of sense considering their block log.[4] Widr, do you see anything wrong with me blocking the range 142.161.26.0/23 for a couple of years or so? It's contributions are pretty much all vandalism afaics,[5] going back many years. (A school?) Also pinging @Johnuniq and RexxS: for rangeblock wisdom. Bishonen | tålk 00:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC).
- Recent ones are unlikely to be a school IPs as Manitoba schools are currently closed (as are all other North American schools).. Meters (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Blocking 142.161.26.0/23 for a couple of years looks desirable. I sampled the 30 edits back to 2018 and they were all bad. The 2018 edits looked like more junk from the same person. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. Looks to me also like the IPs are the same person and a long term troll/vandal. I say lock them out for a good long while. And while it may not be a school, they sure are juvenile. Crossroads -talk- 03:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the encouragement, everybody. It felt a little hairy to do it on my own. Range blocked for 3 years. Bishonen | tålk 08:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC).
The Podstar | ||
For bravery in wielding the range block button. --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC) |
Ha, the podstar got an airing! Thank you very much, RexxS! [A shoal of poddies bravely join in.] Bishonen | tålk 17:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC).
- Pay attention to their artistry rather than their synchronicity. ---Sluzzelin talk
Hi Bishonen, this person has some back again: [6] Same 'woman can't be taller than man' nonsense. Crossroads -talk- 22:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi again, Crossroads. Sro23 has blocked 206.45.48.58 for six months. Bishonen | tålk 22:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC).
I would like to report a Nazi committing ban evasion
So, someone who claims to be user Hciam has stated in a thread on another wiki that they are user Kuiet evading a ban. I can provide a link to the thread but due to site policy the wiki they posted on I cannot provided checkuser logs. I'm coming to you since you were the user that banned the original account and I'm still somewhat New to Wikipedia's internal bureaucracy, and thus am not sure where else to post. Comrade GC (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, you might find the discussions at User talk:Hciam § Previous accounts and User talk:Newslinger § Not sure who to ask about this or where to post it... to be useful for context. — Newslinger talk 00:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)- WP:OUTING was much stricter than I had thought. Never mind, and thank you TonyBallioni for the quick correction. — Newslinger talk 00:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I had to revert the link there since our interpretation of our policy on linking accounts is quite strict (not Newslinger's fault since in some ways it is counterintuitive, though there are reasons we read it the way we do.) Anyway, don't post links or threads from other sites here. I'm a CheckUser and oversighter on this project, so I'll look at the accounts to see if there's any correlation that can justify a check, and you're also free to email me Comrade GC. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: I understand and will respect the rules. Apologies if I mistepped. Comrade GC (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Newslinger and Comrade GC: No worries. So I thought it was Roostnerve (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) who is a sock of User2083146168, but they're in the wrong country and I trust the ISPs involved here to not be spoofed. I haven't directly checked Kuiet, but he didn't turn up in the checks I did run. Of course, if the editor is behaving disruptive, people should feel free to block regardless of the question of socking.Also, hi Bish. Happy Easter :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Comrade GC and thanks very much Tony for checking it. I hope you're having as good an Easter as is possible in these dire times. Bishonen | tålk 09:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC).
- @Newslinger and Comrade GC: No worries. So I thought it was Roostnerve (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) who is a sock of User2083146168, but they're in the wrong country and I trust the ISPs involved here to not be spoofed. I haven't directly checked Kuiet, but he didn't turn up in the checks I did run. Of course, if the editor is behaving disruptive, people should feel free to block regardless of the question of socking.Also, hi Bish. Happy Easter :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: I understand and will respect the rules. Apologies if I mistepped. Comrade GC (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Edit war in Koli people page
Hi Bishonen,
Heavy edit-warring in Koli people page. You may want to take a look. Thanks Nittawinoda (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the alert, Nittawinoda. Abecedare has taken care of it. Bishonen | tålk 19:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC).
Request for protecting the article on Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha
Hello Bishonen, would request you to protect the article on Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha. Now that I have incorporated some reliably sourced info, which goes against the POV of the ones trying to promote caste based on dubious sources, vandalism has started, and will only increase. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Ekdalian, always nice to see you. I have topic banned Leo de facto from caste pages. Looking at his edits, I'm far from sure he'll understand what I say, but that can't be helped. If more socks and vandals arrive, I'll consider semiprotection, but at the moment I'll hold off. Bishonen | tålk 15:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC).
Query on Colonial era sources
Hi Bishonen,
The article Kingdom_of_Jeypore is mainly riding on two Raj-era sources. Is this acceptable? Aren't Raj-era sources forbidden? Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well, certainly whole articles should never be based on them. I've prodded the article. Good catch, Nittawinoda. Bishonen | tålk 18:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC).
- Thanks for reviewing it. Nittawinoda (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, can you please tell us why you want to delete our page kingdom of Jeypore. It’s based on reliable sources please check the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeyporeRajMahal (talk • contribs) 22:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @JeyporeRajMahal: Because it's not based on reliable sources. Did you read any of the rationale in the prod that you removed? I've used the same rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Jeypore. You might want to comment there. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, @JeyporeRajMahal: I gave the answer to your question in the prod template that you removed. Didn't you read it? Sources from the Raj era are not reliable. Now can you please in return tell me why you speak of "us" and "our page"? Are you speaking for more than one person? Is User:JeyporeRajMahal an account used by a group? If so, what kind of group? Bishonen | tålk 00:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC).
- Hello, This nittawinoda talks about my article riding two Raj sources and that is only because he is meddling the facts of Solar Dynasty page and I edited it out. He is clearly misinterpreting the facts and creating his own theories. For example, the book says "Iksvakus are not Dravidians
The Iksvakus was the great pre-Aryan Bharatiya race, Pargiter has tried to establish that the Iksyakus should be equated with Dravidians. 32 The Puragas do not know any Dravida tribe, It appears that the Dravidians had not gained any importance by, the Puranic. age circa 30Q. A. D."
and also
But he has not adduced any evidence to prove that the Dravidians existed in Bharata before the Aryan invasions. He has also failed to unearth any Dravidian tradition to prove that the Manavas or Iksvakus were Dravidians."
while his work says - The dynasty takes its name after king Ikshvaku who was the son of Satyavrata also called Shraddhadeva Manu, the king of Dravida kingdom.[6] As per the Vedas, Ikshvaku was the protector of the five territories of Panchajanah who were non-sacrificing pre-Aryan and non-Aryan people. The Atharvaveda and Brahmanas associate the Ikshvakus with the non-Aryan peoples, that is they are different from the Vedic Aryans who composed hymns like Rig Veda.[7][8] F. E. Pargiter has equated the Ikshvakus with the Dravidian peoples.
- PARGITER HAS TRIED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE IKSHVAKUS SHOULD BE EQUATED WITH DRAVIDIAN PEOPLE.
- Does not matter how much a dravidian edits pages of solar or lunar dynasty. The fact will always be the same, they were indo-aryan families, Dravida are not aryans they do not even have kshatriyas.
Please look into this, If I can be challenged for only writing an article then why not this nittawinoda some deluded dravid trying to meddle history. JeyporeRajMahal (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Bishonen, JeyporeRajMahal is making personal attacks on my talk page [7]. He has been removing referenced content and posting his own research and opinion on [8]. Nittawinoda (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me! Nittawinoda , You are the one who is posting your personal opinion by misinterpreting the source. I have only corrected it and also provided a relevant source. You are acting like a cyber bully, removing the facts and replacing them with your own biased opinions. Check : The Hindu History by A K Mazumdar (Redacted).JeyporeRajMahal (talk)
- @JeyporeRajMahal: That sort of incivility aided at another editor is completely unacceptable. You have made another personal attack on their talk page. I've left a final warning on your talk page. Please take it seriously as the next time you insult another editor in that way, I will remove your editing privileges. I hope that is clear. --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- JeyporeRajMahal, as I've just explained on your page, you're lucky that RexxS saw your attacks before I did, or you'd be blocked by now. Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC).
- Bishonen and RexxS Mr. Rex first of all do not teach me civility, you are not my guardian. Secondly, you are teaming up with another dude who is clearly posting his own opinions. Look at the message that I sent you, He is clearly misinterpreting and when I caught him and raised the issue here you completely ignored it. I will definitely edit out any wrong information that I see on wikipedia and especially those wrong information that is deliberately channeled into wikipedia by bigots. Nittawinoda on other hand is trying to force this theory onto every reader and scholar that 'Manu was a dravida king, Ikshavaku was a dravid king'. It is a racist attempt to meddle the history of its true facts which bolsters Dravidian ideology followed by a racist group of people.JeyporeRajMahal (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- @JeyporeRajMahal: You need to learn civility, and I don't need to be your guardian to apply that lesson. I am teaming up with no-one, as I am acting as an uninvolved administrator when taking steps to curb your behaviour. Accusing another editor of racism is a step too far. --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've done an SPI just for the record and in case of future need. Bishonen | tålk 18:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC).
I am requesting my main account to be blocked for 3 months
I am this user (ToxiBoi) requesting to be blocked for somewhere around 3 months. Ontop of that, I'm taking a break from editing on that account and as of now only on-and-off editing on this public account. For confirmation of affilation, you can see this account's userpage history. If that is not sufficient, I might be able to email you the CI. For the reason why I am requesting to be blocked, you can see my main account's userpage, or, in short: someone has somehow managed to wrecked the only computer that has access to the main account, so that account is inactive until further notice.
To make sure this user doesn't do something like recover the password off of my Google settings, I am also requesting a block to my main account, not my public account.
Thanks for your help. [This edit was made on a Xbox. My apologies if I mess something up.] –ToxiBoi! (public) 09:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, ToxiBoi~pub. In principle, yes, I will, but I don't know you, so I will apply my usual 24-hour waiting period before I block. During that time, you need to tell me that you have read my information page about self-requested blocks, User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks, and that you accept the conditions outlined there. I'm frankly a little worried, also, about blocking just one of your accounts, while you continue to use the other — something I've never done before. It would presumably have to be a soft block. Dear talkpage stalkers, do any of you see a problem with it? Bishonen | tålk 11:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC).
- This is, supposedly, the second time their account has been compromised, and they're clearly most interested in gussyfying their user etc pages than actually editing. ——SN54129 11:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) There are certainly precedents for someone losing access to their main account for whatever reason, and that account being blocked until they recover it, while the editor continues to edit using a secondary account. (Giano/Giano II would be an example with which I assume you're familiar.) I do agree with what SN54129 is implying but is too polite to say outright above, that this looks like a textbook example of someone who's on Wikipedia to goof around rather than to contribute, and that if we go out of our way to accommodate an unusual request it should come with the expectation that you settle down and actually do something useful. (I have to say, I don't really understand why you want the block to have an expiry date. Given that you only have a total of 96 contributions, almost all of which are extremely trivial, why not just start afresh with this new account?) ‑ Iridescent 12:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Considering the messages above, I don't think I want to do this, ToxiBoi~pub. I'm sorry, and I wish you well in your future editing. Please note Iridescent's advice. Bishonen | tålk 13:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC).
- That's quite alright, thanks for your advice. However, given the recent circumstances, it will be hard to do more content-creation edits since I'm still restricted to Xbox edits only (and edit conflicts are weird on here). Again, thanks for the advice, and I wholly understand your decision to not block the account. [This edit was made on a Xbox. My apologies if I mess something up.] –ToxiBoi! (public) 23:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Considering the messages above, I don't think I want to do this, ToxiBoi~pub. I'm sorry, and I wish you well in your future editing. Please note Iridescent's advice. Bishonen | tålk 13:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC).
- (talk page watcher) There are certainly precedents for someone losing access to their main account for whatever reason, and that account being blocked until they recover it, while the editor continues to edit using a secondary account. (Giano/Giano II would be an example with which I assume you're familiar.) I do agree with what SN54129 is implying but is too polite to say outright above, that this looks like a textbook example of someone who's on Wikipedia to goof around rather than to contribute, and that if we go out of our way to accommodate an unusual request it should come with the expectation that you settle down and actually do something useful. (I have to say, I don't really understand why you want the block to have an expiry date. Given that you only have a total of 96 contributions, almost all of which are extremely trivial, why not just start afresh with this new account?) ‑ Iridescent 12:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is, supposedly, the second time their account has been compromised, and they're clearly most interested in gussyfying their user etc pages than actually editing. ——SN54129 11:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Request for temporarily protecting the article on Sen (surname) and action against Cleanup 9060301
Hi Bishonen, sorry to bother you once again. The article on Sen (surname) has become a subject of vandalism. Cleanup 9060301 seems to be a sock of User:Dr.SunBD, and has resorted to personal attacks using abusive language (Hindi) on my talk page, in spite of informing him on his talk page. Would request you to take necessary action in order to stop this menace. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Ekdalian. I've indeffed the sock and blocked the sockmaster for a week. Bishonen | tålk 09:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC).
Komodobish gets around
I got a notification that Module:Carousel/Komodobish now has its own Wikidata item: Module:Carousel/Komodobish (Q92193785). That was amusing, but even better was when I spotted that the module also exists on the Bangla Wikipedia bn:মডিউল:Carousel. Just when we're all stuck at home, Komodobish is circling the globe -- T-RexxS (rawr) 15:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Circling with social distance, I hope, dino! I see I'm (or you are? or Komodobish?) invited to "add reference", "add value", and "add statement" at Wikidata. Hmm. I'd better not try, I'd be bound to break it. But you, perhaps? I don't think anybody can "add value", since it's so excellent just as it is, but how about for example a statement? Bishonen | tålk 17:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC).
Discussion at Talk:Cold-weather warfare
Hi Bishonen, perhaps you could add some perspective to the discussion at Talk:Cold-weather warfare#Not global? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- @HopsonRoad: thanks for remembering me! But I'm altogether ignorant of warfare topics, so I fear not. Of the languages mentioned, the only ones I understand are Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, with maybe a smidgeon of French. Worse, I have no skills in searching for the kinds of sources in question. Sorry. Perhaps some of my fine talkpage stalkers would like to join the discussion? Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC).
- (talk page stalker) Random questions about warfare? Count me in! creffett (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
"Or, alternatively, go fuck yourself"
Rarely have I seen the phrase used more aptly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Boing!, that's very kind. I got
threefivesixNote1 - edited by Ched "thank yous" for that comment, which I value very much — you guys know who you are — plus a snide complaint from PackMecEng,[9] which I frankly also value highly. Without it, there would have been something missing for me. Bishonen | tålk 10:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC).- El_C 11:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- First thank-you in May, Bish, because a click seems not enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- remotely in the context: a new IP (as of today) is going around and adds sentences about someone having died during this crisis to article leads. He did that to two articles which I watch, and where I reverted, and for one, Dmitri Smirnov (composer), they not only reverted me, but came to the article talk and to my talk with accusations. Please comment on the article talk, or their user talk where I wrote a welcome message, - on my talk I'm done. I may be wrong, believing that the lead should rather cover a person's life than death. I feel guilty of not having written (yet) more about his life. Not that it matters, but for context: the composer was also a contributor, and wrote the article, and took the photo, of his colleague Alexander Vustin who died only days later. As if all this wasn't sad enough ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Plagiarism everywhere nowadays. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not to dampen the mood, but deepest condolences, Roxy. El_C 11:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, it is because I care. PackMecEng (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- First thank-you in May, Bish, because a click seems not enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes the people who get told to fuck off bury relatives and are grieving too, as they likewise are real people who have feelings. It's as if there was a policy written to treat other editors with respect for this very reason. --Pudeo (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, and sometimes people cherrypick (from the suspects Talk page for goodness sake) in order to stir the muck. I'll not use a bad word on Bish's page, but your post was kind of indicative of the sneaky unpleasant low lifes that exist around here. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note1 - edited by Ched Hi there Bish. I hope you don't send Zilla after me for editing your talk page. It's just a minor edit to account for a number update. Hope you're well - Please stay safe. — Ched (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, — Ched! It's actually eight at this moment — I thought it was time I stopped boasting. (Really? Why?) But indeed I have never been so amply thanked for an edit, not anywhere close. Good night all! Bishonen | tålk 22:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC).
- Want high numbers? look at the views for Roy Horn - couldn't believe it, yes I knew he was famous, but still ... - my best contrib was to not have the lion's paws cropped off. Better than recent deaths: long-ago birthdays, - I even dared to go for FAC, with the music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Go Gerda! Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC).
- going nicely, thank you! - today a composer pictured who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Go Gerda! Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC).
- Want high numbers? look at the views for Roy Horn - couldn't believe it, yes I knew he was famous, but still ... - my best contrib was to not have the lion's paws cropped off. Better than recent deaths: long-ago birthdays, - I even dared to go for FAC, with the music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Mrspaceowl
This user is at it again, unfortunately. Popcornfud (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) They have a block from me now, for 3 months. I only held off indefinite because it's such a nice day here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, no, having looked again I realize now that I was being misled from my grumpy character by a bit of sunshine. The block needs to be indefinite, so I have made it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hope you get to enjoy the sunshine, Boing! said Zebedee. El_C 14:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Strange case. Thank you both. [Pats Boing's grumpy character cautiously on the head.] Nice grump! Keep out of the sunshine! Bishonen | tålk 14:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC).
- Hope you get to enjoy the sunshine, Boing! said Zebedee. El_C 14:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
- Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
- Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
- A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
- A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.
- The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
- Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.
- A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mototaka Nakamura
I would like to ask you to consider relisting this afd. The notability criterion which ismet is WP:PROF, and it was not adequately considered. Mst of thecoments were based on either GNG, or other rrelevant factors, and it is an error to consider the wrong criterion--since }WP:PROF is independent of theGNG. I could of course go directly to Del Rev for this same reason, or , undelete and userify it myself, and then rewrite itandmove it back to main space, but I'd rather ask you first. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for coming here, DGG. I've re-read the discussion, and I'd rather not relist it, especially considering the creator's bludgeoning and accusations of bad faith. Several people addressed the question of the number of citations, and I don't feel I'm familiar enough with the field to dismiss their arguments. I'm not sure in what sense Nakamura would meet WP:PROF. I'd take it to Deletion review if I were you, and go into more detail than what you have done here on my page. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC).
- It's a pretty poorly sourced article and of course there's nothing to stop you from creating a new one, very different one. That would be simpler and hopefully end up with a better article. I doubt that I'd support a relist given how thin the evidence is. Doug Weller talk 10:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Check my reply on "No personal attacks"
You're one to talk. I see on your user page you have been blocked 3 times.
--Akb20 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Akb20
- Yep. I put the link to my block log there (you didn't follow it, I bet) because I want it there, I'm pleased with my block log. I've already replied on your page. There's no need to come here to request my attention; I recommend you to use the ping function, it's simpler. Bishonen | tålk 21:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC).
- So you can imagine how pleased I am with my block log. EEng 01:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- @EEng: yours is a feast for the eyes, but it's a flaw that you don't have Jimbo Wales in it. You need to work towards that. It's harder now, but still. Bishonen | tålk 09:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC).
- You are too modest, Bish – you caused a Lex Jimbo! Now there is something few of us may aspire to. --bonadea contributions talk 09:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- ...or is that a Lex Bishonen? They usually name them after the person who suffered the consequences, I guess. Even so. --bonadea contributions talk 09:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- I just fear that it'll be like scaling Everest. There will be no new worlds to conquer. Life will lose its meaning. EEng 14:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- @EEng: yours is a feast for the eyes, but it's a flaw that you don't have Jimbo Wales in it. You need to work towards that. It's harder now, but still. Bishonen | tålk 09:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC).
- So you can imagine how pleased I am with my block log. EEng 01:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've issued an IPA sanctions alert and I hope that Akb20 will now drop the stick. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. I can understand it's frustrating to be new and unaware of policies and of where they might go to "take this further", and how to navigate the place altogether. I thought of recommending WP:ANI for complaints, but that might qualify as entrapment. Good night, RexxS. Bishonen | tålk 22:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC).
Check my latest reply on "No personal attacks"
--Akb20 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Akb20
- ? I've advised you to use WP:ping instead of posting here and you're not interested. Fine. Please stop posting here in any case; this is the last reply you get on this page. Talking on two pages is just inconvenient. Bishonen | tålk 21:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC).
Strike !votes?
Regarding this AE outcome – does this mean that !votes by the blocked one in this active polling situation (and subsequent sections on that page) can/should/need to be struck? And if so, is that something you'd process, or rather delegate to someone else? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- If the account was a sock, as this SPI indicates, then I'd say their !votes should indeed be struck. I'll make it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Francis Schonken and Boing!. Yes, it's better not coming from me, since I blocked them. Bishonen | tålk 19:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC).
RfC closure
If you or any talk page stalkers would like a nice easy job with plenty of prestige, there's an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility #RfC on table captions that needs closing. Any takers? --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
For the Swedes
Whisky i en bar, best I've heard today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hehe, that's great. Mr Fröding, concerning "Tegnellen", did you happen to catch him with Trevor Noah on the Daily Social Distancing Show? Handled it with distinction, I'd say. Bishonen | tålk 09:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC).
- That was pretty good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I enjoyed that – thanks, Gråberg! (And hey, the pub is Katalin And All That Jazz ! I remember when you could go there. And have whisky, in the bar.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Thank you for all of your contributions to the project, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wishing you a very Happy Adminship Anniversary! Thank you for all the great work you have been doing here for years. Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you all from me and my pet monster. (Who was an admin for a while — please encourage her to take up the tools again by !voting here.) Bishonen | tålk 20:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC).
- Is your pet monster ready to come out? Or are they just um... tired and maintaining two metre distance? Aasim 20:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yess! Lots of happy!! But... only one pet monster? Maybe 'poddies too small. Not so active lately, admittedly. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) To come out? On that, compare her userbox: "This user straight but not narrow." She's out all right, and flirtatious with it.[10] Bishonen | tålk 21:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC).
- Dave souza Well, Darwinbish is reasonably active, Dave, and considers herself the CEO of my sock conglomerate. You can !vote in her RfA too! Goodnight, folks. Bishonen | tålk 21:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC).
- Is your pet monster ready to come out? Or are they just um... tired and maintaining two metre distance? Aasim 20:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wow! 15 years, eh? And to think I was impressed because I recently achieved 10 years. I can see I'm going to have to work really hard to catch up those extra 5 years and get ahead of you. JBW (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian at WP:JIMBOTALK
Hi Bishonen,
Freezing cold winter Sunday morning in 2018 - it must have been only 14°C (!) - banh mi for breakfast - <Dr Evil from the Austin Powers movies voice> "42.8 million dollars!"
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Apologies and pinging etc.
Sorry if it seemed I was egging on the user from the last dust-up on ANI... really was not my intention, but you know what they say about the road to hell.
Just posting a quick note here because I had asked that user not to ping me any longer due to my annoyance with lots of ping-notifications[11]. But I am happy to rescind that request considering the circumstances. Don't know if that's worth communicating or not, but just wanted it to be clear.
Clear skies!
jps (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I've just read that user talk page, and in your position I think I'd just walk away from it now. There are some talks worth talking, and some not, and I'd rate this a not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hi, jps. Gtoffoletto has now posted again to ask if it's all right with me if you want to "defend yourself" against their "accusations" on their page. I don't think I'll reply, because I feel myself getting quite impatient and I might.. show it. But the whole notion of "defending" oneself against name-calling, assumptions of bad faith, and character-assassination is just absurd. I mean they're not actual "accusations", just attacks. I hope and believe you don't want to engage with them. The road to hell is paved with frozen door-to-door salesmen, I thought? User:Gtoffoletto, I'm pinging you to avoid "talking behind your back", but I rather hope you don't have anything to add here. Please don't let any of us drag this out further. Bishonen | tålk 12:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC).
- Thanks for the ping which I always greatly appreciate and ciao! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 12:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have no particular desire to engage. I guess I might have a soft spot because I definitely know what it's like to feel like no one is willing to help. Still, on reflection, I realize that every time I have tried to do this in the past it hasn't worked. What did Albert Einstein not say the definition of insanity is? Okay, enough. jps (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- On the other hand, George Darwin is supposed to have said that every once in a while, you should do a completely crazy experiment. "Probably nothing will happen, but if it did, that would be a stupendous discovery." If you stay optimistic about people, you'll be disappointed most of the time, but it's really great on the odd occasion it works out. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- @RexxS: Interesting quote. I wonder what would have been the positive result here to the experiment... I guess: me stating that the user that has been edit warring against me for months while constantly refusing to engage in discussion is a wonderful human being for suddenly wanting to discuss once he has managed to get me topic banned. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 10:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there something I should know about...
...this editor? My inclination, as with all American politics articles, is to point my nose in the opposite direction of any drama. But something seems off here. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, my little Ponyo. Well, merely that the user states here that they have an account: "I do have an editor page but choose not to use it when I am editing on political pages because I do not want it banned because of a dispute of an editor with a power trip." Bishonen | tålk 19:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC).
- That sounds more like "avoiding scrutiny" than WP:VALIDALT.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, definitely. That's why I posted one of Darwinbish's finest templates on them. (Hello, Serial, thanks for your encouragement of Mama Bear.) Bishonen | tålk 20:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC).
- That is a spectacular template! Meters (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yer, except that 'Shonen posted it at User talk:173.172.158.168 which stopped editing on 11 May, not on User talk:67.10.206.161 which began editing on 12 May and continues with exactly the same tendentious edits as previously. --RexxS (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- SOFIXIT if you like, RexxS. Everybody's welcome to use Darwinbish's templates, she says so. Bishonen | tålk 11:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC).
- I fixed it, I blocked the IP. Pretty obvious even without CU. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- SOFIXIT if you like, RexxS. Everybody's welcome to use Darwinbish's templates, she says so. Bishonen | tålk 11:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC).
- Yer, except that 'Shonen posted it at User talk:173.172.158.168 which stopped editing on 11 May, not on User talk:67.10.206.161 which began editing on 12 May and continues with exactly the same tendentious edits as previously. --RexxS (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- That is a spectacular template! Meters (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, definitely. That's why I posted one of Darwinbish's finest templates on them. (Hello, Serial, thanks for your encouragement of Mama Bear.) Bishonen | tålk 20:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC).
- That sounds more like "avoiding scrutiny" than WP:VALIDALT.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
AN/I discussion archived
I think we're done here. Bishonen | tålk 15:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC). |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hey Bishonen, the discussion over at AN/I was archived without a complete discussion/investigation regarding all the editors involved [12]. Is it normal procedure? What does it mean when a discussion is closed like that? Sorry to bother you (I know you are fed up with this) but I wouldn't want to be accused of forumshopping or some other crazy infraction. Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 19:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gtoffoletto: I outlined in detail and with diffs what you did wrong here a week ago. I tried to show that you had attempted to push other people out of discussions, poisoning the well against them, talking down to them, and bludgeoning Talk:Ufology. You had made complaints about "aspersions" which I don't understand, and which you have so far not answered my questions about. Altogether, you made Talk:Ufology difficult for others to use. At ANI, just before the topic ban, you made attacks on opponents ("this reaction by Roxy is a disgrace") which I did not then and do not now understand, and which you have not answered my questions about. You accused jps, Roxy and Lucky Louie of "constant threats of topic bans and admin reporting". I've asked you for an example or two of these threats, to which you have not responded. You accused opponents of defacing Ufology and degrading the encyclopedia, you linked to off-wikipedia attacks and irrelevant ANI threads — pure opposition research. But I understand that you feel these examples of disruptive editing are a poor fit for the brief reason I gave for the topic ban ("You have been sanctioned for persistent pro-fringe POV-pushing"). Perhaps I was hasty in formulating it. I have therefore changed it to "You have been sanctioned for persistent disruptive editing in the subject area." Bishonen | tålk 11:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC).
|
Odoacer Rex
Special:Diff/957925981 even after your block. Seems like a obvious NOTHERE. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes it does. Though did you see this edit summary a couple of days earlier, Galobtter? Almost sad, isn't it? But I think they've used up all the rope now. You spotted it, would you like to action it? Bishonen | tålk 09:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC).
- No I stay away from adminning on AP2 stuff which is why I posted here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- I see. I blocked them previously, which is why I suggested it would be better if I didn't do it again. But OK. Bishonen | tålk 19:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC).
- Just too immature. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- I see. I blocked them previously, which is why I suggested it would be better if I didn't do it again. But OK. Bishonen | tålk 19:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC).
- No I stay away from adminning on AP2 stuff which is why I posted here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Our dear friend HiddenTempo
I remember his technical data well enough that there doesn't need to be a recent sock, for what its worth. He's not very good at hiding. I think we have some old cuwiki data on him, but I'd have to check. Mainly just go based on having dealt with him enough. Anyway, the PreferredUsername guy wasn't him, but if there's someone who looks like him, you can report it to the SPI or email me even if there isn't a sock to check... he's not very clever. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, for myself I didn't think PreferredUsername talked like Hidden Tempo — he'd have to be pretty clever to use such a different tone, even if the sentiments are the same. Thanks, Tony, I'll remember. Bishonen | tålk 09:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC).
User:SmooveMike
Pretty positive this is actually User:Urgal, who you blocked recently. Edits the same articles the same way. Rikster2 (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- SmooveMike and Machr123 are both Confirmed to Urgal.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- See, all I need to do is sleep through it all. And go up Urgal's block time... oh no, my little Ponyo has taken care of that too. Thank you both! Bishonen | tålk 09:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC).
- I've studied the user talkpage with interest: apparently the user has been here ten years and is surprised to learn you can't simply use a sock account when your main one is blocked. Restored the declined unblock request again, and revoked tpa. Bishonen | tålk 09:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC).
- Thank you all for putting this sock back in the drawer. There has been a persistent problem with socks and IPs blanking content, adding fringe views to the lead, and adding the NPOV tag to Racial views of Donald Trump. I wonder if we should consider placing the article under WP:ECP, especially in light of current events. The edit history is self-evident, but I could readily produce a list of the top 50 unhelpful edits of the past 12 months if that would help make the case. - MrX 🖋 11:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm. There won't have been any IPs recently, MrX — the article was indefinitely semiprotected in December 2019. I'm not very much at home with ECP — studying the Rough guide to extended confirmed protection here... right. I might. So, Mr X, could you provide a list of recent disruptive edits to the article? Not 50 diffs! Say the latest ten diffs, while ignoring Urgal and his sock. Bishonen | tålk 11:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC).
- In addition to the SmooveMike&Urgal puppet show, we have these from roughly the past six months:
- This is in addition to the significant disruption from bad faith IP editors up until recently. Normally, this would not be much of a problem, but because Coffee and then Awilley placed editing restrictions on the article, these throwaway accounts have been used to game the system against editors who actually research reliable sources and who are invested in improving the encyclopedia. But, there are fine people on both sides. - MrX 🖋 12:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for digging those out, MrX. But I hesitate to try to fix extreme and awkward editing restrictions (as I agree they are) by adding yet more extreme editing restrictions. Also, there won't be any more IP disruption, since the semi is (very sensibly, thank you, El C) indefinite. Furthermore, this one was a good edit, removing vandalism from an IP. No, I'm afraid there isn't enough disruption for my taste. You may want to try WP:RFPP. Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC).
- Hmm. There won't have been any IPs recently, MrX — the article was indefinitely semiprotected in December 2019. I'm not very much at home with ECP — studying the Rough guide to extended confirmed protection here... right. I might. So, Mr X, could you provide a list of recent disruptive edits to the article? Not 50 diffs! Say the latest ten diffs, while ignoring Urgal and his sock. Bishonen | tålk 11:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC).
- Thank you all for putting this sock back in the drawer. There has been a persistent problem with socks and IPs blanking content, adding fringe views to the lead, and adding the NPOV tag to Racial views of Donald Trump. I wonder if we should consider placing the article under WP:ECP, especially in light of current events. The edit history is self-evident, but I could readily produce a list of the top 50 unhelpful edits of the past 12 months if that would help make the case. - MrX 🖋 11:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- @MrX: Do you have any suggestions as to how the current sanctions could be fixed/modified to better empower editors who research sources and are invested in improving the encyclopedia? Or do you think wholesale removal of all sanctions would be an improvement? Also could you elaborate a bit on how the sanctions are being gamed? Is it the 1RR sanctions or the BRD sanctions being gamed? I sometimes imagine nightmare situations where veteran editors hoard their daily revert allowance, saving it for when its really necessary, while IPs, socks, and drive-by POV pushers edit freely. ~Awilley (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Butting in here: The BRD sanction is meaningless, except as a snare, and it has not been uniformly enforced. 1RR slows things down, but with an endless stream of socks and SPAs, good faith editors are forced to ration their revert, possibly saving to remove a suspected but unproven SPA's edit, and not use it for ordinary-course reversion of good faith edit that needs talk page discussion. The BRD sanction has been controversial from the start and should be deprecated in favor of simple 1RR, possibly with a broader exemption to help limit the SPA edits.
- The BRD restriction has not been productive because there is no standard for "discussion". Disruptive editors discuss disruptively. Regulations need to be simple and clear. Revert restrictions are somewhat clear, at least. The best enforcement is the judgment of wise and experienced Admins who monitor articles and step in. That's tough work, and it's not surprising that there are relatively few volunteers for that duty. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Awilley: The current restrictions slow the damage done to articles, but they also slow the repair. Most experienced AP editors abide by the editing principles pointed out by Arbcom. That is largely the result of some of the most offending editors having been topic or site banned. I agree with what SPECIFICO wrote about 1RR slowing everything down, but I would actually propose eliminating 1RR on mature articles like Racial views of Donald Trump that are not heavily edited, and instead implementing a BRD restriction that respects the status quo/silent consensus. In other words, if an editor (boldly) adds new material (including tags, links, and categories) or removes material that has been in the article for some length of time (90 days or more?), then those edits are limited to 1RR and the editor must discuss the edit on the talk page and wait 24 hours before restoring. That would have saved numerous person-hours of dealing with the socks on this one article alone. I think we also need to lower the bar on identifying socks. Accounts jumping into controversial articles with precocious knowledge about NPOV and formatting refs are not new users learning to edit. I will say that all of the admins in this discussion have done exemplary work addressing editor conduct in the AP space, but the day-to-day burden of defending the integrity of content has largely fallen on the shoulders of regular editors who have contribute an untold number of volunteer hours to editing, research, and discussion, only to have their work damaged by the socks, SPAs, and throwaway accounts.
- To answer your question more specifically, 1RR and BRD are being gamed because these socks are not new editors and they understand that they will be given additional warning before being sanctioned. All they have to do is say they didn't see the yellow warning box. When they do get block, they can create a brand new account and start the whole process over. That could be solved by zero-tolerance enforcement that gives new users a short topic ban on the first offence, followed by escalating sanctions for repeat offences.
- Now I have a question for any of you three admins: What's the upside of Urgal having not been permanently topic banned from AP? - MrX 🖋 19:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- There's not exactly an upside to them not being topic banned, I suppose — it's more that not being topic banned is a user's natural state. It takes a little time and a few, uh, incidents for that state to change. For me personally, I sanctioned the user for edit warring (a 72-hour block). I don't like to give more than one sanction at a time — it doesn't feel right. And with the amount of disruption from this editor in a short space of time, I don't think I'll fiddle around with topic bans if they incur a sanction again any time soon; I'm more likely to indef. Bishonen | tålk 19:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC).
- @Awilley: This is what I'm talking about.[18] - MrX 🖋 16:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- @MrX: Do you have any suggestions as to how the current sanctions could be fixed/modified to better empower editors who research sources and are invested in improving the encyclopedia? Or do you think wholesale removal of all sanctions would be an improvement? Also could you elaborate a bit on how the sanctions are being gamed? Is it the 1RR sanctions or the BRD sanctions being gamed? I sometimes imagine nightmare situations where veteran editors hoard their daily revert allowance, saving it for when its really necessary, while IPs, socks, and drive-by POV pushers edit freely. ~Awilley (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Michał Cieślak
You protected the creation of Michał Cieślak (boxer) in 2016 due to multiple creations and subsequent deletions as the subject failed WP:NBOX and GNG. Could you unprotect it so I can create it? He’s since satisfied the criteria for NBOX after his recent WBC world title challenge and by being ranked in the top 10 of the WBC and Ring magazine, as well as now satisfying GNG with multiple English and Polish outlets covering Cieślak over the past few years. – 2.O.Boxing 00:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Squared.Circle.Boxing. It's not that I don't want to, but I really know zero about the boxing world. Zero is enough to create-protect a repeatedly recreated article as a pure housekeeping action, but possibly not enough to unprotect it. You may have to take it to WP:RFPP, but before you go to that trouble, let me just ask my talkpage stalkers: is there a little admin out there who is up for unprotecting the article? Please give it a day or so, Squared.Circle.Boxing. Bishonen | tålk 09:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC).
- (talk page stalker) Squared.Circle.Boxing Sure he meets WP:NBOX with that shot. Have unprotected. Glen 09:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Rk adh
is requesting unblock at UTRS 30749. Best unblock request I've seen in a while. How do you wish to proceed with considering their request? I'll be wikibreaking imminently and may not respond till Tuesday.. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You might want to consider UTRSing. All the cool kids are doing it. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: I was put off UTRS a few years ago because the interface was so baffling, I couldn't handle it. It's been rumoured since then that it has been updated and improved, and, sure enough, when I followed your link this time, I merely got told I wasn't an admin. Much simpler. So I wish to proceed by not considering their request, as I'm seemingly for UTRS purposes not an admin. Also I'm in bed. Some cooler kid will have to do it. Bishonen | tålk 01:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC).
- May I restore TPA and carry it over? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- UTRS does not want to be my friend, either. It always wants things — even if, as a platform, it gave much to its community and asked little in return (I know, a paradox). Anyway, I'd like to be alone with the sandwich for a moment. El_C 01:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) PS: in the meantime, I've received an e-mail from UTRS Development Team telling me, if I understand them, that I'm now an admin. There was no hint of this coming elevation in the original message, and I'm not exactly in the mood to try again to get in right now. I may take a look tomorrow. Perhaps. Yes, feel free to restore tpa and put the unblock request there, AFAIC. That may put DeltaQuadBot's nose out of joint. Now I want to be alone with my bed. I'll look at the talkpage tomorrow. Bishonen | tålk 01:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC).
I can assure you you are now an admin on UTRS.If still awake, will do those things. I did not have a sandwich. I had shepherd's pie. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- "I'll give it a good home." El_C 01:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Cool, I got UTRS to work! It may be the new setup, but it was actually super-easy. El_C 06:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Wrong Template reverted
This is my mistake and i reverted wrong template. - BeamAlexander (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed; I've already removed my note to you. (And I've blocked the user in question.) Welcome to Wikipedia, BeamAlexander, and thank you for your contributions! Bishonen | tålk 15:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC).
Disruptive edits
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/961408190 2402:3A80:DD2:E228:2105:7FC9:7A7D:CC13 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm blocked for wrong reason. I didn't disrupt anything. He argued with me and created a situation where my edits matched with others. I may be blocked but I'm telling the truth. Facts always remain same. If other editors will try to add these facts then they'll be accused as sock. Logical Man 2000 was my account. Thank you. 2409:4065:E9F:78D1:952A:2B9A:DF6A:8F11 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sock confirmed at the SPI by a checkuser. IP now blocked. --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Which IP, RexxS? You see all the different ranges they come in from? Can they even be meaningfully blocked? Bishonen | tålk 18:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC).
- I blocked 2409:4065:E9F:78D1::/64 who was evading the block of User:Logical Man 2000. I don't know who 2402:3A80:DD2:E228::/64 is, but I don't see that it's the same editor, as the 2409:: refers to him in the third person, unless they are referring to Chaipau, of course. If 2402:3A80:DD2:E228::/64 were to be blocked, it would still only affect one person. As there are 18 million million million of those /64 ranges available, the chances of another user being assigned it is considerably less than the user being hit by lightning three times in a year. --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- You know I know about the /64 ranges, I was taught by the best. That wasn't my point. I kind of assumed the two IPs above were one person, though so far apart in range. It's a little surprising that two different people would find my page — I don't think I've had anything to do with the issue the IPs are both interested in. Oh well. If they are one person, they're presumably on two quite different connections. (Both of them incidentally in Guwahati, Assam.) Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC).
- @RexxS: Every morning IP range changes. I can create an account but I didn't because i'm speaking the truth. I thought admins are helpful. I'm disappointed. Dear @Bishonen:, I didn't think i would be cheated in this way. Thank you for hurting me. Will you block this range also ? If you'll block every range then entire city will be blocked. I'll neither edit nor contact you. I trusted you but you hurt me. 2409:4065:D95:23DD:456E:DC6F:7CAF:D5EE (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I blocked 2409:4065:E9F:78D1::/64 who was evading the block of User:Logical Man 2000. I don't know who 2402:3A80:DD2:E228::/64 is, but I don't see that it's the same editor, as the 2409:: refers to him in the third person, unless they are referring to Chaipau, of course. If 2402:3A80:DD2:E228::/64 were to be blocked, it would still only affect one person. As there are 18 million million million of those /64 ranges available, the chances of another user being assigned it is considerably less than the user being hit by lightning three times in a year. --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Which IP, RexxS? You see all the different ranges they come in from? Can they even be meaningfully blocked? Bishonen | tålk 18:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC).
- @RexxS: Your three years block is punishment to some other users. Please don't punish them for my mistakes. Thank you. 2409:4065:D95:23DD:456E:DC6F:7CAF:D5EE (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- @RexxS: Stay safe. I'm sorry 😔. I'm sad. 2409:4065:E95:CF60:58EE:BD6C:6342:DC1A (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
G10
Looking at your deletion of Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan per G10, I don't think the deletion is valid. See AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan. Tessaracter (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Tessaracter, thanks for raising this. I didn't think Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan was any kind of encyclopedic article, but pure propaganda — I'm surprised to learn it was kept at AFD in February. But I see it was, and unfortunately I missed the existence of that AfD — I should have read the talkpage more carefully. However, the article was deleted on 28 November 2019 for being created by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban (in other words by a sock of an indefinitely blocked user), and then it was recreated by another such sock on 27 January 2020. Both these socks, Minicoyamini and Lebronplz, were run by the same sockmaster, Jishnusavith, who had been blocked on 19 June 2019. See the page log and the sockpuppet investigation, as well as the userpage of User:Lebronplz (who didn't get listed at the SPI for some reason). So, I may have been wrong to delete it as an attack page; but I still consider it speedyable per G5, creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of their ban or block. I don't think a later AfD can override G5, but it's a nice point, so do feel free to take it to Deletion review. That might be a good idea also because G5 specifies that there should be "no substantial edits by others" for G5 to apply. It's hard for me to tell how to call that, because it has been edited by so many other now blocked socks (for instance Perogyanci, yet another incarnation of Jishnusavith), though of course I assume also by some good faith editors. Would some of my admin stalkers, who can see the deleted revisions, be interested in taking a look at the history of Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan? Pinging User:RegentsPark. Bishonen | tålk 09:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC).
- Looks like the article was a playground for socks so a G5 deletion is warranted and a later AfD doesn't override that. Hard to see what the quality of contributions of different editors are but a rough look at the history indicates about 10% is added by non-sock actors so my inclination is to just leave it deleted. If you like, I could take a content look to see if there are quality differences but I seriously doubt it and it doesn't seem worth the time. --regentspark (comment) 11:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Based on my own recollection of that article, I would also endorse its deletion if it were to come under review. El_C 12:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, El_C, me too, because of the crappiness and the obvious propagandistic purpose, but I guess that's not the point: we're not supposed to relitigate the AfD at Deletion review. In defending my deletion, I'm going by who created (and recreated) it, and by all the socks that edited it. It should have been speedied after the second creation, as indeed it was after the first, and never have gone to AfD. But we can't have eyes everywhere. Bishonen | tålk 13:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose I just don't see how restoring it for bureaucratic reasons would be of benefit to the encyclopedia, but fair enough. As mentioned at DRV, I think starting it over (from scratch) as a draft might be a good compromise, if there is serious intent to bring the topic up to quality standards. El_C 13:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'm not sure starting it over would be much benefit to the encyclopedia either — IMO it's just a POV fork of Forced conversion, which has a substantial Pakistan section. We also have articles about Religious discrimination in Pakistan, Minorities in Pakistan, and Human rights in Pakistan. Bishonen | tålk 14:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC).
- I suppose I just don't see how restoring it for bureaucratic reasons would be of benefit to the encyclopedia, but fair enough. As mentioned at DRV, I think starting it over (from scratch) as a draft might be a good compromise, if there is serious intent to bring the topic up to quality standards. El_C 13:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, El_C, me too, because of the crappiness and the obvious propagandistic purpose, but I guess that's not the point: we're not supposed to relitigate the AfD at Deletion review. In defending my deletion, I'm going by who created (and recreated) it, and by all the socks that edited it. It should have been speedied after the second creation, as indeed it was after the first, and never have gone to AfD. But we can't have eyes everywhere. Bishonen | tålk 13:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 9. —Cryptic 13:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Appeal to ARBPIA topic ban
User:Bishonen, shalom. I have submitted an appeal to my topic ban in the ARBPIA area, which you can see here. The procedure requires of me to inform the one who imposed the topic ban, and Administrator Ed Johnston thought that you should also be informed.Davidbena (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive edits on Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart page
Hi Bishonen. Hope all is well. I wanted to bring this issue to your attention. Recently, there is a user that has instigated a pattern of disruptive editing not conducive to the integrity of the newly formed Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart page. That includes other article pages for Ratchet & Clank (2016) and Ratchet & Clank. I was wondering if you can best assist me on dealing with this issue. Elainasla (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you've come to the wrong admin, Elainasla. You found me on your page, didn't you? But that was about something else. I know nothing about games and their sourcing. I suggest you either a) report the problem at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (more fully than you have done here, explaining what's wrong and providing diffs), or b) wait a day or so to see if some other more game-literate admin who watches my page is willing to help. @RexxS and Johnuniq:? Bishonen | tålk 22:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC).
Thanks @Bishonen: and @RexxS:, the user in question has not decided to continue with disruptive editing after the restrictions were added to the article. The case should be closed now. Elainasla (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Arain
Dear, I always avoid violating wiki rules and tries to help improve many articles on Wikipedia with RS. I was really not aware about create space, I found it is actually self Published source. It was my lack of information about this particular source to which i admit mistake but do you think this language is allowed. I added many points into this Arain page with RS and these points are still there. It was due to my efforts that organisation/Culture/Diaspora heading were added recently otherwise other editors were discouraged and were not allowed to add any point there. I think pages are not controlled by some people. It looks like that inciting me through this type of language, people want me to come into troubled water. Regards. ScholarM (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- To keep the conversation together, I have copied your post above to your own page and replied there. Please let's keep it there. Bishonen | tålk 11:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC).
Gop Patna
Gop Patna (talk · contribs) has just appeared and immediately gone on a Yadav-related spree across articles, making identical poor categorisations to the ones Utcursch & myself fixed last week. An example is at Hoysala Empire. Likely sock of Vipinahir (talk · contribs)? - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have to go out, I'll look later. Unless one of my dear talkpage stalkers takes care of it in the meantime. Bishonen | tålk 12:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC).
- Hope so. This is not the edit of a new user. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- About as ducky as they get. Blocked.--regentspark (comment) 13:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, and thanks Bish for the earlier stuff today. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, you may notice I've incurred poor optics relating to systemic bias.[19] Competence is required in any area, though. That'll have to be my defence if there's outrage. Bishonen | tålk 16:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC).
- Hopefully there won't be. I once went into a pub optimistically & left it misty optically. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I find it quite sad that critical articles related to systemic bias (such as those about caste-based violence) attract our worst cranks and least competent editors...Vanamonde (Talk) 18:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully there won't be. I once went into a pub optimistically & left it misty optically. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, you may notice I've incurred poor optics relating to systemic bias.[19] Competence is required in any area, though. That'll have to be my defence if there's outrage. Bishonen | tålk 16:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC).
- Thanks, and thanks Bish for the earlier stuff today. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- About as ducky as they get. Blocked.--regentspark (comment) 13:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hope so. This is not the edit of a new user. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Drat!
Your ruined a perfectly good Bond quote. I even got to say боже мой. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Bond..? OK, do you want to tell him he changed Doug's text three times and say боже мой? Be my guest. [Bishonen thinks about Bond.] Sorry, all I can remember is the bit where Bond understands his adversary is no gentleman, but on the contrary a low-life Russian spy, because the person orders red wine with fish. How uncivilised! (I do that sometimes — I hate white wine. Anyway, that's probably not your quote.) Bishonen | tålk 19:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC).
- "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."--Auric Goldfinger via Ian Fleming. This has nothing to do with anything but it's one of my favorite quotations in nearly seven-squared years. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Julietdeltalima:боже мой! You have squarely hammered the nail! --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."--Auric Goldfinger via Ian Fleming. This has nothing to do with anything but it's one of my favorite quotations in nearly seven-squared years. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Comments in Izak's ANI discussion
Hi Bishonen, I saw you blocked Izak, so I know you are reading the discussion and I am not commenting on the block but I would like to point your attention to this comment, one which DGG said that if he didn't already comment on the discussion might warrant a block. I would also point out that this is not the first time OID has made nasty comments in this area. [20] I tried to include the reply and DGG's comment. Thanks. I hope you can appreciate how this comment is not appropriate on Wikipeida, let alone during this type of discussion. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Sir Joseph. Saying "imaginary sky wizards" isn't good. I don't like it or approve of it. It's very rude. But I don't find it blockworthy. Now that OID has already been told off by DGG, perhaps another admin will take DGG's comment as a push for a block, and take their suggestion; we'll see. It won't be me, though. Bishonen | tålk 18:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC).
- Ok, thank you. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, I do believe in the Sky Wizard, but take no offence at the scoffing of the incredulous. (Not to be confused with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.) --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 20:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- I do think calling someone an asshole though is a personal attack, [21], and should be more than called out. There should be a place on Wikipedia where edits like this can be reported without a more ANI/AN like atmosphere. But this edit is not one of the five pillars, especially when it is part of getting Izak TBANNED. It is not just run of the mill being uncivil that many people ignore. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sir Joseph, I agree that's a personal attack. But I honestly don't understand why you bring everybody you think should be sanctioned to my door in particular. I've blocked many people today; I don't feel like blocking another. Compare also what WP:NPA says about first offenses and isolated incidents. You can take it to the incident noticeboard if you like, atmosphere or no atmosphere. Bishonen | tålk 22:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC).
- I brought him specifically because you blocked IZAK, that's why. I also don't think ANI is an appropriate place for something like this, since as you can see with the IZAK situation, we're now at I think almost a week and it's almost a novel length discussion. Thanks anyway, although I do recall people, myself included being blocked for "first offenses or isolated incidents" of supposed personal attacks. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- An idea whose time has passed.00:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC) --Deep fried okra (schalte ein)`
1RR restriction
Hi Bishonen,
You had commuted my topic ban[22] to an indefinite 1RR restriction[23]. If you notice the problem started due to the edits of Sangitha_rani111 (talk · contribs) on the Maravar page. This user was editing with bias and posted negative things about the caste with a malicious intent. The user has now been blocked for abusing socks. A review of the Maravar page would reveal that this user has used accounts like Quertonermento (talk · contribs), Ciuterpoytr (talk · contribs) all suspected socks to post negative things even recently. So, I request you to remove this 1RR restriction, not that I intend to edit-war on caste articles, but because I believe I was unfairly punished with this ban for raising my voice against the particular user's edits. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Nittawinoda. I'm a little hesitant, as I think 1RR is a good thing that pretty much everybody ought to abide by. But I can understand it if you feel the restriction is a blot on your escutcheon. OK, I consider you a trusted user, so I'll withdraw it. Done here. Bishonen | tålk 17:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC).
- Thank you very much Bishonen. Nittawinoda (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Glad Midsommar
Bishonen and all lurking Swedes. Today the Swede feasts on snaps, sill and new potatoes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Glad Midsommar right back at you! I hope you will have a fun and/or relaxed Midsummer holiday. --bonadea contributions talk 10:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Juni natt blir aldrig av, liknar mest en daggig dag. Bishonen | tålk 11:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC).
User talk:Srinivasrao1980
You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. To my stalkers: Vipinahir/Srinivasrao1980 is threatening to create further socks from cyber cafés. Bishonen | tålk 11:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC).
i have mentioned you on administrator's noticeboard
Regarding your use of admin rights to personal attack user scholarM
- Hey Bish, I'm protecting you. The admin noticeboard discussion is against revoking admin rights right now. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- You're safe. The complaining editor attempted the old 'logged out' trick. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- I've left ScholarM's account unblocked, with advice to appeal the normal way, and a caution that further shenanigans could result in more sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw, thank you all. Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC).
- Are you guys as baffled as I am by ScholarM replying on their page to Toddy below my post, and to me below Toddy's post? I mean, they did, didn't they? Maybe it's my confusion. Bishonen | tålk 20:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC).[Confused editor?]
- Yeah, I saw, thank you all. Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC).
Airavan
I just wanted to acknowledge that I support your action. It's good you followed through. Yes, it is a high-volume topic area, at the very least. El_C 17:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for sorting that out, Chère. I honestly don't know how Sitush manages to put up with all of it. --"Kiddo" (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @El C and RexxS:. Actually, I didn't follow through; Newslinger indeffed the user and put a sock tag on their userpage. I wanted to block, but it struck me that I do tend to drop an impatient indef and cut off my colleagues just as they are discussing a user, and, for once, why not just say what I thought, like a normal person, and leave the actual hammering to someone else. So I did. Yes, Sitush is highly respected by all sensible people, but there are so many.. other people out there. Bishonen | tålk 20:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC).
- Oops, I misread. I appreciate your introspection — that isn't something on your part I picked up on, however, whatever that's worth. El_C 20:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @El C and RexxS:. Actually, I didn't follow through; Newslinger indeffed the user and put a sock tag on their userpage. I wanted to block, but it struck me that I do tend to drop an impatient indef and cut off my colleagues just as they are discussing a user, and, for once, why not just say what I thought, like a normal person, and leave the actual hammering to someone else. So I did. Yes, Sitush is highly respected by all sensible people, but there are so many.. other people out there. Bishonen | tålk 20:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC).
ARCA
I have filed a request about an arbitration decision where you had participated. You can view it here. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
reply about your question sir
this is your question Caste glorification is not allowed here Editing for the purpose of caste glorification such as you did for example here, here. and here is not allowed on Wikipedia, and will get you blocked or topic banned if you persist. The third of those diffs is particularly bad: it removed well-sourced content, along with its sources, and replaced it with the completely unsourced "jadeja are kings of area presently kutch nowdays. their family tree belonged to lord krishna". Unsourced claims that particular groups are descended from gods are merely ridiculous. Please use reliable sources. Bishonen | tålk 14:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
answer :- sir this is nothing of the caste glorification matter this is about the history vandalism . these guys who to caste are editing articles are and adding there caste there and they cleverly site the reference just to avoid the revert there is no mention of thing what they are saying in reference they are providing they are just maligning the image of other caste just to prove them as superior that is racism they promoting their supermacy only if you are citing my edits then you must check the my last edit on page and the version iam attaching links for their misdeeds with proofs what they have done there sir
here just have a look what i have added and the matter you raised about "The third of those diffs is particularly bad: it removed well-sourced content, along with its sources, and replaced it with the completely unsourced "jadeja are kings of area presently kutch nowdays. their family tree belonged to lord krishna". Unsourced claims that particular groups are descended from gods are merely ridiculous. Please use reliable sources" answer the order of high court of gujrat state where they give custody of fort of lord krishna to jadeja family
rest these are other references here geni website one of the world's prominent site for Genealogy and tracing the family tree· Genealogy jadeja
hopefully you can see reality now by the way thanks for raising the doubt Loneltrussia (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC) hope you understand what i described here Loneltrussia (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have replied on your own page to keep our discussion together. Bishonen | tålk 19:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
- okay you find sources are unrealible what about the these vandlers adding their caste based agenda and misleading info
can you trust high court decision copy on jadejas ancestory reliable source so that i can search it rather than you say it is unreliable like geni website
- Why do you insist on posting on my page when I have already moved you back to your own once and told you we should keep the discussion in one place? Please try to cooperate here. If you want me to reply further, answer me on your page, where I answered you. Bishonen | tålk 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
Silly question
--Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- dogra are the past rulers of jammu and kashmir province
- (talk page stalker) Anyone got an encyclopedia here? :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
what are you talking about i added transparency to that page because there is alot of misconfusion about zorawar singh and jorawar singh both are different but in local accent sound similar so people often visit wrong one
- Would you mind terribly signing your posts? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
What's a hen-way? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
sorry iam writing some articles so forgot to add Loneltrussia (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Why do you insist on posting on my page when I have already moved you back to your own once and told you we should keep the discussion in one place? Please try to cooperate here. If you want me to reply further, answer me on your page, where I answered you. Bishonen | tålk 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
- And stop calling your opponents "vandals" or any form thereof ("vandlers") or I will block you for personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 19:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
- To be fair, they were answering my question. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)*
- They're above as well. But please don't encourage them further to come here. Keeping the discussion on their page, where I started it, means other editors can follow it, which is pretty impossible in this way. Bishonen | tålk 20:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
- ok sir i will follow your instructions Loneltrussia (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Bishonen, some time go I wrote on the talk page of some very active female editor or other (I'm pretty sure it wasn't you) that she had a whole string of messages on her talk page which addressed her as "sir", whereas I had to search back through many years' worth of my talk page archives to find just one message that addressed me in that way. Is there something about the kind of editors who like to call people "sir" that makes them seek out women to be given that honour? JBW (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Haha. Maybe, JBW. But in my experience, Indian editors (and they alone) call everybody "sir", except when they call them "dear". I have to do with Indian caste editors sometimes — I guess you don't? If you'd like to be called "sir" more often, you should try it. And feel free to call me "dear"! Bishonen | tålk 21:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
- I certainly will, Chère (referencing The Big Easy (film)). For those who are interested, there is a template {{heshe}} that can be used to remove the uncertainty if the editor has set their gender in Preferences:
{{heshe|Bishonen}}
→ she{{heshe|RexxS}}
→ he{{heshe|JBW}}
→ he{{heshe|Darwinfish}}
→ he{{heshe|Loneltrussia}}
→ he or she
- You just need to check in preview at first use, and just use the appropriate pronoun thereafter. It's great for old dinos like me, who can't remember folks' prefs. -- T-RexxS (rawr) 23:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) RexxS with deep respect and an awareness of the incomplete acceptance of singular they, Template:they will return a more appropriate pronoun for those of us who prefer it, such as (and all these users identify as such on their user page) User:Alfie, User:Fæ, User:Funcrunch, and myself, whilst still returning
he
orshe
for users who have specified one of those genders in their preferences. It's inoffensive to me personally, but there are people who treat their pronouns with some gravity, and viewhe or she
as a false binary. Folly Mox (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)- Thanks for the ping. I reluctantly accept he and sir from strangers on the street, but online I insist on "they" since I have it stated in many places (profile pages, e-mail signature, etc.) Funcrunch (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Folly Mox: Sorry I wasn't clearer. I never actually add the template to my posts; I only preview with it to jog my faulty memory, and {{they}} would indeed work just as well. As for singular 'they', I'm its biggest fan and make use of it habitually. If it was good enough for Shakespeare, it's certainly good enough for me. It's quite behind-the-times that 'they' isn't one of the options for the gender Preferences. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I reluctantly accept he and sir from strangers on the street, but online I insist on "they" since I have it stated in many places (profile pages, e-mail signature, etc.) Funcrunch (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) RexxS with deep respect and an awareness of the incomplete acceptance of singular they, Template:they will return a more appropriate pronoun for those of us who prefer it, such as (and all these users identify as such on their user page) User:Alfie, User:Fæ, User:Funcrunch, and myself, whilst still returning
in my experience, Indian editors (and they alone) call everybody "sir", except when they call them "dear".
Or "dog" and sundry other animals. Sometimes "sir", "dear" and "dog" in the same message: polite even when insulting? - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly will, Chère (referencing The Big Easy (film)). For those who are interested, there is a template {{heshe}} that can be used to remove the uncertainty if the editor has set their gender in Preferences:
- Haha. Maybe, JBW. But in my experience, Indian editors (and they alone) call everybody "sir", except when they call them "dear". I have to do with Indian caste editors sometimes — I guess you don't? If you'd like to be called "sir" more often, you should try it. And feel free to call me "dear"! Bishonen | tålk 21:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
- They're above as well. But please don't encourage them further to come here. Keeping the discussion on their page, where I started it, means other editors can follow it, which is pretty impossible in this way. Bishonen | tålk 20:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
- Bishonen, yes, I do know actually that "sir" for everyone is a characteristic of Indian editors, but I still find it amusing when I see female editors getting it vastly more often than I do.
- @Sitush: Hi there. Yes, being sycophantically polite at the same time as being downright rude and insulting is another one of the things that many Indians excel at, along with writing unbelievable amounts of utter trivia about the village where they happen to live (such as the fact that there's a bus stop in the village).
- @RexxS: The script User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js causes various pieces of information about an editor to show up at the top of their user page and talk page, including indicating a user's preferred "he" or "she" if either is set, which I find helpful. However, {{heshe}} is probably more convenient if one is not already on the user's talk page, as it doesn't require going to the editor's user or talk page to find out, so I'll try it. I wonder how many thousands more useful little things there are scattered about Wikipedia, that one would use if only one knew they were there. Every now and then I come across another one. JBW (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Exclusion of historic decision of Brahmin Council of Banaras
I saw this on Kayastha talk page and am copying it here for your advice:
"Its surprising that opinion of lesser authors are mentioned but the varna specific historic decision of council of Banaras Brahmins is missing from the article. The question was reffered to them by Peshwa himself in 1779 AD due to high controversy as some questioned the validity of the varna of CKP for posting at high posts under Brahmin kings while some members of CKP were related by marriage ties to the Peshwas themselves, for example Sadashivrao Peshwa and Sakharam Hari Gupte. The matter was thus reffered to highest court in such religious matters i.e. the Brahmin Council of Banaras. In my opinion the decision is not only historically important but also shows the volatile nature of varna status and local politics. The decision is extremely detailed and refers to several religious scriptures, it also supports the Puranic history of older northIndian group named Kayastha. The CKP ultimately won their right place in society inspite of all the challenges thrown at them. The article is incomplete and misleading without including the decision of the Brahmin council of Banaras.Bishonen Kumari (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure why you ask me — because of my name? The edit you quote was posted by a sockpuppet and has therefore been removed. I'm surprised you saw it, since it was removed several days before you created your account. Whose sock are you, please? Bishonen | tålk 20:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC).
- Bishonen, have you heard of Shirley Ardell Mason? EEng 20:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I just looked it up, so now I have. Have you heard of the Bish sockfarm, EEng? Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC).
- You might want to ask RegentsPark who has just blocked another one of their socks which made an identical post on Sitush's talk page. I still think RBI is best. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Bishonen, have you heard of Shirley Ardell Mason? EEng 20:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I am concerned about my block. I am a novice but have edited several articles successfully. The issue with Gutierrez is bias. I am a fan, classical music lover, arts, and film. I would please ask you to inquire other editors' bias as well. I have worked with my many editors successfully and vetted post with many. Recently, great pianist was removed from Gutierrez' post. I objected since it been there since 2006. I found additional references and asked editors to consider. There are many classical artists with great on their weiki posts that have not had word great removed. So, I raised the possibility of bias of certain editors that watch Gutierrez' post closely. I do not want to cause problems. I love editing as a hobby. I really would appreciate your help to resolve. And, my apologies. I am not sure how to unblock or if it is something you would be willing to help me with. Thank you. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Bishoen- I raised possible questions of bias of editors (not attacks) just as they were raised of me. Were these attacks on me? My goal is to make great wiki article edits and posts. My apologies for any problems. I am still learning protocols. I am willing to change, continue to reference appropriately, and resolve all biased issued raised. I love editing wiki as my hobby. I hope you can help me resolve, I only want to write excellent, unbiased, and referenced posts. Thank you. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Bishonen: I am not sure what more you need me to explain or apologize for. I have explained my conflict of interest being a fan of classical music, film, artists, and Cuban music and musicians. I have never received any payments for any wiki posts. My posts have been edited and reviewed and approved. I am deeply sorry. I am not sure what you want me to say. I apologize for any conflict of interest. I apologize for questioning possible conflicts of others. I am willing to work with the wiki community to provide excellent and unbiased articles. I appreciate your help. Thank you again. And, truly my sincere apologies. I would like to resolve and work with you and others to write excellent entries in the future. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have helped you. I formatted your unblock request for you so that it'll work right and call an uninvolved admin to your talkpage to review the block. And I just linked you yet again on your page to this, where your actual conflict of interest (not "being a fan of classical music, film, artists, and Cuban music and musicians" or the like, but the real conflict of interest) is explained. You seem to be pretending that discussion, and the links in it, don't exist? That won't help you, and you're frankly unlikely to be unblocked. If you really like editing as a hobby, and don't merely want to promote Gutierrez, why don't you just edit other subjects? Also, please note that I have not a shred of patience left for your accusations against the people who have tried to rein in your promotion of Gutierrez. You know as well as I do that you're making them up out of whole cloth. Bishonen | tålk 19:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
- Note that I have declined the unblock request for being unresponsive and for deflecting. El_C 19:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, I saw, El_C. Since I did the block it would be inappropriate for me to thank you for declining the unblock request... but I do thank you for getting to it so quickly, so the user isn't left hanging. Bishonen | tålk 19:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
- Having read ThatMontrealIP's report, I think pretty much everyone are like-minded about this. Happy to be of (swift) service. El_C 19:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, I saw, El_C. Since I did the block it would be inappropriate for me to thank you for declining the unblock request... but I do thank you for getting to it so quickly, so the user isn't left hanging. Bishonen | tålk 19:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
- Note that I have declined the unblock request for being unresponsive and for deflecting. El_C 19:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hello all, I am sorry I have edited many subjects and entries. Please accept my sincere apologies. I am concerned about equity, and transparency for all posts. I am still learning appropriate protocol. If anyone is willing to mentor me and edit my posts, I am willing to work alongside of you. We must all check our own biases in posts. Than you for your help. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- I was going to tell the user to for god's sake stop copypasting everything she says on her own page to my page as well (why? what for?), but I see there's no need, she has been indeffed. Good call, El_C. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
- Thanks. On my talk page, too. Anyway, I felt like enough was enough. El_C 20:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Right. Now the UTRS guys get to have the fun. Bishonen | tålk 20:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
- Gee, thanks! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Right. Now the UTRS guys get to have the fun. Bishonen | tålk 20:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
- Thanks. On my talk page, too. Anyway, I felt like enough was enough. El_C 20:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- I was going to tell the user to for god's sake stop copypasting everything she says on her own page to my page as well (why? what for?), but I see there's no need, she has been indeffed. Good call, El_C. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
- I have helped you. I formatted your unblock request for you so that it'll work right and call an uninvolved admin to your talkpage to review the block. And I just linked you yet again on your page to this, where your actual conflict of interest (not "being a fan of classical music, film, artists, and Cuban music and musicians" or the like, but the real conflict of interest) is explained. You seem to be pretending that discussion, and the links in it, don't exist? That won't help you, and you're frankly unlikely to be unblocked. If you really like editing as a hobby, and don't merely want to promote Gutierrez, why don't you just edit other subjects? Also, please note that I have not a shred of patience left for your accusations against the people who have tried to rein in your promotion of Gutierrez. You know as well as I do that you're making them up out of whole cloth. Bishonen | tålk 19:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sasdfjhasjkfdhaklsjfh
I have requested a CU. I have a high degree of confidence this guy is a sock. Not sure who though. With their skills at wiki-lawyering they should be on Arbcom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- The disruption by this account does not qualify for a CU. Sasdfjhasjkfdhaklsjfh (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for the info. I'm sure that will save someone some bother. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to take them at their word when they say "All edits deemed promotional under this account should instead be treated as vandalism", and block as a vandalism-only account. Would you regard that as wheel-warring, Ad Orientem? I'm still surprised that you unblocked them. Bishonen | tålk 08:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC).
- On second thoughts, I've blocked as NOTHERE. If you get a sockmaster, Ad Orientem (which is not a given, though I'm sure one exists), perhaps you would tag the account. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC).
- I'm tempted to take them at their word when they say "All edits deemed promotional under this account should instead be treated as vandalism", and block as a vandalism-only account. Would you regard that as wheel-warring, Ad Orientem? I'm still surprised that you unblocked them. Bishonen | tålk 08:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC).
- Well, thanks for the info. I'm sure that will save someone some bother. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, concur with reblock. A great saver of time and effort, if I may say so. --Deepfriedokra (talk)
CIR?
See User talk:Ratan375#Arjuna. Is this incompetence or what? Naivety at best? - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) trivia: I saw a TV soap version of Mahabharata once, made in India, dubbed into Thai, and with (bad) English subtitles. I didn't have a clue what was going on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have the same problem with EastEnders, Coronation Street etc, in English and with English subtitles on! - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ha. Maybe you can find them with Hindi subtitles, Sitush? That should at least be more interesting. And yes, it sounds like incompetence + deflection ("No, you are!"). I'm writing up a sharp warning. So Krishna, when he admonished Arjuna. Bishonen | tålk 11:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC).
- I'll have you know I was at one time treasurer of the Cambridge University Coronation Street Appreciation Society. Set up by nerds who had been schooled at Eton, Rugby, other highfalutin' places and minor public schools, they needed a token Northerner on the committee and I needed their booze. Daft thing was, with their huntin', shootin', fishin' flat caps etc, they looked more northern than me dressed in what, outside Oxbridge, would be considered more usual student attire. One is Guy Black, Baron Black of Brentwood but I can't find a non-primary source that would enable me to out him at his bio. I have some cracking photos, though <evil cackle> - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ha. Maybe you can find them with Hindi subtitles, Sitush? That should at least be more interesting. And yes, it sounds like incompetence + deflection ("No, you are!"). I'm writing up a sharp warning. So Krishna, when he admonished Arjuna. Bishonen | tålk 11:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC).
- FWIW, I have the same problem with EastEnders, Coronation Street etc, in English and with English subtitles on! - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Correct article "Grace O'Malley" to "Gráinne O'Malley"
Hi
Apologies, I'm new to this so I'm not sure how to go about this but is it possible to correct "Grace O'Malley" to Gráinne and then protect the page? The reason I ask this is that 1) Gráinne doesn't have an English translation and is widely used in both Ireland and England. 2) There are several Gráinnes on Wikipedia already who have not had their name changed to Gracr 3) I don't recall other historical figures having their name angilized on Wikipedia 4) It would help clear up confusion as to her actual name.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. DarkerDai (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Related to this request, see this conversation: User_talk:The_Banner#Stop_contributing_to_the_erasure_of_Irish_culture. Schazjmd (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, DarkerDai. I see you are already taking part in a Requested move discussion of this matter at Talk:Grace O'Malley, which is the right place for it. I'm not going to shortcut our processes. Please await consensus (we hope) in that discussion and a proper closure in 7 days. Bishonen | tålk 09:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
- But before that I will open a sock-puppet investigation. The Banner talk 10:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, The Banner. The style and manner of the users is rather different, though. Bishonen | tålk 10:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
- But before that I will open a sock-puppet investigation. The Banner talk 10:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, thank you for getting back to me. Sorry for the "shortcut" as I am new. I have also been to the treehouse to get advice on the whole process. I only became aware of the discussion through an email from Kevin Wallem thanks to the contact page. Again, thank you for the help and sorry about the hassle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkerDai (talk • contribs)
Xhubham mishra
This user needs a NOTHERE indef, or equivalent; their dozen or so edits since their last block violate most of our core policies and behavioral guidelines, and there's evidence of block evasion, too. Their activity is so low that going to ANI seems like a waste of time. I'd do it myself, had I not reverted them at one point. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I have to agree. That was a long break they took; I've made it indefinite. Bishonen | tålk 16:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC).
Reverts by anon
Can you or someone who is around please stick a short block on Special:Contributions/41.80.98.79. They're not getting it and I'm not sure if they realise they have a talk page, although they clearly know of the article talk. They've added the same primary-sourced stuff to Lohana four times now. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
They seem to have stopped now. Still not understanding but at least they've not reverted the next person who reverted them. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, Sitush, it seems they have not edit warred since your 3RR warning. I've posted an admonitory message to them. (Not actually very much like Krishna admonishing Arjuna, I guess.) Bishonen | tålk 13:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
- At least you did not assume your multi armed form. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Spoke too soon [24]. --RexxS (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, I saw that, it was before my warning, but I won't block for it. The user seems possible to reason with, and I want to see what effect my warning can have. Bishonen | tålk 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
- Oh, you blocked? :-( Bishonen | tålk 14:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
- "Weiter, weiter ins Verderben" --Rammstein. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yer, sorry, looked to me like no notice was taken. We'll see what effect a 36-hour rest can have, unless you want to unblock? I have no objection. --RexxS (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't object to unblocking. Their last edit to Lohana seemed to suggest they had accepted that primary sources aren't ok, albeit they then added something else that won't do! - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- They added a potted biography of the author of the primary source and then coat-racked part of what they were adding before on the back of it! Ten edits to mainspace and seven of them reverts. They certainly learned where the undo button is. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sure they took notice of the 3RR warning. Did you see their post on Sitush's page, and edit summary here? It seems to me they were trying to do the right thing. After my warning, they haven't edited at all. Bishonen | tålk 14:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
- They added a potted biography of the author of the primary source and then coat-racked part of what they were adding before on the back of it! Ten edits to mainspace and seven of them reverts. They certainly learned where the undo button is. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't object to unblocking. Their last edit to Lohana seemed to suggest they had accepted that primary sources aren't ok, albeit they then added something else that won't do! - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yer, sorry, looked to me like no notice was taken. We'll see what effect a 36-hour rest can have, unless you want to unblock? I have no objection. --RexxS (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, I saw that, it was before my warning, but I won't block for it. The user seems possible to reason with, and I want to see what effect my warning can have. Bishonen | tålk 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
Complaint?
Let me direct you to the head of our complaint department-- Helen Waite. Humor, I love it. --Data --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know why the user keeps creating empty Complaint sections,[25] and I'm baffled that they're not blocked yet. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
- I have my own theory, but this is not the setting for professional conjecture. Didn't you see? They want a mentor. I nominate Bishzilla. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support
I belongs from india sir. I need protection for my anathor page,and i am a new editor of Wikipedia so if u can guide me for best result in Wikipedia as a edior i am apriceted for u sir thanks. As per your decision sir please reply back me Masmas19 (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- All right, here's some guidance:
- Please don't call people "sir". Not everybody here is male.
- Please don't use the "Thanks" button for nonsense. There is absolutely no reason to thank me for a small correction I made on my own userpage. I see you thanked Tito as well, after asking three times for his contact details (something you should never do).
- Please don't use Wikipedia to amuse yourself. There are other sites better suited to that. What you're supposed to do here is help build an encyclopedia, mainly by adding sourced content to articles, or useful discussion points to article talkpages.
- Please follow the links (the blue text) that I have provided in the previous bullet point. They have useful information for you. Bishonen | tålk 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC).
- Bishonen, Right! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Er... hallo, Megan Barris. Why are you replying to my post to Masmas19? Are you one and the same? Bishonen | tålk 12:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC).
- Bishonen, I have been following the editors activity though, calling everyone, including female editors sir. Just a humble TP stalker Bish, Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Bishonen, Not kind ,to call me a sock, of Masmas 19, what makes you suspect that? Not Happy :( Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not at all, I was wondering if they were a sock of you. If you don't see how appearances suggested that when you turned up for the first time ever on my page in a dialogue I was having with them, forget it. I meant no offense. Not sure why you're interested in them, though? Most Indian editors call everybody "sir". Compare this discussion above. Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC).
- Bishonen, Found him on praxidicae talk page, sorry for showing up abruptly on your talk page but I couldn’t stop myself from commenting on the well explained “Welcome to Wikipedia” stuff above. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not at all, I was wondering if they were a sock of you. If you don't see how appearances suggested that when you turned up for the first time ever on my page in a dialogue I was having with them, forget it. I meant no offense. Not sure why you're interested in them, though? Most Indian editors call everybody "sir". Compare this discussion above. Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC).
- Er... hallo, Megan Barris. Why are you replying to my post to Masmas19? Are you one and the same? Bishonen | tålk 12:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC).
- Cold, hard, beautiful, priceless. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
DS system logs
Hi, I am a bit confused with this log and wonder if you can work it out. Mar4d seems to have been logged as applying IPA DS earlier today and I am shown too, even though I have only previewed the thing and not actually committed the edit. I'm guessing Mar4d also only previewed because there is no edit by them showing in the talk page history for anywhere near the relevant time.
OTOH, the log also shows Girth Summit notifying of the pseudoscience DS and that is in the history + still visible on the talk page. Does the filter really trigger prior to committing the edit? Seems confusing if it does.
Ultimately does not matter in this case because it turns out that Doug Weller alerted them on 9 March but it still seems odd to me. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Sitush, if memory serves you have to click through a warning in order to apply DS - did you click "ok" on the warning but not actually save the edit? GeneralNotability (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sitush, this is a guess, but is it perhaps the way that the notifications have been added? I used Twinkle, which doesn't actually place the notification the first time you attempt to do it - it prompts you to check that they haven't been notified in the last 6 months. Then, when you attempt to place it the second time, it goes ahead and puts the notification in place. I see that Doug, SerChevalerie and I all appear twice in that log - I'm guessing that's each of the Twinkle edits. Mar4d only appears once, and there's no actual edit saved, so I'm assuming that they used Twinkle, got the prompt, and decided not to actually issue the notification in the end. Does that make sense/sound likely? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, out of curiosity, are you using Bellezzasolo's ARB module? GeneralNotability (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hm, interesting thanks. I didn't use Twinkle - I didn't realise that I could for DS alerts, nor could I spot it when I just checked (but VERY quickly!). - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- What I did was paste the alert template manually, click on "publish" and then, as per usual for me, used the subsequent dialog to check the system log (there is a link in the dialog). I backed out at that point because of the confusion noted above. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability yes, you're right - I'd forgotten that I had to install a widget to get Twinkle to do Arb notices. Sitush it's User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb - it adds an arb option to your Twinkle menu. Very handy. GirthSummit (blether) 16:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- So I think that's what happened - I think the first attempt to save triggers the log entry + warning. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, out of curiosity, are you using Bellezzasolo's ARB module? GeneralNotability (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
With all these people trying or actually alerting them, it's a wonder they're still editing freely :/ Sitush (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm. I too handcraft DS alerts and everything connected thereto. I'll try the script. Thanks, guys, very informative. Bishonen | tålk 16:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC).
Thing is, you have to try to save an alert in order to trigger the abusefilter. When you do, it makes an entry in the abusefilter log that you see when you check the log. Because it interrupts the save at that point, you can either commit the save by clicking 'Publish' again, or cancel the save if they have already received an alert. In either case, you triggered an abusefilter, so you would expect to see a log of it. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Mappila and WP:OWN
If I do not get a substantive rationale for reinstatement of my edits as is supposed to be discussed in the thread at Talk:Mappila#Recent_removals, can I treat it as a WP:OWN situation? I feel that my edits to the article had reasonable summaries. - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure how one does treat things as a WP:OWN situation, Sitush! I don't personally much like bringing WP:OWN into play. But the behaviour is certainly non-collaborative, and I've warned them, in, I hope, an explanatory way. There will be a sanction in short order if they don't listen. Bishonen | tålk 09:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC).
- OK, thanks. I'm not fond of OWN either. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sealioning, hey? I can't keep up with all these words and phrases that come into modern usage. Sealioning, gaslighting, moving forwards, surfacing ideas, doubling down etc. Drives me mad! Well, more mad ... and that is probably seen as a derogatory word by, erm, snowflakes :) - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- The sealion. What's "surfacing ideas"? That's a new one to me. Bishonen | tålk 09:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC).
Happy First Edit Day!
Semi?
We have what seem to be anon socks, probably of the person who was ranting on my talk page a few hours ago. Disruption at Martial race and Mazhabi Sikh. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
- Strikes me that the birthday committee need to sort out their comms! I got two a week or so ago and now you're up to three. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
{FBDB}
FYI, I'm seriously considering nominating {FBDB} (which I created) for deletion, because its function is to reduce drama not create it. On the other hand, this hasn't happened before so maybe it should be seen as an anomaly. (I can't even figure out what this is about so I have no position on this specific case.) Anyway, in the meantime I've revamped the documentation to avoid future trouble – see Template:FBDB/doc#Purpose. EEng 04:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't block because of the FBDB template — I'd have blocked just the same without it, so in that sense it didn't create any drama. I only mentioned it in the block notice as not being a way to prevent a block. I see you've clarified now that it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card for attacking enemies. (Yes, I know I'm supposed to say something more wikicivil like "opponents", but I'm not in the mood.) The question then becomes: is it helpful to have a template that needs so much clarification? And the second question was always there: does anybody ever read template docs before using a template? Maybe 1% of them on a good day. Bishonen | tålk 09:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
- I can't help thinking that if something is genuinely FBDB then it should be obvious in itself and shouldn't need a FBDB template to say so. If it does need a FBDB template, then it isn't clearly FBDB and is best not said. And if something is not clearly FBDB then the application of a FBDB template should be dismissed as meaningless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, no. Bishzilla has now committed to always using the template when she threatens to eat or incinerate someone. Bishonen | tålk 09:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
- Yeah, but Bishzilla is unique. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- And it remains to be seen if she'll go through with the threats just the same. The template is weak sauce when she's hungry. Bishonen | tålk 09:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
- I saw this, and feel like saying that I've used it multiple times and I like having it available. I hope that no one deletes it. Then again, I would never use it in the midst of a contentious discussion. I guess that it comes down to, if the situation is inappropriate for humor, then it's inappropriate for using the template (and I say that realizing that a lot of editors fail to know when not to use humor, something that I myself have botched a couple of times). But I've used it a lot on EEng's talk page and on my own, and always, in my opinion, to good effect. Just think of my comment here as some friendly banter. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, shut up.[FBDB] EEng 02:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Precisely - I've used it a handful of times when I'm (jokingly) insulting someone (my personal favorite: "comment on content, not contributors, you knucklehead") and I feel confident that the other editor will understand that it's a joke but other people might not know that and could interpret it as an actual insult. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, shut up.[FBDB] EEng 02:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- There may also be a problem that some editors don't know humor from a hole in the ground. By no means referring to you, Tryp. But some "funny jokes" in this place make me feel like creating a userbox (ha! haha! obviously I mean asking a little talkpage stalker to create one for me) that says something like "This user is proud to be humor-impaired". Now please don't anybody go telling me humor, and also humour, is culture-dependent bla bla bla etc etc, because I know that. Bishonen | tålk 17:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
- As I've often said, such editors can inhabit a grey all-work-no-play world if they want, but they can't insist we join them there. EEng 02:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- It occurs to me that there is a valid comparison to be made to the practice of "trouting" editors. There is a general understanding that it is supposed to be done only in good-natured ways, and that it can come across badly if used to express serious disagreement. As far as I can recall, editors have generally not abused the trout template. (Insert joke about me already being a fish.) Similarly, editors should understand (and mostly have) that "fbdb" should not be used in serious disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- As I've often said, such editors can inhabit a grey all-work-no-play world if they want, but they can't insist we join them there. EEng 02:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- I saw this, and feel like saying that I've used it multiple times and I like having it available. I hope that no one deletes it. Then again, I would never use it in the midst of a contentious discussion. I guess that it comes down to, if the situation is inappropriate for humor, then it's inappropriate for using the template (and I say that realizing that a lot of editors fail to know when not to use humor, something that I myself have botched a couple of times). But I've used it a lot on EEng's talk page and on my own, and always, in my opinion, to good effect. Just think of my comment here as some friendly banter. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- And it remains to be seen if she'll go through with the threats just the same. The template is weak sauce when she's hungry. Bishonen | tålk 09:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
- Yeah, but Bishzilla is unique. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- [Plaintively]: Isn't anybody going to make me a "This user is proud to be humor-impaired" userbox, see above? Where are all the helpful little stalkers? Bishonen | tålk 23:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC).
- Fine, fine, I'll do it. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Done. If someone competent would like to make it actually good, feel free! :) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Mdaniels5757. I don't know about more competent, but I've put in a more expressive image and added it incompetently to my userpage. Would some clever user like to make it stop bludgeoning the archive box? Below the "This user has been blocked" userbox might work. Or perhaps try some new placement for them both. RexxS? Bishonen | tålk 09:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC).
- Done. If someone competent would like to make it actually good, feel free! :) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fine, fine, I'll do it. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- We at Wikipedia have no sense of humor that we are aware of. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Regar sock?
I suspect we have someone socking at Regar, perhaps unwittingly. Not sure how best to deal with it - my usual approach is "ton of bricks" but perhaps a pebble would be better, just telling them to stick to their first account. See Badariabharat1998 (talk · contribs) and Bharat.badaria1998 (talk · contribs) Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that's hardly deliberate socking. I've written to them. The problem with simply blocking the newest account might be that they created it because they lost their password to the first. Bishonen | tålk 11:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
- Sitush, I'm not sure what happened here. I wasn't able to fix it. Bishonen | tålk 11:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
ARCA closed
I have closed the AE appeal at ARCA to which you were listed as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- (My apologies, the correct link is Special:Permalink/967383051#Amendment_request:_India-Pakistan.) Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Admins calling on Bearcat
I have mixed feelings about singling out how many sysops have called on Bearcat to backtrack (by my count it's 10 of us). On the one hand sysops are supposed to know policy so having that many sysops saying, with basically no dissension (I think Drmies is the closest there), is meaningful. On the other hand if it were 10 veteran editors who weren't sysops all saying it instead would that reduce his obligation to acknowledge the mistake and not do it again? I think our policies and guidelines say no. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)@Barkeep49: Ha! Yes and no. While we serve at the pleasure of the community, we have a distinct perspective. And when 10 people who do a job tell a colleague, "you're doing it wrong," he should probably listen. I'm all for latitude and independence of admins, 'cause we sometimes deal in nuances and make partly subjective decisions, but even if he were not actually involved, his actions have that appearance. That's my tuppence. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra, the point of noting sysops because of peer feedback is a good one. It does feel different in that way for it to be 10 sysops than 10 veteran editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- To the general point: I'm concerned about creating a precedent where admins are barred from using admin tools on any page they have ever edited. There's no no sensible rationale for that beyond trying to appease the peanut gallery who look for any excuse to throw brickbats at admins. That's not a requirement of WP:INVOLVED, nor does it align with its purpose – to ensure that genuine content disputes are conducted on a level playing field, without one side having extra "weapons". We shouldn't be handicapping admins acting in good faith to preserve articles from unarguable policy violations.
- In this particular instance: now that Bearcat is aware of partial blocking (a function designed precisely for this sort of case) and current practice regarding blocking vs protection, I don't think there's any need for anything more. What good is anything else going to do? --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Possible WP:GAMING attempt
Hi Bishonen I am finding suspicious editing and a kind of WP:GAME attempt by Oranjelo100 at SerieDSD. See page revision history. Please have a look. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 12:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Amkgp. I'm sorry, I've no idea what's going on. There are further pointless (AFAICS) moves in the user's contributions. I don't know how they would expect to profit from all that moving activity, as in WP:GAME. It could be that they're just as clueless as I am (you should see some of my own hapless back-and-forth moves). If you have specific suspicions, I recommend you to take them to WP:ANI, and be sure to explain what you suspect the user is trying to achieve. Bishonen | tålk 12:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC).
User needs edification
Hi B, might I please trouble you to briefly edify wallyfromdilbert on proper procedure after he has been reverted? User has begun an edit-war that I've no interest in perpetuating, and refuses to acknowledge that or restore the status quo. User restored content here at Jupiter Ascending, after I reverted them and I went the extra step of opening a talk page discussion for them. Obviously not requesting any sanctions. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I literally just noticed that they've been blocked for edit-warring twice in the past. Sigh... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry to be unaccommodating, Cyphoidbomb, but nobody has violated policy that I can see, and the user has only reverted once, so it's kind of early for you to talk about "skating by for not yet crossing 3RR",[28] The way they cited WP:V to you was pretty fresh, but I must agree with Wally that discussing content rather than policies and technicalities on talk is the best thing to do right now. Also, should you be "nopinging" them here..? Bishonen | tålk 16:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC).
- Fair enough and I appreciate your contrary opinion. Though the restoration of a disputed version would by definition be edit-warring from my interpretation despite not crossing 3RR. That said, the subject area isn't something I care enough about to pursue. As for the no-ping, I wasn't seeking sanctions, so I didn't think it was a huge deal. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry to be unaccommodating, Cyphoidbomb, but nobody has violated policy that I can see, and the user has only reverted once, so it's kind of early for you to talk about "skating by for not yet crossing 3RR",[28] The way they cited WP:V to you was pretty fresh, but I must agree with Wally that discussing content rather than policies and technicalities on talk is the best thing to do right now. Also, should you be "nopinging" them here..? Bishonen | tålk 16:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC).
PageImp
pageImp (talk · contribs) is on their third revert at Bunt (community), repeatedly inserting a mirror. I've left a couple of templates on their talk page but those may have coincided with their third revert. It won't be clever for either me or them if they repeat the edit and I revert them. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- They just made another edit, not repeating the use of the mirror site but instead removing the "Varna Classification" section. I'm going to warn them sharply. Bishonen | tålk 19:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC).
- Done. You could call it a clever move, I suppose: you can't revert it, and I can't either. Let's hope somebody else is watching the article. Bishonen | tålk 19:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC).
- I wasn't watching the article, but I was watching here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- I love my little stalkers. Sitush, it's getting too complicated for me. Castespeak is a fog to me. Would you consider responding on their page? Bishonen | tålk 19:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC).
- Thanks, both. It is as clear a case of glorification as there can be. First they want a varna status in there, but the glorious warrior one (kshatriya) rather than the one that the article showed, which is often perceived as a menial/servile one (shudra). Then when they can't have it their way, they say that the system of classification didn't exist in the region and removed the entire sourced section.Varna is a religious ritual ranking system that has/had four parts: in sort-of perceived descending order, these are brahmin (priestly), kshatriya (warriors and kings), vaishya (merchants, traders) and shudra (labourers, producers); below the shudra, and outside the ranking system altogether, are the untouchables - the ritually polluted people who work with human and animal products, eg: sweeping the streets or tanning leather. It is true, as PageImp eventually claimed after not getting their way, that the classic system was not really present in south India but that was because the middle two ranks - kshatriya and vaishya - pretty much did not exist; brahmins were there and they just believed/dictated/preached that everyone else was shudra or not good Hindus at all. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- And to cast my dim light on the chronic problem we've had here at Wikipedia... Going by that classification, it's obvious that the vast majority of people in almost any society are going to fit into what would be the Shudra and Untouchable groups, with a still sizeable number classed as Vaishya. After all, it's the various kinds of labourers and merchants who make up the bulk of a society, and there really isn't anything like the same demand for kings, warriors and priests. But absolutely every caste promoter here wants to claim that members of their caste are traditionally kings, warriors or priests. If we believed everyone who made those claims, then there'd never have been anybody in India actually doing productive work for a living. I've spent some time there, and I met many many working people. I did encounter a relatively small number of priests. But I didn't bump into a single king or warrior (unless you count the kind policeman in Delhi who directed me when I got lost). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Did you meet anybody descended from gods, Boing! said Zebedee? Because that's what the best caste promoters claim about their own group. Bishonen | tålk 08:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC).
- Oh, yeah, you get them on every street corner. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Did you meet anybody descended from gods, Boing! said Zebedee? Because that's what the best caste promoters claim about their own group. Bishonen | tålk 08:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC).
- And to cast my dim light on the chronic problem we've had here at Wikipedia... Going by that classification, it's obvious that the vast majority of people in almost any society are going to fit into what would be the Shudra and Untouchable groups, with a still sizeable number classed as Vaishya. After all, it's the various kinds of labourers and merchants who make up the bulk of a society, and there really isn't anything like the same demand for kings, warriors and priests. But absolutely every caste promoter here wants to claim that members of their caste are traditionally kings, warriors or priests. If we believed everyone who made those claims, then there'd never have been anybody in India actually doing productive work for a living. I've spent some time there, and I met many many working people. I did encounter a relatively small number of priests. But I didn't bump into a single king or warrior (unless you count the kind policeman in Delhi who directed me when I got lost). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, both. It is as clear a case of glorification as there can be. First they want a varna status in there, but the glorious warrior one (kshatriya) rather than the one that the article showed, which is often perceived as a menial/servile one (shudra). Then when they can't have it their way, they say that the system of classification didn't exist in the region and removed the entire sourced section.Varna is a religious ritual ranking system that has/had four parts: in sort-of perceived descending order, these are brahmin (priestly), kshatriya (warriors and kings), vaishya (merchants, traders) and shudra (labourers, producers); below the shudra, and outside the ranking system altogether, are the untouchables - the ritually polluted people who work with human and animal products, eg: sweeping the streets or tanning leather. It is true, as PageImp eventually claimed after not getting their way, that the classic system was not really present in south India but that was because the middle two ranks - kshatriya and vaishya - pretty much did not exist; brahmins were there and they just believed/dictated/preached that everyone else was shudra or not good Hindus at all. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I love my little stalkers. Sitush, it's getting too complicated for me. Castespeak is a fog to me. Would you consider responding on their page? Bishonen | tålk 19:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC).
- I wasn't watching the article, but I was watching here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Done. You could call it a clever move, I suppose: you can't revert it, and I can't either. Let's hope somebody else is watching the article. Bishonen | tålk 19:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC).
Netoholic
Rearding your closing of the CTBAN discussion, and my after the close comment regarding Netoholic's complaints about the discussion [29], it appears that Netoholic has taken the first step towards following me around, reverting an edit I made to Peter Stumpp [30], an article he has never edited before [31] and James Wells Champney [33]
I would like to nip this potential harassment in the bud. Could you please tell Netoholic to steer clear of me and my edits, and I will do the same for him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- El C left a warning on Netoholic's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)(edit conflict) x2. BMK, in my opinion he is trying to goad you into breaching the image placement sanctions from last year. Definitely some hounding going on in my opinion. El C had already warned and if it continues action will be taken. Glen 03:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have invoked IAR to include the three ANI post-close comments in the discussion. Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC).
- Netoholic, per my warning, needs to start doing better as far as battleground behaviour and hounding goes. El_C 09:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have invoked IAR to include the three ANI post-close comments in the discussion. Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC).
- (talk page stalker)(edit conflict) x2. BMK, in my opinion he is trying to goad you into breaching the image placement sanctions from last year. Definitely some hounding going on in my opinion. El C had already warned and if it continues action will be taken. Glen 03:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted article check?
Is Chhonkar, which is the new target of the recreated Chhokar, actually a revival of the original Chhokar article that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chhokar? I suspect it is, grabbed off a mirror, because the sourcing was atrocious and at least one of those sources is referred to in the deletion discussion. (Sorry that this query is chocka with Chhoks, I should send you some virtual chocs). - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) The text is substantively the same. Sources 2 and 3 are different, and there's no mention of Rajputs in the original. As such I'd say it's eligible for CSD#G4, but it is somewhat borderline, and others may disagree. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Basically, yes, except that the deleted article had two (poor) sources, while the new Chhonkar has none, and has more "also known as" suggestions. This was the text of the deleted Chhokar:
- ^ Nijjar, B. S. (2008). Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India: 900 B.C.-1947 A.D. Atlantic Publishers. p. 125. ISBN 9788126909087.
- ^ Raheja, Gloria Goodwin (1988). The Poison in the Gift: Ritual, Prestation, and the Dominant Caste in a North Indian Village. University of Chicago Press. p. 263. ISBN 9780226707280.
I think I'll just delete them both. Watch out for the appearance of new articles Chhonker, Chhaunkar, Chhenkure, and Chonkar! Bishonen | tålk 18:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC).
- Done. Note that there is also a Draft:Chhokar, which I have not deleted. It's atrociously sourced (and has been properly rejected for mainspace), but it's not the same as the other lot. It's fuller. Bishonen | tålk 18:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC).
- Heh, there is also Draft:Chhokar (surname). This is clearly someone on a mission! - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, right, brand new draft, not yet submitted for review, nor ready for it. Same someone as the creator of Draft:Chhokar, do you think? Not that it matters much, so sock-infested as the entire area is. I think I'll just watchlist the creator's talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 17:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC). PS, oh... I see they created it straight into article space, and a regular editor moved it to draft. Pity, in a way. I could have speedied the article. Bishonen | tålk 17:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC).
- Heh, there is also Draft:Chhokar (surname). This is clearly someone on a mission! - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Talk Page Guidelines Violated in Your Warning to Me
I am not sure if you are an admin as you claim, but if so, then it was wholesale impolite to accuse me of "strange" edits. If you believed that calling someone else "emotionally involved" with the article Ebi given their numerous vandalisms to the BLP was wrong, then you should not have echoed that violation by claiming that I am emotionally charged instead. Further, you claimed that I had an "obsession" with this article. Finally, warning other users to not violate WikiPedia guidelines is not tantamount to a threat. It is a restatement of the policies that we all adhere to here, and if you are an admin, you are charged with protecting. The user you are "protecting" one-sidedly as is evident in your charged comments on my talking page is the one who left rude replies to me when I warned her of the WikiPedia guidelines violations I believed to be at hand. As he/she clearly knows how to reach an admin (if you are one), then it is odd that this person would assume a normal level editor would be able to do anything about the violations except warn of consequences anyway. That is, she knows what admins are for. You present a troubling case and I would be happy to withstand anything you believe is right as an admin. (if you are one), and to escalate the matter appropriately. Please remain as cordial and civil as possible and do not engage in negative behavior as a method to fix what you personally believe was wrong. Thank you. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I will reply on your page. Bishonen | tålk 21:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC).
- I got one of those too. I originally found the page because of this -[34]. If its the same person, they haven't been happy for awhile. I did try to explain the issue with the edits on their talkpage [35] but... Curdle (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- It obviously is the same person. Thanks for the info, Curdle, it was useful (compare my latest post on their page). Bishonen | tålk 22:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC).
- Fascinating. </spock impression> -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 23:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- It obviously is the same person. Thanks for the info, Curdle, it was useful (compare my latest post on their page). Bishonen | tålk 22:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC).
- I got one of those too. I originally found the page because of this -[34]. If its the same person, they haven't been happy for awhile. I did try to explain the issue with the edits on their talkpage [35] but... Curdle (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Muhammad Najeeb Naqi Khan
Can anything be done about anons at Muhammad Najeeb Naqi Khan? They are repeatedly adding outright puffery and also unsourced factual statements. Not sure if they're family or fans but it does look likely to be one or the other. - Sitush (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sure. I've spent some time looking to see if a rangeblock is possible, but the range is pretty big and contains some constructive edits. Thanks for the semi, young Fritter. I hope a week will discourage sufficiently; please let me know if the puffery resumes after it, Sitush. Bishonen | tålk 08:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC).
- It's yu-uge. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't think you understood range blocks, Bish - have you been learning or have I mistaken you for someone else? They seem like a black art to me. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ha! Bah! Of course I understand them! Ask Floquenbeam, he's wildly envious! Actually I'm a bit of a one-trick pony — best with the simple IPv6 /64 ranges. I look up the others, it takes a while. But speaking of black arts, that's a good term for caste editing, such as you do. Bishonen | tålk 09:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC).
- Thanks. I didn't think you understood range blocks, Bish - have you been learning or have I mistaken you for someone else? They seem like a black art to me. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Reply to - ["warning from an administrator, time stamp - 09:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)]
Hi, sir
First of all thank you for intervening in this matter.
I am requesting you please go through the talk page and history of edits of these pages 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Almas_(folklore) 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Almas_(folklore)&action=history) 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuchuna&action=history.
I have raised some valid points/ questions in this page, which are not being answered.
I am sorry for my naivety to say user::bloodofox: as an administrator.
If user :bloodofox's actions would have been constructive then this situation/ problem would not have occurred.
As per your valuable advice I will be posting this thread in relevant noticeboard section.
Please guide me, so that i can contribute and enrich the contents of the existing entries within an existing category.
I have a question regarding a comment - "Additions of pseudoscience will be removed on sight. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)"
do Wikipedia have a policy to not post anything related to pseudoscience?
Naturally, I have no objective to be in any form of confrontation with anyone in this forum.
Thanks and Regards --AranyaPathak (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh no, posts regarding pseudoscience are welcome, AranyaPathak. What Bloodofox meant was presumably that he will remove additions of pseudoscientific sources, and/or of text that endorses pseudoscientific explanations. I agree that he should, and I also agree that Bernard Heuvelmans is a fringe, i. e. pseudoscientific, source. You have posted our article Bernard Heuvelmans on Bloodofox's page, as if that proves H is not a fringe source, but I think the opposite: our article shows he is.
- I'm not sure what you mean by saying you'll post this thread at the relevant noticeboard section? Do you wish to complain at an actual noticeboard, such as WP:ANI or WP:FTN? You can certainly do that, but I frankly don't think you're quite ready for it yet. Perhaps you meant you'll post it at one or more article talkpages, such as Talk:Almas? That would be fine, but I advise you to try to be concise on talkpages. Everybody here is a volunteer, and they're less likely to read lengthy or repetitious posts. Please don't post this reply of mine anywhere; too dull. If you want to refer to it, please just post a diff to it, or, if that's difficult, just say it's on my page. Bishonen | tålk 11:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC).
Hi mam, thank you for your quick response
Cryptozoology is one of my interests, just as a cultural phenomenon.I have no biasness on the topic cryptozoology.
I came here to learn and contribute, not to be hostile or to be in any adversarial condition.
I am having some clarity from this discussion. As i understood from Wikipedia guidelines, that any content must be substantiated, with reference, source and citation. It was my first edit post ([[as i understood from wikipedia guidlines, that any content must be substanciated, with reference, source and citation, It was my first edit post, with a considerable amount of reading and researching.(Almas), with a considerable amount of reading and researching.
There must be a possible miscommunication, about linking the Wikipedia page of Heuvelmans, the triviality of the fact that person mentioned is a founding figure of cryptozoology.
Now the question is crypotozoology itself is a pseudo-scientific discipline, isnt it obvious that the status of materials or sources of these will also be pseudo-scientific. Then no content can be entered in any of these cryptozoological pages, as no corresponding reference can be given for any content specially in these topics.
Kindly help me out in this paradoxical situation.
Any entry of folklore can also be interpreted as a promotion of superstition, which i think would be an absurdity.
While editing the Almas page, I provided total 8 references, among which one of the was of Heuvelmans's, my question was- why all the entries of around 7000 characters based on one single name are being deleted, and currently the newly edited page uses one of 8 reference that I used, to edit the same page.
And user:bloodofox is not going through any dialogues regarding the deletion.
Can you please guide me how will I add content, in this category.
I am going through all the guidelines that you have referred regarding pseudo-science in my talk page.
Also there must a slight miscommunication, as i have mentioned the term noticeboard, because you have suggested me the same in my talk page, and i have already started a discussion in the talk page of the above mentioned page.
Please continue to guide, support and teach me like this in future.
- No, it isn't obvious that the sources will also be pseudoscientific; in fact, they're not allowed to be. Heuvelmans is a notable subject as one of the fathers of cryptozoology — hence we have an article about him — but he's not an appropriate source. Cryptozoology as folklore is an academic subject. Look, I do realize you're new and just getting to know your way around Wikipedia, but Bloodofox has already told you both these things. He is deeply interested in and knowledgeable about the subject, compare his userpage. You'd do yourself a favor if you listened better to him, because if you take these two points on board, the paradox whereof you speak disappears. I can't blame him much for being short with you, when all you bring to his page is accusations, and you give every sign of not listening to what he tells you. Thank you for being so polite to me, but it's not only admins you need be polite to. Bishonen | tålk 16:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC).
Bhonsle
Your ministrations, or those of some tpw, may soon be needed at Bhonsle. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Let's not mess around - 3 months semi-protection. Let me know in October if it needs further attention. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Karlie Kloss
Hi Bishonen. Thanks for cleaning up after the ip. Care to look into the mess at Karlie Kloss ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Maile66 at RFPP would like someone to look into it [36], and GeneralNotability's work to stop the edit-warring didn't last long User_talk:GeneralNotability#Karlie_Kloss.
- Talk:Karlie_Kloss#Political_views
- Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Karlie_Kloss
- Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Karlie_Kloss
Any intervention or suggestions would be appreciated. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)