User talk:Bishonen: Difference between revisions

		Quote of the week, back by popular demand
		GregJackP:The purpose of admins should be to keep the riff-raff away from the content creators.[1]"

You're one of the people who make a difference here. Thomas.W talk 20:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How kind, Thomas. Very seasonable! Bishonen | talk 20:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

There's a big chance that the strawberries are repackaged imported strawberries, though, and not äkta svenska jordgubbar. Thomas.W ^talk 20:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I add some flowers, because your meadow made my day? (Pick on top of my talk.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to share a quote that I ran across while re-reading the Blessed Hooker. It's when he springs his trap in the "Preface." He proposes a grand council for settling the arguments with the Puritans, but he figures that they wouldn't abide by it, because it would have Authority, and there are no authorities except themselves, so he asks, “I would therefore know, whether for the ending of these irksome strifes. . . ye be content to refer your cause to any other higher judgment than your own, or else intend to persist and proceed as ye have begun, till yourselves can be persuaded to condemn yourselves.”

It's one of those things I've wanted to say on a dozen occasions since, in meetings, online, with fellow left wingers, etc. (And my other favorite is Samuel Butler's: "He who is persuaded against his will/ Is of his own opinion still.") Hithladaeus (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the article Per Holknekt that I recently created. I am planning to nominate it for DYK in the next few days so any help or improvements are welcomed. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, Babba. I see some things I can wikilink. But it looks from the history like another user is copyediting it right now, so I'd better wait till they're done. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC). PS, kom nu till Hångers källa! I denna ljuva sommartid osv. Don't forget to smell the flowers. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Help! I have a problem on Enrico Fermi with an editor 115ash who is insisting that Emilio Segrè was not Fermi's student. I have Segrè's autobiography as a source, which I regard as definitive in this case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Hawkeye7. Segrè's autobiography A Mind Always in Motion (used as a reference in Emilio G. Segrè) is conveniently available online and does indeed make it clear Segrè was Fermi's student. But the only book by Segrè that's given as a reference in Enrico Fermi is Enrico Fermi, Physicist (1970). You probably meant to refer to A Mind Always in Motion in your edit summary "Segre was his student. See Segre pp. 48-52" — didn't you? The pages fit. Perhaps you want to add A Mind Always in Motion as a reference to Enrico Fermi, and then refer to it as "Segrè 1993" or whatever the reference system is in the article? And take it up on article talk. I can't say I see Ash doing that much insisting — he reverted you, then posted one comment about it on your page. If you explain it to him on article talk and point him to A Mind Always in Motion, I assume he'll stop insisting. Your note on Ash's talkpage is frankly not entirely explanatory. Bishonen | talk 23:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• (edit conflict) (talk page stalker) It's possible that you made too many different changes in one edit. My advice would be to take them to the talk page, Talk:Enrico Fermi and explain them individually. Giving a brief quote from Segrè 1970 would help establish that he was Fermi's student, for example. I would also advise that following the RfC conducted at Template talk:Infobox person #RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion, it is most likely that the |religion= value ought to be removed from the article, particularly as {{infobox scientist}} doesn't implement the parameter anyway. HTH --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The religion card is a big problem with the infoboxes on a lot of scientist articles. I would remove them, but given that you can't see them, it didn't seem worth arguing about. But feel free. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to source, as you requested: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/importrefusals/ir_detail.cfm?EntryId=9WH-1008214-7&DocId=1&LineId=26&SfxId= Norman21 (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Norman21. Through that link, I also found this one, which gives details and background. I've put both of them into the article with some neutral text and made a separate section (because that stuff is important, and needs to show up in the table of contents). Please take a look and see what you think — feel free to edit the article. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I've done the same thing on other websites where I reply to the person that you shouldn't ever reply to, but I'll try to avoid replying to that IP again. Dustin (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking, Dustin. I've given them a nice personalized warning, and I will certainly block if they persist. I see they've had a discretionary sanctions alert too, so they could be topic banned, but that's kind of useless for an IP SPA. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, I owe you one more thanks. The discussion, currently found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Urgent: would somebody consider snow deleting a BLP.2C please.3F is closed, so I can't comment there. So I thank you here.

My inclusionist tendencies border on "strict". But this deletion is right.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aladdin. Starting an emergency thread on ANI was a kind of workaround around the fact that probably few admins were following the original thread any longer. It shouldn't be used often, of course — it could potentially be quite annoying — but BLPs and consideration for their subjects is very important. Glad it worked. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hello. Responses may not be rational huh? :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Enthusiastically:] 'Twas brillig and the slithy flowers did gyre and gimble in the meadow! Come taste them! Graze, graze! Bishonen | talk 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

what a great thing to read, today of all days, for all sorts of reasons! sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Is the visitor taking the mickey? Not sure. /me cheerfully sticks straws in her hair.] Bishonen | talk 06:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, thank you for your message, pleased that you like this picture (you are the second user to tell me so). The place has changed by now, the horse and the flowers have been replaced by a pine-tree grove... Cheers, --Jibi44 (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pine trees, Jibi44? As in, a pine plantation? Bishonen | talk 16:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bish can you have a look at an issue I'm having with KoshVorlon? On ANI you said that User:Lucd13's user page was fine and I agree with you and so did Liz but when she tried to undo User:KoshVorlon's edits she was reverted by him (KoshVorlon) as seen here:[5] and when I tried asking him (KoshVorlon) to revert his edit I was called a troll as seen here: [6]. Can you revert the user's page back? If I do it, KoshVorlon will start back up with his personal attacks on calling me a troll etc. Caden ^cool 22:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) Caden, Iridescent has already reverted [7] the user page to its original state. - NQ (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you for telling me, I didn't know that. Caden ^cool 23:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about this? User:Searchwriter/sandbox? Seems like it should be speedy-able as a draft of a now-deleted article by a now-indeffed user but I couldn't see where it fits in the speedy criteria. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a sandbox. It contains material that the user might want to use for other purposes, on other websites or whatever. (Yes, you'd think he'd have it saved on his own hard drive already, but maybe not, you never know.) The user is indeffed, but that wouldn't prevent him from looking at the sandbox, maybe as an IP, and harvesting text from it. I don't want to stop that happening — we have no vendetta against him — and I'm altogether not into deleting sandboxes much, unless their owners ask me to. But I've removed the image, since it's up for deletion on Commons,[8] and Seattleditor is clearly unable to disentangle himself with any credibility from his contradictory claims in the deletion discussion there. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

thanks. the laurel and hardy picture cracks me up whenever i write here. :) Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this article under the subsection "Europe" fourth paragraph, I have a citation needed template added after the one comment regarding glaciers in Sweden. I have searched everywhere but cannot find anything to support that sentence. In fact, I have found little to nothing regarding glaciers in Sweden. I know good sources are available since Sweden has actually been doing glacier research for 100+ years. Anyway, if interested, can you assist me with a source even if I have to completely alter the sentence? If not, I fully understand.--MONGO 08:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You probably know this one. It says "In the Kebnekaise Mountains of Northern Sweden of sixteen glaciers examined from 1990-2001, 14 are retreating, one is advancing and one is stable", same as you do. I don't know if you took it from them, or they from us (nah!), but anyway, they have a reference for the sentence:[9] An unhelpful reference, I must say. It's to a reliable source, a uni department, but simply to the front page of it, and I can't find anything about the specific study. I did find a reference for the sentence about Storglaciären, [10], but I realize you need more. I'll keep looking, but probably your chances are better than mine: you're a better researcher, and all that stuff is in English anyway. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

That first link is to Mauri Peltos website and he was one of the three primary editors of the Wikipedia article...so there is some back and forth on that data. I know this much...anybody using MONGO as a reference on their term paper should be 1). Publicly shamed 2). Receive a fail for the entire course 3). Thrown out of the university! So Pelto must have added that info some years back from research he uncovered...and it came from a reliable source (not Wikipedia).--MONGO 17:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(TPS bursts in): I presume you have this one? Valter Schytt's fine article, if a little old -- but it's got a pretty good batch of references that you could chase down. Antandrus (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(TPS 2 follows) : Glaciers and climate in northern Sweden during the 19th and 20th century. Glacier mass balance bulletin series and the Fluctuations of Glaciers series. A whole bunch of references- NQ (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alrightie, is this it?. Swedish glacierfront monitoring program - compilation of data from 1990 to 2001 (pp.37-40.) - NQ (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That most definitely looks like it. The text was not added to the article by me but is definitely derived from that data. Nice work. I searched forever and it just seemed to elude me. Thanks bunches to all of you! MONGO pleased.--MONGO 17:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at CrazyAces489's talk page.
Message added 07:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I know we may have our little differences, but after your post on my talk page Caden has continued to post on my page after I've told him to stop. He is not minding his own business in a place he doesn't belong (making amends with Lucd13). Now, he has accused me of being a liar and told me to grow up. At this point, I feel harrassed and wikihounded (he has been following my moves lately; just look at his contributions on my talk page) even though this is just the second warning. I'd like him to stop. What should I do? Diff: [11]. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 09:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callmemirela, the only behaviour you can change is your own, and the only time to complain to admin is after you've tried your best to improve your own practice. For instance, you need to stop fiddling with your post on Lucd13's page (provoking a "new messages" banner every time), especially to add remarks about Caden. (I'm pinging Caden here since he has an objection to me posting on his page.) I seriously don't blame him for posting one more time on your page. I've no reason to believe he'll post there again as long as you leave him alone. (Don't, Caden, or you'll be in trouble.) Complaining about him on other pages counts as not leaving him alone. Also, did you notice where Lucd13 said he'd like the conversation to be at an end when you've told him what incivility you're referring to? And it's a sad fact that few people much appreciate "little reminders" about this and that that you would like them to change about themselves — perhaps especially coming from people who have offended them. And as for advising Lucd13 to "keep calm"… I actually once wrote a little essay about how it's better not to tell people to "keep calm": it's here if you're interested. I'm sure you mean well with your advice to Lucd13, but I hope you're done on his page now, and also done talking about Caden. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

By the way, do you know about pinging, Mirela? It means linking a user's name so that they get an alert that you've mentioned them. (It's much more meaningful than providing admins and experienced users with links to well-known wikipedia policies, as you do above — some touchy people even get annoyed about that, as it can be perceived as condescending, though I'm sure you didn't mean it like that in this instance. Just a little tip.) You're supposed to ping when you discuss another user. It's because you didn't ping Caden on Luc's page that Caden says "behind my back" in his post to you. Please read the info page about pinging and incorporate it into your practice. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you Bish for letting me know about this thread. Oh and Bish just so you know, yes you are welcome on my talk page, just ignore my past comment because that was said while I was upset. As for about Mirela, right now I'm very pissed off at this edit [12] of hers and I'm not going to say anything further before I say something I will regret because I'm too damn pissed off right now. Caden ^cool 20:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last message regarding this whole issue and Caden and I's disagreements that seem to explode more everyday (or more less now). I have slowly excluded myself from all pages that Caden watches that are also on my watchlist, because right now I want to forget about him and move on. I am pissed off, too. Not just Caden. Him, too, has committed errors. [13] I'm sorry but "Time for you to apologize"? Yes, I stand by what I wrote on Lucd13's talk page even though it was removed. You never suggested an apology. It was downright "It's time for you to apologize". "I think you should apologize for your mistake. You were proven wrong." would had been a lot more better than that nasty tone and the eventual false accusations (view below). You do not own me. I had planned on the apology once this was sorted out and I had the chance to do so.

You had accused me of being a liar and have told me to grow up. I'm sorry, but how would you had known about my post on WP:Resources? I am certain you have been wikihounding me since this started. You also knew about my post to The Traveling Man's talk page then also posted on there ([14]). One would only know that if they had been following my contributions list. [15]

I was only suspicious about the initial source from the start. I eventually found more sources to confirm the said content. If you follow TV sources, you would know that 99% of the time, when there is news about a TV show of any kind, those sources will announce it as well. Excuse me for following how it's been with TV shows on Wikipedia and its used sources. I have not dismissed what Lucd13 said. I said I would search for sources, and I did. I also suggested to him in my edit summaries that since it's a TV show, there would be more sources. And there was (however, they came from social media which is discouraged to use), but I suppose it would be good to use them for back-up sources; I don't know.

I am done with this crap now. This is my last message, as mentioned above. While I am getting shit for this issue, there are issues from others about it as well. Lucd13 ranted about me with rather uncivil comments and insults and Caden was using a rude tone to his messages on my talk page (WP:Civility seems to be apart of this, but I can't confirm since it's not intense but it is very unhelpful and rude) and has seemingly wikihounded me. I am done. I want to move on. I am tired of arguing. I have apologized; Lucd13 has forgiven me. I want this issue to be over. I'm sorry for not pinging; I'm sorry for the behind-the-back talk. I'm sorry for the whole mess, but I also wish Caden be less "possessive", if you will. I have promised to be more careful in the future (I am working on a solution for edit warring stuff). Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirela, by "wikihounding" you seem to mean "looking at my contributions list", since you blame Caden for even knowing about a post of yours. That's not what the word means, and the contributions link is there for a reason; it's meant to be used. But you should both give each other a wide berth from now on. I know it can be difficult to let go and move on, I've experienced it myself; I'm glad you've resolved to try. I hope you feel better soon. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

Responded. Bishonen | talk 11:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, about your note on my page, I explained in detail on Luc13's page why his posting is Polemic, I've demonstrated that it meets the definition of Polemic as defined on that same page . I have to admit, I'm a bit suprised to see you post that it doesn't apply to talk pages. Yes, I realize that we have flexability as to what we can do and say on our talkpages, and believe it or not , I agree with that, however, posting Polemic statements doesn't fall under "just being flexible" , it's not accepted. Take a look at WP:POLEMIC and you'll see that there's no exemptions given anywhere for polemic statements, 3RR for example, is given an exemption when it's for BLP purposes, polemic has no such exemption, nor does it have any exemption. So, I'm carrying out policy by removing the polemic message from Lucd13's page. Regarding my edit summary to Caden, that was me being sarcastic. I've got a dry sense of humor, and it definetly doesn't come out well online at all, but, it was sarcasm, not incivility, but if you like, I'll revert my removal of Caden's message so that's back on my page. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon, you are not "carrying out policy" even if you're following WP:POLEMIC to the letter, since, as has been explained to you repeatedly, you claiming that something is "a policy" is not going to make it one and you are never going to get consensus to make WP:POLEMIC a policy (you're welcome to try, just to see how quickly you get shot down; I would also point out that if "content unrelated to wikipedia should be removed" were a policy, your own user page would be first in the sights). As Bishonen has been too polite to point out, you're not just skirting on the edges of a block for disruption, but given your history you're within a hair's breadth of a WP:CIR indefblock. Let it drop. – iridescent 11:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you're really so keen on enforcing policy, do something about that ridiculous 286-character sig, given that the 255 character limit is a Wikipedia policy. – iridescent 11:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Iridescent. What he said, KoshVorlon. Also I don't know what you mean that I posted WP:POLEMIC "doesn't apply to talk pages". No talkpages have been involved AFAIK. It does apply to userpages, assuming that was what you meant, but it's not relevant to that userpage and the material on it. I honestly don't know why that's so hard to grasp and why you're eternally "surprised" about it. I'm damned if I'll explain yet again. And if you know your "dry sense of humor", which I would call something else, doesn't come across well online, why do you post it on Wikipedia? I can't say I care if you restore Caden's post or not, and I doubt he does either. The edit summary was the problem, not the removal. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Iridescent: Have a look at this. My rather mild comment there earned me this rebuke. KV's claims about POLEMIC are completely incorrect. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, people have been complaining about that sig for literally years; a glance over the history of his talkpage will show that he thinks Wikipedia policies apply to everyone else, not him. At some point, presumably either someone will salt the page he transcludes it from, or one of the more colourful characters will notice that he's using a subst'ed signature and he'll realise the hard way just why we discourage them so strongly. Trust me, the sig is not the most glaring WP:CIR issues here. – iridescent 11:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent, please quote that sentance fully " Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities..." On Luc13's page he's posting content that attacks or vilifys a group of editors. It's therefore a polemic statement. Regarding my signature, people have complained for various reasons about my signature, most because they hate artistic signatures of any sort, however, your complaint's valid, my signature's too long, so I'll shorten it right now. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the target is "the entire Wikipedia community" it's not singling out an editor or group thereof. Can I just add my voice to the "drop it" camp? Worm^TT(talk) 12:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kosh, for the last time WP:POLEMIC is not a Wikipedia policy so your angels-on-pinheads arguments as to whether it's been breached (it hasn't) are irrelevant.

WTT, just to put things in perspective this is the user who performed this edit; I really wouldn't hold out too much hope of common sense sinking in. – iridescent 12:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense or no, KoshVorlon has agreed in the past that if "three users in good standing" tell him to drop something, he'll do it. I'm hoping he'll stick to that. Worm^TT(talk) 13:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, Worm that Turned. 3 users have told me to drop it, so consider it dropped. KoshVorlon We are Kosh 14:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was my bad to use the wrong thing for the santion, but I will point out that Mark has had 3 blocks that have been under the community sanctions WP:GS/GG, which the latest would be the one to consider for this case : [16]. I would ask if I could undo the hatting to replace the reason with this one. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking. Hang on. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, sorry about that. Please note that someone (an IP) undid your hatting. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I write hurriedly. I don't see it. You link me to a month-long block by HJ Mitchell from January 2015, but I don't altogether see the relevance to AE. The block rationale mentions a topic ban. But where is this topic ban? Not in the GG final decision. I see a topic ban from March on this page, lifted on March 26. And there's another month-long block by H J Mitchell in March. And, oh, right, there was an indefinite topic ban in November 2014 by Gamaliel. But it was lifted in February 2015. Look… I don't see how your complaints and diffs in the request fit in with any of this. So, no, I don't agree to you lifting the hat and merely inserting a January block (?) as "reason". It doesn't make any sense. There were topic bans of limited duration, yes. You can't take him to AE today for violating those. So what is it you want to have "enforced" on the AE page? I'm sorry, but I think you'll have to start over if you want the user sanctioned (and probably not do it on AE). Your new reason doesn't fit your evidence (which has been framed wrt violating "decorum"). If MarkBernstein has violated a sanction — a sanction I can't find — you could start a new AE request.

If you don't like what I say, could you take it to ANI, please, or to AE talk, and try to get consensus for overruling me? I have to be out of here in five minutes.

An IP undid my hatting? That's ridiculous. I have to assume somebody will revert the IP. Bishonen | talk 23:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'll open a discussion at AE talk at your advice, there is the discretionary sanction of issue here too but I'll do that at talk. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the re-open. There was no reason given for the re-open.--Jorm (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Jorm, I appreciate it. I wonder where everybody else was. It took nearly an hour before the IP was reverted — an IP reverting an admin action on a contentious board without so much as an edit summary. Was one of those unmissable American sports events in progress? Bishonen | talk 08:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

It happened again, reverted, vandalized, reverted and semi-protected through July 8. 24.252.22.174 (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually look at the diffs (so no opinion on the merits), but it was obvious to me that this is a request for enforcement under WP:ARBGG#Discretionary sanctions. Closing it for linking the wrong section seems...overly bureaucratic. T. Canens (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, I have opened the AN requesting the reopen over here [17] and notifying you. You're clearly right to close it on a procedural basis, so I'm certainly not trying to seek any type of remedy/result against you, simply the fix up the AE instead of refiling it fresh with a better sanction. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Timotheus here - implying that someone is complicit in rape / rape threats is so far beyond the pale that closing due to an incorrect link seems bizarre. GoldenRing (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm definitely opting out.) ORLY? Hmmm. Bishonen | talk 08:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

It's the middle of finals in most academic institutions in the English-speaking world, and given the preponderance of students and academics on Wikipedia it's not unreasonable to assume things are going to be running slower than usual. Now, please don't put me in a position where I feel obliged to defend The Most Inept Arbcom Since 2008™ again. – iridescent 08:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration? The living would be easier without AE, says the victim. (Is there a more palatable word for victim in the context? I was threatened to be blocked for this edit, DYK? And what would a block achieve? A GA coming later, whom does it help?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the middle of finals in most academic institutions in the English-speaking world. Blimey, it's 30 years or more ago but mine were over somewhere around the first week in June, maybe even the last week in May. Ok, that's just one university but if the dates for finals are slipping and that causes the dates for ArbCom deliberations to slip then, given long enough, we'll end up going full circle. Perhaps this is a question to ask at the next arbcom elections: "are you likely to be involved in degree examinations, as a student or academic, during the next year or two? If so, how will you ensure sufficient time for the responsibilities of this role also?" - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were at Cambridge, which has always had shorter terms than everywhere else. (We always had something similar as one of the questions in my day; it isn't just relevant to academics, but to anyone in the military reserves, in a job that regularly takes them abroad etc. "People are more likely to be on holiday in the summer" is hardly a shock revelation.) – iridescent 11:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks shorter, I thought, but no worries. I'm being a bit facetious: the summer holiday scenario suggests we should aim for an ArbCom consisting 50:50 North and South hemisphere; indeed, the WMF should send a grant in the direction of a pressure group for that purpose right now. And doubtless the alpinists etc will object to the point-y funding. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more disturbed that finals would actually be an issue for someone with tools unless they actually worked at University or went back after a career. I'd be happier if it were Holiday as the reason. Greece is nice this time of year. --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A little more than two weeks for the Spring Term, if I recall correctly, Si - 56 days instead of the 60 days for the Michaelmas and Lent terms (although I always understood 60 days was the standard for university terms with the differences between HE establishments being a function of the number of workdays per week: 5, 6, or 7). As for Greece, it is incredibly hot at this time of year - no problem for a dinosaur like me, but hardly "nice". Nevertheless, your pound, dollar or krona is likely to go further there quite soon. --RexxS (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, RexxS. I never kept much track of it. Back then, it seemed like weeks just to travel by British Rail from home to Cambridge or vice versa. And still I refused their sandwiches: once bitten, twice poisoned shy ;)

As for working days, well, that might explain it. I didn't bother with lectures (couldn't hear them) but had many, let's say, memorable weekend evenings in supervisions with the likes of Maurice Cowling, Harold James, Edward Norman, Tim Blanning and numerous others. Some of those conversations veered well away from the matter at hand, including one when Cowling (rightly, as it turned out) recognised that I wouldn't be able to hold down a job in the "real world" and said that he would put a word in for me with his mates in the secret services - he thought that my intelligence, my lipreading skills and the possibilities of adapting my required hearing aids into surreptitious eavesdropping devices might be attractive. I told him that I had no desire to end up dead in Moscow. My mistake, as it turns out!

Alas (?), most who taught me are still living and thus BLP applies, as it does also for various students of my cohort. I do have the evidence, sometimes photographic. My time may come, mwah-ha-ha-ha :) - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward, even if you disregard people who work in academia (which is a fair few) and those who have children doing their exams (a few more), it wouldn't be that surprising if quite a number of Wikipedia admins are students. The tranche of editors who were spotty teenagers editing the pages of their favourite band during the boom of 2007–08 are now the grad students in their mid-20s. Assuming this photograph is reasonably representative* of the people so obsessed with Wikipedia that they'd pay money to spend three days in the most expensive city in the world, trapped in one of the country's most notoriously unpleasant buildings, listening to people they'd normally cross the street to avoid droning about their pet hobby-horses, then it looks like there's a decent smattering of 20-somethings. (While I don't know their ages, just going by photos on userpages two members of the current Arbcom look about twelve.) – iridescent 09:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*If this photograph is representative of the hardcore, then the people who use "diversity" as a shitty stick to beat whoever they happen to be in disagreement with have some serious mote/beam issues, given that this photo was taken in the middle of the most diverse city in the world yet looks like a UKIP rally. – iridescent 09:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent Oh, I didn't say I was surprised by it or disbelieved it :) . --DHeyward (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, the 2008 ArbCom is notorious? Wow. Who would have thought it? Certainly, long time admins getting stripped by secret non-ArbCom procedures done by review process internally on the secret list-serve wouldn't have thought so. They'd have simply applauded the sagacity of self-selection and the ability to do special pleading when regular pleading might take too long. (By the way, American universities were done with Spring term in May, and I think they're still "English-speaking." Now, I have very little evidence that they're "English writing," but that's a different standard.) It's untrue, of course, to say that ArbCom is what was wrong with Wikipedia back then. If all of the problems besetting users were listed, I'm sure several would not have been due to ArbCom. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...for moving the discussion to the talk page from where it was clearly out of position and in a fashion very likely to have influenced the discussion and decisions. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 21:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wish I'd thought of it sooner. Pity SilkTork didn't care to reply to me. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Seconded. I didn't think of it either. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can thank User:MrX for switching on a belated lightbulb in my head.[18] See also [19]. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

On 3 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Per Holknekt, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Swedish fashion designer Per Holknekt (pictured) placed second in the first Swedish Big Brother season before starting the clothing company Odd Molly? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Per Holknekt. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and credit where credit is due, but that's hardly here, Materialscientist! I merely did a little copyedit at BabbaQ's article. Bishonen | talk 08:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I have opened an enforcement request against TheRedPenOfDoom at WP:AE. You are being notified because an aspect of the complaint is that he or she misled you into helping them breach a topic ban, which they did not disclose clearly when seeking assistance from you at WP:EWN. The request is here. Vordrak (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the alert, but it has apparently already been closed. FYI, I was indeed not aware of the topic ban, but merely noticed an IP-hopper in obvious need of a block for trolling, disruption and edit warring. Pleased to find the range very small and not used by anyone else for editing Wikipedia, I blocked for 2 weeks. So I didn't just block for edit warring — that would have been shorter. Incidentally, if anything "misled", or led, me into rangeblocking, it wasn't TheRedPenOfDoom, but the comment by Hell in a Bucket and, especially, the helpful information from Thomas.W. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Was that a "save face" block? I don't imagine anybody would've felt threatened or offended by his ramblings. Alakzi (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What, my face? You must think me extremely sensitive. It was more a "save the user" block. Of course I'm not going to discuss that aspect of it. No, I don't suppose anybody felt threatened, but did you see this, this, or this? Note the edit summaries. And did you see where he removed my warning[20] and then complained he couldn't find it? "Apparently admin User:Bishonen also crapped on my my talk page, but I can't see it. so how can I possibly reply? Admin abuse as usual"? He had in fact already replied. As I had said in my warning, he wasn't in a fit state to edit.[21] Quite confused (you realize this is not a new user, so that wasn't it) and extremely belligerent with it. But indeed I'm not sure two weeks, which I went to in view of his block log, was the right length; I won't object if the UTRS admins find it appropriate to unblock him or shorten the block. Nobody could be better pleased than me if he's able to write a coherent unblock request. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

No, I meant his face; and yes, that is the aspect I was referring to. I've seen this done quite a few times (RG's block springs to mind). You probably think you're doing the editor a favour, but I'm not so sure. Perhaps turning a blind eye would've been a bigger favour. Alakzi (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't suppose you'd care about discussing your preconceptions with a pleb. Alakzi (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true, Alakzi. I've never found 'Shonen unwilling to discuss with a pleb (and there's nobody more plebeian than I). Sometimes she's busy; sometimes she forgets - don't we all? - but I don't believe a lack of response will be due to unwillingness. You may well be right, of course, that turning a blind eye may have been better. Nevertheless, letting someone continue to edit while "under the weather" has the potential for the Hang-'em-&-flog-'em Brigade to impose draconian sanctions on them. And that's far harder to unpick after the event. The block does look lengthy, but I suspect the intention is have him unblocked as soon as he regains equilibrium. It's okay to disagree with my analysis, but I think I'm right; 'Shonen is one of the most reasonable admins I've ever come across. --RexxS (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

↑ What he said. (And I am—wearily—familiar with the back-story to this particular case.) – iridescent 19:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the replies. Alakzi (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Alakzi. I didn't mean to ignore you, I just didn't know what to say more; you made a good point. So did RexxS and Iridescent, though. These situations are tricky. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, Bishonen, and I apologise for my rudeness. Alakzi (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

First of all, thanks for blocking User:Handpolk from editing for some time. After seeing the block sign on his talk page, I just want to add that he was also vandalizing my talk page during the night and later he started the same thing on User:2005's talk page (you already mentioned User:TheGracefulSlick so I left him out of here). Furthermore he has double standards – he can edit his or other user's talk page whenever he feels like it (add, revert, delete, etc.), but other users can't do the same. And he made constant threats to other users about this kind of thing handing warnings like free candy whereas he should have really gave all those warnings to himself. So thanks again and take care! – Sabbatino (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC) EDIT: I completely forgot. He calls everything trolling when he doesn't like something... – Sabbatino (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't look further back than the recent stuff, but I did suspect there was probably more. You may have noticed he barely admits the examples I mentioned, in his unblock request. The point about double standards is well taken. Bishonen | talk 14:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm just going to put this here.--Jorm (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I've already commented on that, in general terms. Already removed. But then it's generally true that you have to read Handpolk's page via the history. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

While I agree that he can delete things from his own talk page (though I think it's rude and immature), deleting other peoples' comments from other peoples' talk pages is not kosher, I think. Nor is referring to everything as "trolling". Ugh.--Jorm (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the remark that was removed here, wrong time for dark humor. Will not do it again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had hopes for Handpolk after his Gamergate topic ban, he moved on to other subjects. Even though he called me a shill, I thought he had intelligence. But he can turn the simplest disagreements into a battleground, this seems to occur on many articles he works on and he holds a grudge. I thought, like many inexperienced editors, Gamergate brought out the worst in him, but he seems to be argumentative in multiple other places. He suffers from what I call Have-to-have-the-last-wordism. Unless the other editor says, "Enough, forget this", this seems to inevitably lead to a revert war. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Man, did the trolls come after your talk page tonight! It's good you have talk page stalkers who matched them edit-for-edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My talkpage stalkers are the best, Liz. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think Handpolk will improve when he comes back either. He completely denies any wrongdoing, which is never a good sign.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amen (the last word) Hithladaeus (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ask you and don't want to create a new section for that. Where can I report IP addresses? There's this one IP address that keeps vandalising various NBA teams' pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sabbatino. You can report vandalism, both from accounts and IPs, at this noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Silly me. I visited that page about 3–4 days ago. I think it's time for me to bookmark that page. Thanks anyway! – Sabbatino (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to all above: I've blocked Handpolk as a sock of DegenFarang. Bishonen | talk 09:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

Crow^Caw 00:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just want some clarification. Is this an alternative account you just created or a sock of some other user you had issues with? If sock, get the IP checked, might have been someone you had issues recently like a user you blocked or warned. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the account as Bish identifies members of her conglomerate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this isn’t too beansy, but do contributions like those result in auto-confirmation?—Odysseus1479 03:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Odysseus1479: Ten edits anywhere, so yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally, Odysseus and NeilN, in fact it turned out there was a sleeper which possibly read your tip, Odysseus, and proceeded like this:[84] — ten edits exactly. (Not that I mind the beans, Odysseus. They made me laugh, which AFAIC more than outweighs any and all manifestations of Nadia's dull little hobby.) Bishonen | talk 11:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Must be editing from an IP range, I see there's been another sock blocked. Bishonen, did you get my email from a couple of days ago? Doug Weller (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did, sorry. It fell off the table, I'll try to get to it. I know who this latest character is — an established editor blowing up — now checkuserblocked by Risker. It was kind of obvious per WP:DUCK, too. Bishonen | talk 09:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

What about the anagrammatic cousin user:Shinbone1? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, supposing that I'm really old. Like, I'm really really old. Suppose I'm so old that the most notorious ArbCom in Wikipedia history dealt with me, and I'm back, but I'm not really back? You know, like I'm just filling some time between sending out CV's and stuff and just puttering around? So, what am I supposed to do to tell the officials that I used to be someone before I became who I appear to be? Should I put a note on my user page saying, "This user used to be Someone" or "I am Someone" or "I may be Someone?" After all, I understand, better than most, the severe repercussions of not having every single edit listed properly. We all know who we're working for, after all, and it's the boss. Hithladaeus (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from normal curiosity, I had to laugh at the thought that there's a most notorious arbcom case. I can think of at least six cases that have been referred to in that way. Risker (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't say mine was the most notorious case. I was saying only that that particular ArbCom committee is the most notorious. Whether or not my case created a stink, I don't know. I left, and, unlike most folks who do that, I really left. I don't think I even visited the site more than once a year as a user for quite a few years. (I was proud of leaving comments on some talk pages, a snide or exasperated remark here or there, but that was it.) This summer, I thought I might try to actually fix an article, so I created this account. I still haven't gotten a round tuit, though. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't imagine it would be a problem. Work on CV or develop Wikipedia Userpage....what to do .... I'd like to see the sanction for this notorious case Editor Someone is Topic Banned from the area of Gainful Employment, broadly construed. Someone may appeal this sanction, after such time the committee deems suitable, with a properly formatted CV and User Page. Passing 9-0. For the Arbitration Committee. --DHeyward (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The advice of this dinosaur to you, young man, is to not worry about what the officials think about you. There are enough of us now who appreciate your massive contributions to this project that your reputation is safe. It was the most notorious ArbCom case though, Risker - even Brad was ashamed afterwards. --RexxS (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RexxS, but I also want to say that Brad had nothing to be ashamed of. He did all he could to stop the oncoming train. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I was thinking of the supposed issue of that day. Supposedly, I was operating a second account without putting an official sticker on the second account's page, and that was the reason that ArbCom members on a list-serve, without an actual case, had to act without a proceeding. If I am to even putter about, I was thinking I might be accidentally tripping over some bizarre regulation again.

By the way, at the time, I kept wondering why everyone going around trying to "prove" that I was this or that account, when they could have just asked me. I've always thought that investigations can be made much simpler by asking people questions.

See, I figure that getting better material from the nDNB for some of the articles would be cool, and there is adding in material for discussions of substantial works from authors, etc. I.e. I think I can see something to do other than just vote in AfD's, but I'm not going to deal well with another set of "But I have been investigating with NSA-like efficiency and can prove that you were here from 2002-2008 and did not put the required category tag on your user page!" things. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But everybody who knew your contributions already knew you ran a second account from work - it's not like your style is difficult to spot. Things have matured to some extent here in the interim. You have a new account now because you choose to; there's no question about evading scrutiny, and you have no sanctions outstanding. A well-respected admin is aware of your previous account (as is a thoroughly disreputable dinosaur), and we're both able to vouch for your bona fides. That's generally accepted nowadays, and there's bugger-all chance that anyone will be daft enough to accuse you of abusing multiple accounts in future. FWIW, I have access to JSTOR and parts of Elsevier as well as ODNB, so feel free to ping me if I can find any documents for you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I probably will take you up on that. My work facilities are a bit on the cheapish side. We have JSTOR, but it's limited. However, "work" bought a number of the best reference works back when it was in higher heather, so it has the physical OED, nDNB, and Grove Dictionary of music. It has not, in my time, ever had adequate serials access, though, which has hurt my publications. (I've only published two tiny articles, and both of them I feel ashamed of, because I feel as if I didn't do an adequate literature review beforehand because I couldn't.) For Wikipedia, being able to synthesize disparate reputable references could be valuable.

The oDNB, for example, is sometimes better than what replaced it, because some of the entries are obsessively detailed, and the nDNB style sheet limited the authors. (Cf. "Jonathan Swift" in both, and you'll see what I mean. The 2004 is clearer and cleaner, but it has much, much less information.) On the other hand, the oDNB allowed editorial points of view. If we take Jonathan Swift as an example, again, the author feels the need to combat the notion that Swift was an insane misanthropist. No one today would. The 1898 authors were on the cusp of English literature becoming an accepted field of study (really), and most of them were shaking off the Macaulay and Carlyle paradigms. Most of them were, but not all of them. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for keeping guard while I slept! A special thanks to User:DHeyward, who removed the overlooked fragment about my, cough, new username. Bishonen | talk 09:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

A bit daft of me to edit the section and leave default edit summary with "rm vandalism." You should be proud to know that you were the only subject in all the WP realm with honorificabilitudinitatibus to receive such flowery phrasing whilst the rest of us feed from the alms-basket of usernames. --DHeyward (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I'm being singled out for attention by this user, and I guess the page (or, if not, its history) shows why. Hmm... I'm gonna go check if Risker has been distinguished too. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Geez, I go away for the weekend and the place goes crazy... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP left this message on my talk page and I don't know what to make of it. Dustin (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked it as I was typing this message, but still. Dustin (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it's the same /19 range, I strongly suspect they're just messing with your head. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I suspect you are right. I searched with the Google query "site:8ch.net Dustin V. S." and found zero relevant results. Thanks for the response. Dustin (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Not so much "fat-finger" as "skinny text on an iPad screen + mobile-version page rendering". In other words, I was trying to tap the "DIff" link but missed, and the page it showed me was the awful mobile version; hitting the "Request desktop site" button seems to have saved my mistake as an actual edit. --Calton | Talk 21:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem — I could have sworn I'd already replied, sorry, Calton. Must have forgotten to hit save. Don't even talk to me about mobile devices. I have to use 'em sometimes, as seldom as possible — I hate 'em with a passion. Bishonen | talk 08:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Bishonen,
I hope you can advise me. I was straightening out the talk page archives of WikiProject Poker, some of the archives were numbered (Archive 1), some were marked by year (Archive 2013) and no archives were listed in the talk page archive box after 2009 though they did exist. I wanted to make use of {{aan}} so I changed the later archives to numbered pages but there was one glitch. There was a page that was listed in the talk page archive box as Wikipedia talkWikiProject Poker/Archive 6|2009 and a page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 2009 that existed but was not listed. I mistakenly moved the later page to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6 because I thought I was just moving Archive 2009 to Archive 6. Then I noticed my naming mistake so I tried to move the page to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6 and I couldn't because it already existed. So, I moved the contents of Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6 to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6 and I'd like to delete the mistakenly titled move page but I can't find a CSD criteria that applies here and I can't use PROD because that is not utilized in Wikipedia talk space. I realize now that I should have merged the histories since they were two archives covering the same year but I didn't notice that were two separate archives pages that existed until I tried moving the mistakenly titled archive page to the correct title.

TL;DR version: Can you delete Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6 or recommend what I should do next? Thanks in advance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you’re sure all I need to do is delete the malformed title… done. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Bishonen! It's much appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could take a look at the edits of LowballChamp. Gives me the feeling of a new Handpolk/DegenFarang as he is deleting edits of user:2005, claiming a consensus that I fail to see. The Banner talk 14:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That’s certainly suggestive. Whoever’s sock it is, it’s not a new user, and the quacking is really loud… I’ve duck blocked and added a malformed report at the SPI, which I hope somebody will fix. (I'm on a new computer, it's killing me.) Thank you, The Banner. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I fixed the SPI and throttled the newcomer. Favonian (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Favonian. Did I not even remember to actually block the sock? No surprises there. Apart from general absentmindedness stupidity, I was trying to maneouvre a new browser, on my mother's new computer (that I was trying out for her), with only intermittent use of a mouse, which my son kept borrowing for other purposes. The nightmare of family life. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there, just stopping by to suggest that this edit be revdel'd. It appears to match a previous comment by that IP giving advice to blocked users on how to create sockpuppets which was previously revdel'd so I can't link to it. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

46.28.51.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - NQ (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel all those, Ivanvector..? (There are six identical posts.) Thank you for reverting, NQ. I'm not much of a one for honoring that kind of trolling with revdel, as if it was something important, or in this case as if they were sharing important secrets with those blocked users (bah). That's my personal view. Maybe another admin will be more amenable. Oh, and I've blocked the IP. Bishonen | talk 18:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I would say yes, nuke 'em all. I don't know what the rationale was for deleting the first one but I figure if one was worth deleting, then they all are. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But was the first one worth deleting? That's my point, admins can disagree about that stuff. (Hint: if you feel strongly about it, ask the guy who did the first one.) Bishonen | talk 18:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Oh man, I'm sorry that I missed all of the CrazyAces stuff! (sighs) I remember getting pinged and figured that I'd dive into it the next day, but then ended up getting caught up in family stuff this past weekend. Sorry about that! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, little geisha, never be sorry for family stuff! Wikipedia only hobby! And thread still open in case wishes to opine after all, but never if stressful! bishzilla _ROARR!! 06:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• I thought it was archived? (double checks) It isn't - I'll go weigh in now! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your hands to yourself, do not touch my text or writing on my own personal talk page. Tom Northshoreman has a history of erasing or altering people's text on the Leo Frank talk page. I just checked the archives, he has done it not only to me, but to other people as well in the past. This disruptive and POV behavior is unacceptable. I posted on my talk page, a question asking who I must contact to report his (Tom Northshoreman's) infantile behavior. My post was not a call for some random person to come along and delete my text. Do not alter the text on my personal talk page. THANK YOU. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand the use of talkpages, despite having been here for quite some time (over a year, I make it, including your previous account), you'd do yourself a favour by listening to people who do. Did you not notice that in my edit summary, I answered your question as to who you must contact to report the user in question? Answered it quite fully. Here, I'll quote it for you: If you want admins to sanction or warn Tom N, please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. With evidence (diffs), of course." You're welcome. I've removed the note on your page again, as it is inappropriate and also not needed, now that you know where to appropriately place your complaint. Please don't restore it again. You have certain rights over your talkpage, but you're wrong in thinking it's your 'personal' talkpage in the sense that you own it. Incidentally, I see that when you reverted me, you also took the opportunity to flesh out your personal attack against User:Doug Weller. I'll block you for personal attacks| if you continue to be so rude. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 17:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Can you please show me where it says its allowed for other people (not the subject) to modify, edit or alter other peoples personal notes on their personal talk pages? You removed content from my personal talk page, that I wanted to keep there for my own historical records. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TPO GingerBreadHarlot. I'm sure you'll recognise the reason as to why your comments have been edited using the very handy list there. Cassianto^Talk 18:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:USERTALKBLOG GingerBreadHarlot. BTW your talk page is not "personal" as both it and its editing history are available for all to see. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telling me to hunt for something on a page doesn't answer my question. I want an answer why my own notes, on my personal talk page, were deleted with no notes left. I dont want people touching my personal talk page without my permission or a clear explanation. Bishonen simply deleted my post, without any comment on my talk page. I don't appreciate this rude and disruptive behavior on my talk page. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Here's a quote from Wikipedia's talk page guidelines: "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. These functions must not be hampered by improper ownership behavior". Your user talk page is not your personal page, but is intended solely for communication between you and other editors about the project, that is Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 18:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas W, Tom Northshoreman, was deleting my posts on the Leo Frank page, and I have a right to bring it up on my own talk page. bishonen deleted my post on my talk page without asking me about it, without leaving any notes on my talk page, with no indication at all. He just deleted my posts about Tom Northshoreman, who has been deleting peoples posts on the Leo Frank talk page. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I would never modify, edit or alter anything you wrote on your page or elsewhere, GingerBreadHarlot. I will remove inappropriate stuff, though. You have now put the stuff I removed on WP:AN, where it goes reasonably well (not as well as it would have done on WP:ANI, which I recommended, but whatever). As for why I removed it from your page, what Cassianto said. Your historical records remain in the page history, btw; it's all still there. [Added after edit conflict]: You have now again talked about your "personal talkpage" just exactly as if you haven't read a word either I, MarnetteD or Thomas.W have said about that matter. I'm not sure there's any use telling you anything. Bishonen | talk 19:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GingerBreadHarlot, that doesn't negate the fact that you are publishing a personal thoughts about someone in a negative tone. Jesus, I know I'm an uncivil bastard at times, but even I'd never do that. In any case, what makes you think that people would even want to know that? Cassianto^Talk 19:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Bishonen and Cassianto, IT IS NOT personal though, He is deleting my posts on the Leo Frank talk page and he is doing it to others. I have a right to post information about this on my talk page. Do not delete posts on my talk page. Quote from Thomas.W: Here's a quote from Wikipedia's talk page guidelines: "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. These functions must not be hampered by improper ownership behavior". Your user talk page is not your personal page, but is intended solely for communication between you and other editors about the project, that is Wikipedia. Thomas.W talk 18:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen, Read the quote above, that's exactly what I did. I posted an issue I have with Tom Northshoreman on my "personal" talk page ("personal" referring to mine), and asked for help to improve the encyclopedia because of a disruptive editor. Bishonen, You wiped out the entire post I made explaining the problem and asking for help. Why are you deleting posts from my talk page in a disruptive manner without leaving public notes, when I'm asking for help. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, my question was what do I do when someone like Tom Northshoreman is doing disruptive behavior, deleting my posts from Leo Frank talk page. The archives show he did this in the past to other users. This is disruptive behavior. Bishonen, do not delete my questions and concerns on my talk page, that have to do we me trying to learn the proper methods on wikipedia. Stop this disruptive behavior. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's personal inasmuch that you are broadcasting advice to others about an editor whom you are having problems with. That is not what a talk page is for. I'm failing to understand why you are having trouble in understanding this. Cassianto^Talk 19:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, Cassianto, I'm failing to understand it too, but never mind. I have indeffed the user per NOTHERE. See their talkpage for extended rationale if you're interested. (But please don't post there. Blocked users don't generally welcome, or profit from, further criticism.) Bishonen | talk 19:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • I did post, but before I saw this. I'm not criticising, just advising. But I'll mind my own...Cassianto^Talk 19:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, that's fine. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen. Regarding your ban of GingerBreadHarlot, (i am just an editor). I have also participated on that same Leo Frank article and have been trying to figure out GingerBreadHarlot motives. I have a feeling that this person is for whatever reason unable to control their emotions regarding this particular topic (based on looking over their edit history). For whatever reason, (and here I speculate), but it almost seems as though there is some kind of a deeper issue (blood relative?) that is preventing the editor from acting rational. Over the years I've seen many editors who are 'allergic to a topic' - unable to control their behavior, yet drawn to that very topic. Self destructive behavior. I always was interested in researching this behavior as my hypothesis is that it may be related to a real life traumatic event such as a loss of a 'father figure'(speculation on my part of-course). I am wondering if you would consider a topic ban instead, and some kind of a (heavily) conditional reinstatement. If refocused, I think the editor has the potential to benefit Wikipedia, when the emotional trigger is removed. Of-course if they continue to act in the same manner, while editing an article about a completely unrelated topic (for example) gardenias, then there are deeper overall issues with the editor that would make them a lost cause. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker): Do we have any evidence regarding how this editor would act outside this particular topic area? I took an extensive look at their contributions earlier today (I was considering blocking them myself) and I found no evidence that this editor has any intereste in editing anything unrelated to antisemitism, white nationalism, and holocaust denial. Gamaliel (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Gamaliel, I agree. Hello, Meishern. Actually the examples of disruptive editing I mentioned in my block rationale[85] were related to Kevin B. MacDonald (as more recent), not to Leo Frank. GingerBreadHarlot has been pushing an agenda over multiple articles, so a topic ban from Leo Frank, as I assume you mean, wouldn't answer the purpose of stopping the disruption. What they're interested in is to stop what they call the "anti-gentilism" of Wikipedia.[86] A gentile is of course a non-jew, and anti-gentilism as a term of opprobium goes with a white power or neo-nazi agenda, see for instance [87] and [88]. Google for more if you have the stomach for it… oh, here's a nice illustrative example of how the word is used. A topic ban from antisemitism, white nationalism, and holocaust denial, and/or from BLP's, wouldn't answer either in my opinion. It's not something we normally do with persistent single-purpose accounts, not even where their purpose is less repugnant than this one (because I'm not going to pretend my feelings are neutral on that score), simply because it hardly ever works — it just wastes more time. We block them. Bishonen | talk 12:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Thank you Bishonen and Gamaliel, for taking the time to break it all down for me. I also haven't encountered the word 'anti-gentilism' but it seems to be a part of a new strategy to repackage supremacist ideology as an 'ideology of victimhood'. The use of the word 'gentile' is obviously a dog-whistle to ensure that there are no misunderstandings as to the identity of who they see as the 'oppressor' behind 'anti-gentilism'. I understand that banning such propagandists is the only option since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a center for 'deprogramming' editors of false and dangerous beliefs. I guess I just wish there was some way to change their irrational views, deprogram them somehow, especially regarding well documented historical events such as the Nazi government policy of mass-extermination of Jews by invading Nazi units created for that very purpose or via transport to locations whose only purpose was mass-murder. It's as irrational as believing that no atom bombs were dropped on any Japanese city during WW2. I thought that perhaps while editing gardenias people like that can be 'shown the light'. However you both are experienced in what's effective when dealing with such single-purpose editors, unlike me, and I defer to your judgement, and must admit that a clever editor can bend any subject, including gardenias, to push their agenda, and so I withdraw the suggestion from my previous message. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• tps New word for me. "anti-gentilism." First time I heard that. It's one thing to be offended by being called "anti-semitic" or "neo-nazi" but that's usually because such terms are meant to be offensive since those views are offensive. Quite different to believe the views are okay but the label isn't. In general we should avoid terms like "anti-semitic" or "neo-nazi" because they are pejoratives when applied to those that don't identify as such, especially living people. Very problematic to treat people that hold those views as victims. Much easier call than the argument i had to referree where a PC white american was arguing with an indigenous U.S. citizen that preferred to be called "Indian" rather than "Native American." Didn't think being named after a colonial white explorer did justice to his heritage and thought "indian" was less fake. Juxtaposed it with "if you want to call us Native Americans, why don't you want to call Palestinians 'Native Israelis'? I hate labels. But at least no one argued that the indigenous people weren't victims or the real victims were european settlers. Good block. Please watch talk page too in case it gets louder. In an odd way, some of the Ashkenazi articles feed these views and they should be watched too as what seems like a positive edit really fuels stereotypes like these and not all edits/editors are beneficial. Wouldn't surprise me if they snuck MacDonald references into these articles. --DHeyward (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's up to each individual indigenous person to decide what they are comfortable with. Probably each is most comfortable with the name of the tribal nation that each is a member of instead of being all lumped together (by white settlers) into one single group. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Also, anybody interested, please watch out for socks. I just blocked an IP, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GingerBreadHarlot. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you again. The page has now been semi'd for a week (thank you Alex Bakharev, that seems about right), so you may take some well-deserved R&R. Bishonen | talk 08:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Could you take a look at the Andrea Brillantes article - there are some gross violations of WP:BLP policy in the article history, which I think need revdelling. I think further action may be needed too, concerning the contributors responsible for adding the material - at least one of them seems to think that WP:BLP policy wasn't being violated, [89] and frankly, I don't think he should be trusted to edit BLP's at all. I'd raise this at ANI, but would rather not draw more attention to the matter for obvious privacy reasons. There are also grounds to suspect sockpuppetry, in that one of the contributors responsible edited the other one's post. [90] Admin zzuuzz has semi-protected the article, but doesn't seem to have proceeded further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably get a chance to look at this later today. Bishonen | talk 09:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The revdel has been done now, so it isn't as urgent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a SPI [91] - I'd not claim the evidence is conclusive, but it looks sufficient to justify checkuser. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @AndyTheGrump: I don't think Oripaypaykim is a sock of Angelo6397. Oripaypaykim seems to have virtually every BLP of a Philippine celebrity on their watchlist (many of which are also on my watchlist) and is very active in reverting unconstructive activity on them (including reverting socks of very prolific Philippine serial vandal Christian2941), and my impression is that Oripaypaykim reverted the edits on Andrea Brillantes only because it was unexplained removal of content by IPs, without checking what it was. The editor interaction tool also shows very little overlap between the two, so if I was a clerk at SPI (which I have no desire to be...), I'd ask for a lot more evidence than the kneejerk reverts and fixing a link in a post. Thomas.W ^talk 10:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right - but why did Oripaypaykim follow me to Angelo6397's talk page in the first place? Anyway, checkuser isn't my decision to make, and if it is declined, I'll leave it at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A curious post on the SPI page:[92] Who the IP is, I'd not like to guess, and as for what s/he is trying to say, I haven't a clue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it is Oripaypaykim proclaiming their innocence while accidentally being logged out. Which makes one wonder if they have the language proficiency needed to be active on the English language Wikipedia, no matter how good their intentions are. Thomas.W ^talk 11:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - now posting on my talk page. [93] Seems to be Oripaypaykim, though I have no way to positively match the IP with the account. And yes, I have to wonder whether someone with English skills that poor should be editing at all - with the best will in the world, if you can't communicate, mistakes are inevitable, and can have serious consequences, as has been amply demonstrated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by their posts on your talk page their English skills are virtually non-existent, a machine translation from Tagalog or whatever to English would probably be better than that. Thomas.W ^talk 11:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is Oripaypaykim, and we aren't being trolled (which seems unlikely), I will have to concede that the SPI isn't needed - Angelo6397 can certainly communicate better than that. It looks like you are right - Oripaypaykim just blindly reverted without reading (or understanding?) the material in question. Or possibly understood it, but doesn't understand WP:BLP policy. Which leaves us with the problem of what to do about a good-faith contributor who's lack of English-language skills makes them a liability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out Oripaykim's last edit so far, you'll see that he activated the wikibreak enforcer, to be active till 1 October 2015.[94] So that was what he was saying nine minutes later, using his IP, at the SPI, and then at your page, Andy. I would say that constitutes a positive identification. He hasn't stopped editing, but continued using the IP, seemingly for gnomish edits that don't require English skills. I suppose we can leave him doing that. I'll comment on the SPI, and close it. Bishonen | talk 14:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I can really say is that (a) I don't really have anything helpful to contribute, as it's not an area of interest for me and I don't see any other particular "help" that I could have provided, and (b) I don't see how simply removing the talkback template from my talk page, with a calm and polite edit summary to explain it, was a response I needed to somehow "be nicer" about — I don't see how I wasn't "nice" enough about it already. It's not as though I attacked or chided the IP for it, I just removed the template. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "help" I meant you could have suggested some other venue for them. I thought the mere removal of the template, with this impatient edit summary was quite chiding. But if you don't see how you could have been nicer to a bewildered new user, who actually wanted to improve an article, we'll just have to agree to disagree, as they say in this constipated passive-aggressive place. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Spalagdama, who is under IP block, is back as User:The History of Iran. Can you block him? He was warring as an IP and decided I was a sock of Khestwol. Here are his edits: as The_History_of_Iran, as an IP, as another IP, as yet another IP, etc. You can see the identical edits and the same edit summary, a variation of 'Undid afghan nationalistic editing by Ogress" with a nice "who is an alter ego of user "Khestwol" added to the one on the 10th. Ogress _smash! 18:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spalagdama because I was unsure if I needed to cross the ts and dot the is. Ogress _smash! 18:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no not Spalagdama again. :-( :-( :-( :-( I'd better have a cup of tea first. Back later. Bishonen | talk 18:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• He's made good use of Zambian proxies, I see. I'll eat my banhammer if he was anywhere near Zambia, or even on the right continent, when he used those IPs, but there's not much point in blocking them. I've blocked User:The History of Iran and closed the SPI per quack quack. Bishonen | talk 19:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry you had to overcaffeinate/destress. It's like whack-a-mole, it's grinding on the soul to constantly have to deal with these endless sockpuppets. Ogress _smash! 19:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress: You have to provide diffs in your SPI reports, or they won't handle the case. I've done it this time, plus added a comment of my own, I wasn't fast enough this time, though, by the time I had compiled everything and clicked save, Bishonen had already blocked them. Thomas.W ^talk 19:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

((edit conflict) and I had already closed, Tom, but it's still useful to have your diffs for future reference.) Well, sometimes it can be exhilarating, actually, Ogress, and sometimes I feel sorry for them, but that character is just so consistently unpleasant, there's nothing redeeming about them ever, I don't know how Thomas.W used to put up with it. And then tea is best, or coffee for those that prefer it. :-) Have something sweet with coffee, Ogress. You too, Tom. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

How frustrating, Twinkle does not seek diffs for SPI like it does on AIV. YAY CAKE AND COLD BREW! (Have you ever had it? It's brilliant smooth unbitter joyyyyyyy) Ogress _smash! 20:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a sneaky user name Spalagdama chose, BTW, probably hoping that people would believe that it was HistoryofIran, an editor with 17,000+ edits, who made the edit, and not check it. Thomas.W ^talk 20:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's baaaaack. As Caspatyrus (talk · contribs). Ogress _smash! 23:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Blocked and SPI closed by me, edits reverted and article semi'd by KrakatoaKatie. Have some banoffee pie, Ogress. Bishonen | talk 11:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Whaddya mean international readers may not know where Sweden is? I may be just an uneducated hairy woodland beast but I know my geography and everyone knows where Sweden is...or at least used to be. Silly.--MONGO 21:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden, Texas, where the population peaked at 25 in 1914? Well, OK. But it's a little extraordinary what this editor's been doing: removing info like that on a large scale.[95] Ignore the top 10-15 edits and look further down, because they stopped doing it when I wrote on their page; but they will not discuss or explain. I'm thinking of clicking the dreaded "rollback all" button, but I'm not even sure how that works — would I be able to configure or limit it in some way, once I've clicked? I'd better ask at the VP first. Or something. Or forget the whole thing and smell the flowers some more. Yes, that's quite tempting. The roses are putting on a show in the park. Bishonen | talk 22:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, if you click rollback it will revert all the sequenced edits by the last person to edit the page. MONGO have great problems using stupid-phone accidental rollback common due to phone issues...not a MONGO issue...no way....never...ever. I get the faint impression you're disputing the international location of Sweden, ahem. MONGO smell rose...eat dandelions which also make a fine wine for the less sophisticated. Rose appreciated...brightens up beast-cave!--MONGO 23:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the location of Sweden, compare the non-mainstream speculations about the location of Sicily here, see especially the first footnote, where significantly the Baltic is mentioned. Sweden may be an alternative name for this mobile Sicily. About rollback: yes, but there's also a "rollback all" button, maybe only for admins, which appears at the top of a user's contributions. It's not for a particular page, but for the particular user. Presumably the idea is that you can get rid of all the "contributions" of a fast-moving vandal in a simple way. But this is not a vandal, so it's probably too drastic, unless it's possible to fiddle with it to only rollback the edits in a certain timespan. But it's frustrating the way I can't find any info about it. Seems to be a sekrit tool. :-( Tps ahoy? Bishonen | talk 11:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Remember User:Bishonen/Archive 19#Appeal to my clever talkpage stalkers? It's a simple script that basically clicks all the rollback links for you. Can't do much of anything else. NQ-Alt (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am thoroughly impressed by the speed of Sicily, far outstripping San Seriffe. As for the sekrit rollbaking, typically there's a Wikipedia page for it at Wikipedia:Rollback. Many years ago it was admin only, then it was spread out to Rollbackers. To be used for vandalism only, severe pain if used without explanation on good faith edits. Hence various clever tools that I never did learn. . dave souza, talk 11:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. Presumably I have Writty's script then… who knows what-all scripts I have. Just like I suspected, it's too drastic to use here. I do believe the edits were made in good faith, though it's very awkward that the user won't reply to my (now repeated) questions. And there really are a lot of those edits. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

[Waves tiny dino hand excitedly] Me! Me! I know what scripts:

• Checks Special:PrefixIndex/User:Bishonen/ 'Shonen subpages - only 3 .js endings.
• Checks User:Bishonen/common.js - 2 scripts
• Checks User:Bishonen/monobook.js - 9 scripts, including "Mass rollback function"

10 different scripts altogether as segregate refs in both. --T-RexxS (rawr) 17:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, RexxS — I'm just not sure where one ends and the next begins, you know? I wish my socks had 'em too. No, that's not a hint, I know you unfortunately can't edit them. Hey, I have an idea — you could log in as me and edit 'em! My password is... [Bishonen pushes Darwinbish away from her keyboard at the last moment. You're a very naughty little footfish! What do you want segregate refs for anyway?] Bishonen | talk 21:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, didn't a lot of ships wreck on the Aisles of Sicily? I remember that a nekkid opera singer showed up there, once. She was dead, though. Then, in WW2, a bunch of ghosts moved in. Or maybe they were Guernsey cows. (By the way, I'm getting another chance to be an official Non-juror again. My work wants a purity oath.) Hithladaeus (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Were you a non-juror the last time? How often does the purity issue come round? And, hang on, is a purity ball involved? Are you supposed to wear the ring? Bishonen | talk 15:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

There will be no discussion of balls. It's a violation -- not to mention what it does to the balls. Purity is an eternal concern, for we have been in a state of permanent revolution, and each occupant of the captain's tower comes in to "fix" things, and the obvious way of doing that is by assuring everyone of the purity of the employees. (Syllogism: God rewards the virtuous. Finances are tight. :: Someone must not be virtuous. Thus, the ring is complete.) The last time, we were threatened with a compulsory auto da fe. This time, it's assured. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bish, quick question regarding the one-way IBAN on Collect. Which arbitration remedy was it issued under? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was part of the sanction for violating this remedy. Is that a problem? Are you saying only blocks are authorized to be used for enforcement of that sanction? Bishonen | talk 11:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah they are, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others#Enforcement. I was checking whether you were intending to issue it under a discretionary sanctions remedy that Collect was aware of. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Callanecc. I think the IBAN is appropriate and desirable per the discussion here, but I'm not in the mood to mire myself further in the bureaucracy of arbitration enforcement right now. Yesterday I spent what may have been the dreariest 6 hours of my life (outside of a hospital) just trying to get the notice of the sanction right on Collect's page. I'll take a look later and decide whether to remove the IBAN, or keep it and refer to the discretionary sanctions for Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 instead. Since Collect is both blocked and absent, and thus unlikely to post in a way that involves MrX any time soon, I suppose there's no immediate urgency. Bishonen | talk 16:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Since User:Collect was a named party in WP:ARBAP2 he qualifies as being aware of the discretionary sanctions under that case. They were adopted by the Committee on 19 June. The conduct for which Bishonen is imposing the sanction appears to fall within the domain of AP2. She has issued a one-way IBAN from User:MrX. There are no notice requirements for the other party, MrX since it's a one-way ban. If Bishonen decides she wants to use the AP2 case then she can log the sanction in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#American politics 2. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the IBan may be one way, I disagree that MrX shouldn't have been informed. Not assuming that MrX would use the Iban to his advantage but he still needed to be aware in case it was breached.--MONGO 19:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did inform MrX right away,[96] and if/when I have some more template fun on Collect's page and in the logs (sigh, but thanks for the helpful links, EdJohnston), I'll inform him again. It may not be required, but it's common sense, both in case the ban is breached by Collect (which I certainly don't anticipate), and even more because MrX needs to be careful about mentioning Collect. Indeed, the sensible thing to do for the non-banned party in these cases is to act as if the ban were mutual, and I'd be surprised if MrX didn't do that. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I saw the notification to MrX. Not to be a bore, but don't forget to log the Iban here and at the log that can be accessed via the link from that section. In the unlikely event I ever got to be an admin again, AE is one venue I would never seek out...I'd stick to just blocking obvious vandals and dealing with sure bet speedies. Better yet, I could just block Jumbo and arbcom indefinitely just for fun!--MONGO 20:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I logged it here instead, because I've I-banned Collect per the discretionary sanctions authorized for American politics post 1932, I think it was. See WP:ARBAPDS. MONGO, you and I will both be experts at ruling 87654785, section jhft, amendment q, third paragraph, before this is over. They tried to trick me, indeed, but I saw where it said "except discretionary sanctions" here, ha. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC). Adding: and there's a link to that log in the new improved template I've posted on Collect's page. God, I hope the unfortunate man doesn't get an e-mail every time I mess with his page. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Well at least you know how to do it now. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure you've forgotten to file form BS-600A in triplicate, along with photocopies of all evidence from the discussion and diffs. Bureau of Heimstern, Department of Läufer Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to file the 12.XX C2.25. Wait, I meant the other one! Ogress _smash! 20:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was that the 1996 version of BS 600? I could never find a pen that would write on those. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And we're still waiting on the TPS reports. Chop. chop. --DHeyward (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I apologize, I didn't realize anyone else was copyediting this page. I wanted to promote it for DYK, but it needed some work. Are you able to make your changes again on the new copy? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted my copyedits, Yoninah? :-( That's quite disappointing. Didn't you get an edit conflict? No, I'm sorry, I don't have the time or inclination to start over. Perhaps you can do a version that merges your improvements with mine. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

On looking some more, you probably haven't lost much by overwriting me—don't worry. Your version looks OK. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. I just went ahead and incorporated your fixes and removal of birth/death dates. I think it's ready to promote for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Good article! Bishonen | talk 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

(I recently did that [97] sonnet, so I've been digging on the paradox.) I was correct in assuming that there was still content work to be done at Wikipedia. All of the namespace is taken by now. Even the really obscure stuff has articles, but there are dusty corners where people just don't understand what they're writing about. I ran across one such this morning: The Fable of the Bees. I don't know how you feel about Mandeville, but the American libertarians have claimed him (as was predictable) as a philosophical validation for supply-side economics, and the libertarian "Freedom ****" (fund, institute, foundation) has eagerly promoted the publication of his work. They have lumped him in with Francis Hutcheson and Adam Smith, even though both of them followed Lord Chesterfield's notions about human nature.

So, to make a long post a little longer: do you want to get involved (with me) in trying to build up a reasonable page for the poem/book? Left to my own devices, I probably won't do it, as Mandeville is off the track of my personal research these days. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Fable, and I think one probably should try to place it in some kind of relation to today's politics, because it's kind of bursting with hints of it, but I remain non-plussed as to how, I get lost. Also compare the horse and the meadow up top. To be brief: yes, that would be cool, except that I don't think I'd be much use. Bishonen | talk 17:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Very well. I probably won't jump in, then. Simply looking through the "Introduction"s of multiple contemporary critical editions would have helped considerably, plus cross-checking with established histories. (As you may recall, I like Michael McKeon's discussion of the early novel where one diagnoses empiricist and paternalist positions each having two phases, naive and skeptical, and these four ideologies battling in the artwork that we eventually call "the novel.") Well, one ideological battleground was this issue of the degree of depravity of human nature. The Calvinists and Hobbes (see what I did, there?) agreed that man was filthy and wicked, while the latitudinarians and Chesterfield Shaftesbury and the Deists argued that man was either fundamentally benign or "rational." (The Wealth of Nations can't be understood without understanding that Smith believed that people are inherently good.) This ongoing polemic is one of the things that makes it impossible to lift Mandeville out of 1705-32 and into 2008-2016. He was pursuing a skeptical empiricist critique on polity (in my view), so anybody taking selfies with his corpse is getting nothing out of it. Hithladaeus (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I can't understand why you're threatening me I mean, I didn't "tag" anyone right now and I only deleted the message cause it'd give a bad impression about me. If you Luke then I may keep it as your wish but mine is always to remove such messages. Thanks Realmmb^Con.Talk 12:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Realmmb[reply]

Hello, Realmmb. I am a frequent visitor to Bishonen's talk page. She was talking about your tagging of articles, which in many cases is very inappropriate. A one-sentence geographical stub with an inline citation should not be festooned with {{Refimprove}}. You have continued to do this after multiple editors have pointed out the problem on your talk page. Meanwhile, you have created Djair Miranda Garcia, a biography of a living person with no references whatsoever, which is completely against Wikipedia policy. It will be deleted in 7 days if you have not added a reliable source. I suggest you improve your own articles rather than inappropriately tagging the work of others. And another word of advice... "Mate" is generally only used to address men. If you don't know the gender of the person you are addressing, avoid using it and bear in mind that many men would also prefer not to be addressed that way by a perfect stranger. Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) @Realmmb:Bishonen is a 'she'. Is that how you normally address your elders? It's okay to delete stuff from your talk page - anyone can see what you by looking in the talk page history, but it's a tad annoying when editors like yourself don't communicate. You're not obliged to, of course, but it makes interactions with others much easier if there's a two-way exchange. If you'd just acknowledge with something like "Oh, okay, I understand now" before removing that sort of post, you wouldn't get admins like Bishonen feeling the need to warn you about things such as tagging. I hope that makes sense to you. --RexxS (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Realmmb. I had figured out you removed my message (and the messages from other people about the same thing) because they would give a bad impression of you — it wasn't hard. But actually it's only by your own actions that you create a good or bad impression here. Your actions with regard to tags have made a rather poor impression, even though you have also placed some good tags. I was trying to talk to you about tagging, not the side issue that you remove messages. It would help if you'd reply about the tagging. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, RexxS & Voceditenore...I'm sorry for what I wrote or in which sense I wrote it and I hope you forgive me, I admit that it was my mistake. But at least I can show my innocence about the "Mate" thing as I didn't check it out and I'm quite young too to have an experience of checking the gender before writing...I promise I won't ever delete such messages. Though will you, i.e. Bishonen allow me to delete your message from my talk page as now I've given a valid reply. Realmmb^Con.Talk 15:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you mean well, Realmmb, and I'm sure nobody's offended with you. You haven't said anything about the tagging, but I assume you mean you're going to be more careful and slower when you place (or remove) tags. Of course you can remove my message from your page, feel free. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I did population and/or members it was not for who lives on the land it was for who got granted citizenship by the liberland president .the population estimate I admit was not the right thing and I am srry I did not discuss it on the talk page first. but I settled on member because they were indeed a member of liberland although they do not live there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splashyelephant2003 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently Splashy has still not got the message - see this infantile personal attack on my talk page: [98] I have to wonder whether we are dealing with an adult here - on the face of it, I would think not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence of Splashy's unwillingness to discuss rather than edit-war can now be seen on the Liberland history log: [99] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I am in the process of filing an appeal against the Topic Ban you have imposed on--under the Arb Com Discretionary Sanctions-- to Arb Com . In doing so, i wish to show that i have made an effort to resolve the dispute as per the requirement. Please let me know whether there is any intervening authority to whom i can appeal your ban, or whether i need to appeal to ArbCom directly. Soham321 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Soham321, I think our latest posts crossed each other in mid-air. I've already answered your question on your page. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

Hi Bishonen, this is to inform you that my ArbCom appeal in which you are an involved party has been filed. Soham321 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks, Soham321, I don't think I'll comment there. I'm surprised you went to WP:RFAR, which is not one of the venues I directed you to, both via the topic ban template and a personal note. I tell you for the third time: to appeal discretionary sanctions you have a choice between WP:ARCA, or WP:AN or WP:AE. ARCA is the way to appeal to the arbitration committee. However, ARCA is for asking the committee to clarify the arbitration case I banned you with regard to (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision), so probably not what you want. But I don't know why I keep feeding you information, as you don't seem to take it in, or to believe me. Do you think I'm trying to trick you or something? Bishonen | talk 18:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

This is the diff of your comment on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soham321&diff=672293184&oldid=672291500 and this is the relevant extract from your edit:

If you look at the template I posted above, it says you can appeal my sanction using the process described here, where it says you can request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); or at "ARCA". Only ARCA, of the three, is ArbCom.

Soham321 (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you had said i can appeal at ARCA and you went on to say that ARCA is ArbCom. Soham321 (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh FGS. Yes, WP:ARCA is an arbcom page. WP:RFAR is also an arbcom page. Why do you pick WP:RFAR, a page I didn't mention? Why don't you click on the links I give you? Clicking on my three links — here they are again, WP:ARCA, WP:AN and WP:AE — and reading the instructions for those pages and then making a decision as to which one you want to use for your appeal would be your best course of action. Not shooting off to a fourth page. You may wish to remove your RFAR filing and put it on WP:ARCA, or WP:AN or WP:AE. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

i picked the page because i thought that is the ArbCom page and because you wrote to me "Only ARCA, of the three, is ArbCom." i have given the diff and even the quote in my previous edit in this section. Soham321 (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helo Bish. Another Zambian IP (197.213.96.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) doing Spalagdama's signature edit on Gondophares... Thomas.W ^talk 19:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I'm awfully, busy, Tom.[100] I'll get to it later Bishonen | talk 20:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Don't worry, he stopped editing after I posted a sock tag on the talk page. Thomas.W ^talk 20:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But look at my diff, please, Tom and talkpage stalkers. James Randi.. I'm all of a flutter! Bishonen | talk 20:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Convince him that you knew it was really him anyway and maybe you can finally profit from all this adminning. And yes, I'll be first in the queue to report you for paid editing, unless of course you can persuade me otherwise. Miami's supposed to be nice at this time of year. Valenciano (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did really know it was him! (Intuition, not paranormal abilities.) But I shouldn't think I'll ever get to talk to him. He doesn't know he has a talkpage, just like other noob IPs. Do you have a Cayman Island account, Valenciano? Bishonen | talk 21:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

No, sadly. My day job doesn't pay me enough to have an account there. I'll have a word with my boss and see if I can get it sorted. Valenciano (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just knew there was going to be a "blindly obey the rules" enforcer pile in with fists of ham there. Either that or a woo-woo believer would jump on the opportunity. I don't know which of those actually happened.

I think possibly the worst aspect of this Wikipedia "community management" thing is that it encourages people who have no competence at managing social projects, encouraging top-quality people to stay and keep on contributing, and nurturing those with potential, to, well, think they can do those things and do it regardless of feedback. I'm reminded of a suggestion that the difference between intelligent people and stupid people is that intelligent people know how stupid they are.

I love the experiment that is this project, and I'd hoped that mature, sensible and educated people would be recognized as those best suited to the executive branch of governance, but sadly that doesn't seem to be the case. Anyway, at least that Newyorkbrad chap seems to have enforced some common sense. Mr Potto (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Potto - isn't there still a copyvio problem? Has anyone contacted Randi about it? Doug Weller (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, possibly, but if there is then it's surely only a failure to understand how to release those few words rather than anything that could possibly bring down any harm. And the answer surely wasn't to just jump on him and treat him with such disrespect, but to pause, reflect, and work out the best response. Don't you think? Mr Potto (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Potto, I sharply disagree with your assessment and Newyorkbrad's reversion was a poor call (I said the same thing on his talk page). Doug Weller, NQ has contacted Randi. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already gathered that from what I saw at the ANI section. Mr Potto (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NQ turned it over to me, and I've just written to the address I got, about copyright and other issues. I completely agree disrespect is bad. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Also, User:NeilN, I see you suggested at NYB's talk page that "I do not think a such a list would be allowed to stand if it was added to a biography of a subject holding views unpopular with the mainstream-focused/science-first Wikipedia community". In the light of that, I hope you don't mind if I ask whether you yourself hold any opinions unpopular with mainstream science and on which you would be at odds with Randi's scientific approach? (I'm not at all suggesting you do, I just want to encourage openness - for my part, I'm happy to reveal that in my opinion those who believe in what Randi calls "woo-woo" are at best deluded and at worst charlatans, and I'd be interested in your own opinions on such things.) Mr Potto (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Potto, I think my editing and posts on fringe topics will show you where I stand, better than I could tell you. Anyone who's familiar with my participation would say I firmly support Wikipedia's policies and guidelines such as WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, and WP:BLPFRINGE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with your editing and posts on fringe topics, but I'm happy to accept that they would indicate as you say. I thank you for your response to my question, and I hope you understand why I asked it. Mr Potto (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine H (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Making the usual bogus claims (with the usual Spalagdama edit summaries) on Gondophares, claiming that the name is derived from Gandapur, the name of a minor Pakistani/Afghan tribe, even though all sources say it's the other way around. No doubt in an attempt to glorify/embellish the history of the tribe. Compare that edit with this edit by Spalagdama's home IP (confirmed as such in the first SPI), which was blocked for 3 months on 27 April 2015, this edit by the same IP in August 2013 on Gandapur adding the same bogus claim about Gondophares being derived from Gandapur, and countless edits by mostly Zambian IPs in between, the latest one yesterday, making the same claim (see page history of Gondophares). All showing that Constantine H is the latest incarnation of Spalagdama. (I have also filed this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spalagdama, for the record if nothing else). /Tom Thomas.W ^talk 16:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked (saw the edits on my watchlist and the SPI). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thomas and Neil. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The relevant thread on ANI is closed, but as I mentioned there, your comment to User:Winkelvi was at best ill-conceived. I understand if you were getting frustrated—we all get frustrated—but I think this was an inappropriate response. In any case, even if you didn't intend to call Winkelvi an idiot, that's the message that was received. As an administrator who works to enforce civility here, it would be prudent for you to reach out and apologize. agtx 16:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you at ANI, thanks. Perhaps I should have said "I'm tired of people who act like idiots". It really does frustrate me that any subject of a BLP, celebrity or not, should be received like that. Anyway, I very rarely work to "enforce civility". Bishonen | talk 19:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this edit summary, "removing flagrant BLP violation. if you talk about a living person in remotely such terms again, you'll be blocked. In fact, if it wasn't ten days ago, I'd block you right now". If you had the same concern for the Christians, Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis, about whom this person makes the most shameful remarks, I would have appreciated your concern for living persons even more. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Mohanbhan, you know I'm a Wikipedia admin and my concern is for things posted about living people on Wikipedia, right? Do you really expect me to go... somewhere... no idea where, and rescue Christians, Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis from the individual in question? Bishonen | talk 16:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

And I wrote what I wrote on wikipedia because what this person has been saying about Christians, Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis is being systematically censored on wikipedia. It is very easy to WP:CRYBLP but certain facts are facts. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are they really? Your analysis of the person's psychological makeup is a "fact"? You should stop before you talk yourself into worse trouble. Bishonen | talk 17:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Mohanbhan, I just noticed you blanked a comment of mine with this edit, accidentally, I'm sure. Here it is again: "But I'm pleased you noticed my edit summary, so that I know you've seen my warning. I wouldn't want to block you without warning you first." Bishonen | talk 17:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

It is not my analysis but a fact that is supported by WP:RS like (i) this Newsminute article, (ii) this article on The New Yorker and though not WP:RS this (iii) blog post. I don't think I blanked your comment but if I did yes it must have been by accident. And yes, I know you want to block me. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohanbhan: Please reflect on @Bishonen's concerns on your edit here and fresh aspersions above. You allege "facts are facts" and provide three sources claiming "it is not analysis but fact supported by WP:RS". I read the first two, ignored the third as it is a non-RS blog (and you acknowledge that too). The Newsminute petition is not RS either. It is a POV off a petition. That leaves the New Yorker, which indeed is WP:RS.

The New Yorker article does not conclude or imply anywhere that "this person [Malhotra] makes the most shameful remarks on Christians, Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis" or anything about his psychological state and his racial views. Adivasis and Dalits are never mentioned in the New Yorker article. The word Christian is used once in the article, but not at all in Malhotra context.

New Yorker does discuss Indian Muslims, but only in the context of them blocking freedom of expression in their country by lobbying a ban on Salman Rushdie's book 25 years ago and the threats of violence by Muslim leaders if Rushdie showed up in their country in 2012. The New Yorker does not mention Malhotra ever was a Muslim leader. I am puzzled by your inference about Malhotra because of the threat of violence by Indian Muslim leaders against Rushdie or because of anything else in the New Yorker article.

The New Yorker article calls Malhotra's arguments as risible, nothing more, and most importantly never casts aspersions on Malhotra personally. Calling your analysis and BLP statements on Wikipedia pages as a fact supported by the New Yorker article is unjustified and unjustifiable. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the sources and I will ignore your selective reading of these sources. You are selectively reading only one source and drawing some strange inferences and attributing them to me. -Mohanbhan (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch, but you see how rational argument is useless here. Please don't bother; I certainly won't, after Mohanbhan's stupid and offensive aspersion on myself above: "I know you want to block me". I hope he doesn't post here again. Mohanbhan, I hope you won't, unless you wish to specifically ask for clarification of some of my admin actions. I'm always up for that. Bishonen | talk 08:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Phrases like "the African nation of Somalia" are not just uncommon (less than 200 instances a continent), but also rather condescending (imagine a sentence about "the North American nation of Canada").

I hope I've convinced you.

Hi, Hessamnia, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). I'm not saying all of your removals were bad, far from it, but to go by the timestamps, and the results, you were performing them in a machine-like way without giving yourself time to consider the individual cases. Compare for instance my comment about S. A. Andrée's Arctic Balloon Expedition of 1897. Sweden isn't Canada. Bishonen | talk 17:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

1. Four tildes: Thanks for the reminder.

2. Individual cases: I've left fictional countries untouched, but point well taken.

Can I resume editing?

Hessamnia (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, certainly, but please use edit summaries to explain your edits, and I hope you'll work a little more slowly. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

What the heck is this Gumman Strömberg? I have been doing "Random Article," and I swear that the code is taunting me, trying to make me re-learn how to list things for AfD, because all I ever hit are vanity articles, but then sometimes I'll run into something like that. It's weird. Someone was copying something from somewhere. I've got no idea who the "good old woman of Stockholm" was. (Also ran into articles about university professors that were just their CV's, "great" business people who just held jobs, and a book co-op that sells books. If I were myself again, there'd be blood in the water.) From all that's above, it seems like you lead an interesting life already, but perhaps one of your stalkers knows what's going on. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, don't you know Random article is very dangerous? You see how the only reference for Gumman Strömberg is from 1895? The Swedish wikipedia version of the article is a little fuller, and has an actual link to the 1895 reference, which is an issue of the periodical Idun. No idea why that didn't survive the translation into English. I'll go put it in. You should enjoy reading about Gumman (=old woman, or "goodwife") Strömberg there: it's not only in olden Swedish, palely printed, but in old-spelling Swedish. Have fun. Actually, the sad thing is the lady — I think "fishwife" would be the term — is somewhat known, and I might even possibly be able to find references to her on the internet, except that both Johanna and Strömberg are extremely common names, so Google finds a stream of actresses, athletes, etc, etc.

As for AfD, it's impossible to do by hand, the code is in the business of taunting us. This is the best advice I'll ever give you wrt AfD: get Twinkle. You go into your Preferences —> Gadgets —> Browsing, and tick Twinkle. It'll give you an extra set of links at the top of the page, and when you're at the page you want to AfD, click the little link "xfd", and you'll be able to AfD the page as smooth as silk. (Cough. Once you're used to it. The first thing I did with it was nominate WP:ANI for deletion. I was widely congratulated on my tart wit.) Bishonen | talk 19:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. I will learn to Twinkle. I used to flash, but the police made me stop. "Flash memory" is a big topic of discussion among techies, so apparently a lot of computer programmers were flashers, too. So, the prose of the article is what happens when 19th century Swedish vellum is translated into English without so much as a thought as to idiom or "encyclopedic format." Hithladaeus (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for resumes, just look at this version of one. The article was undeleted due to receiving an award; though the award is given by a non-notable group, carries a deliberately incorrect name of Indira Gandhi (variations of which give great press coverage!). The fun though is in the references, I dare you to go through all 111 of them! —SpacemanSpiff 19:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Oh my goodness! "All your organs must cry?" This is McKuen-level poetry. In fact, I plan to quote "All your organs must cry" as often as possible. It's worthy of McGonagall! Hithladaeus (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did go "vote" at AfD when I wasn't teaching for a bit (i.e. "What I did on my summer vacation," which says something about my summer), and I saw tons of those CV's. There are floods and floods of new articles like the one you mention coming in from India, and the language barrier -- plus the assumption that AfD voters have to do the research to prove that no potential article could be written, rather than that the actual article is awful, and it gets Sisyphian. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more often than not, the wrong articles pass through owing to the "reverse systemic bias" feeling at AfDs. Since we're on the topic of herring, red or otherwise, who doesn't love to read about ocean studies or discussing who the big fish is. If you do open those links and read through, it's very likely that your brain will abandon your skull and go for a walk on its own. —SpacemanSpiff 04:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All my organs they cry! The writing, she is not in logic. This isn't a problem of Hindi/Bangla, etc., but of tautology. Someone has to understand the licensing procedures in India. There are state schools, but then there is probably a state accrediting agency to handle private institutions, and folks who know what they are would do well to tell the tremulous Anglophone readers 1) that they exist, 2) what they are, 3) how to find them. Until then, all that's going to happen will be that sad travesty of "deletionists are snobs, and inclusionists are defenders of free speech." Blug. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the person who wrote the article is an assistant professor (they have mentioned themselves in the article) and there's no reason to disbelieve them as they've also uploaded their wedding photographs and the like to Commons so that they could be used in these articles here! I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here (I'm also a product of the same school and college system, so I wouldn't put the blame there) but it's more likely IMO to do with the sudden access to almost anything through the internet as opposed to the past where an inter-library loan to access a book could take upto a few months (I remember have to join the waitlist for books at the British Council Library about two to three months in advance as that was the only place you could get some books, not even at bookstores, unlike now), so everyone wants to use this new access, and Wikipedia becomes the first stop. It leads to a rather unwanted problem though, one tends to try and clean up the abysmal while ignoring the mediocre but important. —SpacemanSpiff 17:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A-ha! So is that why people ignore me? - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gumman Strömberg was nothing unusual, every town and city in Scandinavia had a few of them, women, usually the wives of fishermen, who ran thriving businesses selling fish and other seafood to both high and low (I mean we all need to eat). Where I currently live there's even a statue dedicated to the sillagummor, i.e. "herring women" ("gumma" isn't a generic word for "older woman", BTW, but carries the added meaning that it's someone who is nice and likeable, with the opposite, a mean old nag, being a "kärring"...). A "title" that couldn't be used in Stockholm since they don't have "sill", i.e. real herring at least a foot long, but only the Baltic dwarf variety of herring, "strömming". Thomas.W ^talk 20:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, strömming are delicious as surströmming! Mr Potto (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but y'all don't know from chitlins. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to comment on how bad chitlins smell when they're cooking, but that's probably unwise from someone who likes surströmming :-) Mr Potto (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reported this user to WP:UAA. See my report. User confirmed your and my suspicions. Figured I'd leave you a message and let you know. Thanks for your diligence and happy editing. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm handling it; I'll block if they edit further without responding on their page. I suppose an WP:UAA report can't hurt, though. I don't have that username template in my memory banks, and I'll be going to bed soon. Thanks for your vigilance, Oshwah. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 06:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bish could you or some other admin do something about this [101]? I don't know who that is or why they are linking my name but any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Caden ^cool 10:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you Bish. Caden ^cool 08:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

because it's too numb. Sleepiness may well be a euphemism for senility, though I blame the heat. (Today's forecast is for 37° in the shade, plus of course oodles of humidity.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

probably this isn't needed, but ... Doug Weller (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bish. Thanks for the page protection. There are actually two IPs, though, but one of them (24.193.121.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has so far only edited the talk page. That IP is obviously the same user as Bay Ridge, who judging by available evidence is the owner of bayridge.net (just look at their contributions...). Compare this edit summary by the IP with this edit summary by Bay Ridge, the IP also geolocates to Brooklyn, just like the web site. The other IP (2604:2000:7122:B700:18C9:2B21:3958:CE93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) showed up last, and doesn't seem to geolocate to the New York area, but IPv6 geolocation is notoriously inaccurate. The site has masqueraded as an official web site for years, but is a site with a forum, classified ads and a "Yellow pages" directory that generates money for its owner (see this FAQ), which is why they're so desperately fighting to keep it in the article. Thomas.W ^talk 17:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Bay Ridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) refuses to give up, but continues to re-add the external links. I wonder who they've reported me to (as "a vandal and imposter"), BTW. Thomas.W ^talk 17:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (talk page stalker) has anybody listed bayridge.net on the spamblacklist? that would take care of the problem... Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they only seem to be interested in that particular article. Thomas.W ^talk 17:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Anyway, I think User:Bay Ridge needs a username block, per the "related to a real-world group or organization" thing. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • I got tired of being accused of being a vandal so I have reported the site to the blacklist. Not sure if it will be added though, since they have only targeted one article so far. Thomas.W ^talk 18:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you've been banned at Bayridge.net, so don't go trying to log on there to chat with your Brooklyn friends and your Brooklyn dates with your Brooklyn hipsters. (I think that's what the IP's edit summaries were supposed to mean. He's going to ban you.) Wherever will you go for entertainment in New York City now, ThomasW? Hithladaeus (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being banned in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, is no problem since I don't live there. I lived on the left coast for a few years though, but have long since returned to Europe. Thomas.W ^talk 19:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with your sanctions. Your sanctions are also way too harsh, seems very biased. First, did not notice you were an administrator posting a warning, so ok. Since it was at the end of others comments, it appeared as another such comment from certain editors attempting to just post flags on my page which seems to be a 'pattern' or tactic to achieve their editing goals. When articles are unduly negative they become un-encyclopedic. Removing sentences or making them more neutral is a common practice in Wikipedia, especially unduly negative ones in BLPs. When info exists in other articles on the subject, its not necessarily being removed. Entries may have expired links (like the Robert Gordon U entry), be anecdotal, not very notable, merely amount to name calling, be quotes taken out of context, and so on - goals to keep the article encyclopedic. Trump deserves a fair article, not one that name calls or has many of these sorts of anecdotal negatives. Sanctioning those who are attempting to help, appears to tilt the balance of editing against fairness, and also gives zero clout to editors who are attempting to keep the article encyclopedic and fair. I would request that you reconsider in my favor. I would definitely be more attentive to using the article talk page to resolve such matters with other editors. Thanks Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Paine1776, I think you have demonstrated one of the downsides of your practice on your page, which is to regularly remove anything critical after a cursory glance at best. I see people complaining about the practice itself, and I consider it nonchalant and uncollaborative, beyond the fleeting disadvantage of missing an administrative warning. When I say a cursory glance… wrt my warning, you managed to miss the fact that it came immediately after a large, formal, square, alert template about discretionary sactions enabled for BLPs also posted by me; that I was someone who had never edited your talkpage before [added 10:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC): sorry, that's not strictly true; I see I warned you two years ago, also in an admin capacity, about your actions at Talk:Detroit[102]]; that I had, and have, never edited any article relating to Donald Trump, so you can't have seen me there trying to 'achieve editing goals'; and that I said I'd consider topic banning you from Donald Trump-related content if you didn't stop. If you took me for a regular visitor to your page (= "certain editors" that you choose to ignore), and/or for a Trump-warrior after all that, it really says something about how little attention you pay to posts on your page. What do you even mean by "it was at the end of others' comments"? It was not. It was in a separate section entitled "Warning", and walled off from other comments by a big shouty yellow template.

Anyway. You consider my sanction harsh, and I will acknowledge that one year is a long time. But it's a narrow sanction — it only apples to one public figure — you can edit everywhere else — and you have persistently been editing disruptively wrt that person. Whitewashing BLPs is as unacceptable as making them unduly negative. I'm afraid I won't reconsider, but if you edit appropriately in other areas for six months, and especially if you improve your practice with regard to both article talkpages and your own page, I will be happy to lift the sanction at the end of that period. Or you can appeal the ban in another venue immediately, and let others judge. You can take it to WP:AN for assessment by the community, WP:AE for assessment by uninvolved admins, or WP:ARCA for assessment by the arbitration committee. Bishonen | talk 07:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Update: I've asked a question about the length of this ban on WP:AN. Bishonen | talk 14:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bish. I'm well aware of DENY. I'm also aware that the best way to dispell darkness is to shine a light on it. While the racist troll probably would struggle to understand a rational discussion, not everyone seeing the vandalism is a racist troll. Including me. Revert me if you like, but I'd love to have the allegation spelled out (I genuinely don't understand it) so that whatever claptrap lies behind it can be exposed. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS Whatever you choose to do, you have my thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know your intentions are of the purest, User:Dweller, but that's a naive argument in my opinion. Sorry. "Light" is what trolls want, it's food for them. Also, I don't think we should encourage the person behind the troll accounts to evade their block to respond to you at the reference desk. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I bow to your judgement. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You finally got to apply the mass rollback script in all its glory. 400 tabs you say? Have a cupcake. NQ-Alt (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I needed that! Thank you, Alt! You know what was unexpected for me? That the script only rolled back what it could see. I mean, I had the last fifty edits by the vandal in the contribs window and clicked rollback all, and it reverted the fifty. Then I realized what was happening and selected the last 500... and when it tried to roll back all them, that was when it opened 400 tabs and began to hiss and emit steam. Poor browser. (Unless it was chugging along all the time, as soon as I'd clicked rollback all the first time. Not sure.) Bishonen | talk 22:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

...and redid the mass rollback script the right way; it should no longer open up new tabs or completely thrash your computer. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My poor, exhausted, ancient MacBook thanks you in a trembling voice. As for me, Writty, I wonder if you can perhaps also do something about the way it mucks up my contribs list? I mean, suddenly there are 400 contributions (all made simultaneously), making themselves broad and pushing actual contributions, if any, to the corner. Mind you, whether or not, I'm very glad to have the script. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

That I'm afraid I can't do; there will always be an entry for each rollback, since each will be to a different page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it buffs up my thanks log; I was surprised to get thanked for several of these, after all, mundane rollbacks. Not for a great percentage, but still. :-) Bishonen | talk 23:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I've just taken a look at one of Soham's edits since the topic ban. We already knew that they had problems with close paraphrasing. I looked at this, which for example includes:

When the Russian Empress Catherine the Great heard that Diderot was in need of money she arranged for the purchase of Diderot's library and for the appointment of Diderot as the caretaker of this library--at an annual retainer of one thousand livres. Moreover, she paid him twenty five years of his salary in advance. Overnight, Diderot became wealthy. He could not thus refuse her invitation to visit her.

The source says

When Catherine heard that he was planning to sell his library in order to raise a dowry for his daughter, she instructed her Paris agent to buy it at whatever price Diderot should ask; he asked and received sixteen thousand livres. Then she requested Diderot to keep the books till his death, and to be their custodian for her at a salary of a thousand livres per year; moreover, she paid his salary twenty-five years in advance. Diderot overnight became a rich man and a defender of Catherine. When she invited him to visit her he could hardly refuse.

This isn't as close as some stuff I vaguely recall having seen in recent weeks but it is concerning. Pinging Moonriddengirl because I'm not sure whether this might be a WP:CCI situation. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are definitely copyright problems. This edit includes blatant copy-pasting (as, evidently, did this). This one is uncomfortably close:

I'm not sure if a full-blown CCI is called for, though. I generally look for 5 examples of outstanding copyright issues to make sure it's worth asking for community resources. It can take hours for me to review fully - especially where close paraphrasing is the issue instead of copy-pasting. (Copy-pasting - so much easier!) I jumped heavily through his history and didn't find a lot of problematic content that seems to cross the line into copyright issues. What I did find seems to be gone. Mind you, this is a judgment call and I'm not 100% sure I'm suggesting the right one. Without actually DOING the CCI, I can't be sure I'm not missing something major. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those are quite old examples. My major concern (aside from any remaining outright copyvios) is that lessons may not have been learned. They've been told as recently as this month that they need to get a grip on the idea of paraphrasing but there still seem to be some near-to-the-bone things going on. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moonriddengirl, i would like to clarify that none of the diffs you have given were to any edits of mine. This is because you are giving the edits of an editor named Soham; i am not Soham, i am Soham321. I would also have appreciated it if Sitush would have have had the courtesy to have pinged me when discussing something as serious as possible copyright violations in my edits. Soham321 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is my fault: I called you Soham (a shorthand that Bish would recognise) and MRG picked up on that. I'd already spoken to you about these issues before and you seemed rather unconcerned. - Sitush (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then in that case, it is back to the drawing board for me. Update soon, I hope! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see one lingering WP:NFC issue. The original of this massive quote is public domain, but there's no information on the copyright of the translation, which is what is used in our article. The book which is cited is almost certainly within copyright, with a first edition dating back to the 1970s. There certainly have been issues with extensive quotations. This rewrite of an extensive quotation was still an extensive quotation, taking more content than is necessary or appropriate under WP:NFC (content like "There was some discussion after this" is by no means required for our article and could be easily omitted), but it's no longer present. But I've done a pretty thorough spot-check and, while unable to view many of the books cited, didn't really find significant paraphrasing issues in the passages I view. Just as with the other fellow, I can't be sure I haven't missed something, but if I encountered a copyright issue at WP:CP and had a spot-check that looked like this, I would pursue no further beyond perhaps leaving a note explaining why paraphrase is important rather than stringing together quotations.

Not knowing what conversations have been had here before, Soham321, I'll just note that the bulk of our articles must be written in our own words and structures. Quotations can and should be used, but must be used "transformatively" - that is, to oversimplify, we can't use a quotation because we want to communicate the same information as our source, but must have a better reason, such as attributing a specific point of view. Where material from your source does not need to be in your source's language, it shouldn't be. And even if we want to use material transformatively - say, to attribute a point of view - we are limited in how much we can take. Wikipedia generally prefers to keep excerpts of copyrighted sources down to a few sentences.

Even if content is written entirely in your own words, it can be a copyright issue if you are simply appropriating the creativity of your source. So an article that summarized and briefly excerpted a single source or largely from a single source might still be a copyright issue. We have to be careful to avoid inadvertently creating derivative works, including unauthorized condensations of our sources (or "key" material from them). The best way to do this is to draw widely from multiple sources and, again, to ensure that the bulk of our articles are written in original language and structure.

Oh, as an aside, I see you often use (or at least have used) {{quote}}. This is for use with lengthier quotations. The bulk of quotes should be inline with your sentence. See WP:MOSQUOTE for more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the feedback. Soham321 (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually ask for favours, but you have particular expertise that could help me.

I've been involved in a nasty dispute at Talk:Zourafa where Gts-tg, the author of the corresponding article on Greek Wikipedia, has been edit-warring to keep a tag there claiming that the English article, written by Alakzi, contained content copied from his article. This has escalated to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard #Talk:Zourafa and User talk:Gts-tg #Talk:Zourafa, where Gts-tg won't discuss his behaviour. I've been subject to several personal attacks from Gts-tg, who is unwilling to accept that Alakzi could have independently created the article here.

If you had a little time, would you do me the favour of reviewing the talk page and those sections, and telling me if it would be reasonable for me to seek a topic ban from Talk:Zourafa for Gts-tg? And if so, what the best venue would be? (AN? ANI?) Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise? I hope you're not suggesting I've become the go-to admin for topic bans? Dreadful fate. Either AN or ANI would work. Theoretically, community topic ban proposals are supposed to go on AN, because they're not about one incident, and because AN isn't archived as quickly. But the preference for AN is becoming more and more a dead letter. In practice proposals for topic bans are often put on ANI, perhaps because it gets more traffic, or perhaps sometimes because it's the only admin noticeboard the OP knows about.

However. The user seems to have resigned themselves to consensus[103] and is apparently on board with the DR being closed. In such a situation, you're never going to get a topic ban just because they're rude. It's rather strange the way they've been attacking you, I agree, but I think the best thing you can do is walk away. I've put a note on their page to urge them to disengage too. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Dear User,

Tunisian Arabic is nominated for GA Status. Please review this work and adjust it if he involves several deficiencies.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Csisc. I see you have asked Dbachmann, too; that's a good idea, as he understands these matters. I, on the other hand, am extremely ignorant of them. Perhaps you might want to also try Kwamikagami or Peter Isotalo, both linguists. There, I've pinged them for you. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

[104]? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+[105] Oversight?!? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alerted an oversighter, hmm... I guess the user meant to say something else. I don't suppose she thinks Monty Python references are "defamatory". Checkuser, probably. Alison is both. She's not around that much, though. Hasn't edited since July 27. I've written a comment beneath Atsme's on Alison's page, to point out that and related matters. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The intended meaning, I think, was checkuser. I alerted the IP to this ongoing madness, incidentally. jps (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[106] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert, Andy, but I don't think so. I'd rather let Atsme's heated accusations speak for themselves, and let the reader decide who they reflect badly on, if anybody. As your own words in the header imply, replying would in a way imply it has "merit". The ANI thread is bloated already, and especially has a lot of back-and-forth already. By my count, Atsme alone has posted 18 times in it. (Caution: I may have missed something, or au contraire counted something that was just adding a sig.) Sadly, I don't think the discussion has much chance of attracting uninvolved users at this point, because reading it is like climbing barbed wire. Please note, Atsme, that my pinging you here isn't aimed at bringing you to my page; it's just for courtesy, to let you know you have been spoken of. Bishonen | talk 08:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Well if it isn't going to attract uninvolved users, it should probably - regrettably - be closed down. I'm sure that Atsme's behaviour will come up again soon enough, and at some point the community is going to have to act. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it might as well be closed down, I can't see it going anywhere, unfortunately. You or I shouldn't do it, but you might post a request for someone uninvolved to do it, if you like. With a subheader so it shows up, or they'll never see it. Or I will when I get home, I'm on the run. IMO it might be a good idea to open a dedicated thread proposing sanctions for Atsme, perhaps on AN. Bishonen | talk 08:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for the ping. I think it's only fair that if you're going to count my posts, you should've also counted the 27 posts by AndyTheGrump. But above all, you need to know the kind of editor you're defending and the position you've taken. He posted the following last night - [107] and ended his misinformation rant with, "You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better.” I can't remember in my short history as an editor on WP that I've ever come across anyone so mean and hateful and hope I never do again. I'm concerned that if I don't get resolution for the behavior of the named editors at ANI, particularly AndyTheGrump, I will be forced to take it higher. Atsme^📞📧 13:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]